@@frenzalrhomb6919 Honestly, Skynet is probably gonna kill us all before it solves all our problems and it is probably like 4 years away. Then again, we probably said that when Todd Howard was bragging about his "Radiant AI" in Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion and that was like 2 decades ago. Who can say?
It will have similar influence as in the past for the foreseeable future. I wonder if large number w nonbelief, New Age thinking (Dionysis) was same in late Rome before it became Christian. Jefferson thought more rational Unitarian-Universalist beliefs would soon become norm in US over 200 years ago. But what is IMHO beliefs that used to be a very irrational, and by some old fashioned standards heretical, version of Christianity (End Times Dispensationalism) is very influential now, almost a de facto state religion in politics and mass media discussion.
22:30 it's not an all encompassing breakdown, but it is like 95% of Christianity. I don't think it's any more "no true scotsman" than he gave the other religions in how their beliefs are generally structured. You're probably just more familiar with the varieties of Christianity than other religions
Yeah the original video nailed mainstream, Nicene Christianity. The guy had 2 minutes, getting annoyed because he didn’t use half of it to give equal time to the fringe sects that the 95% wouldn’t even consider Christian was just dumb.
I agree. The Nicene creed is the definition for Christian, so it isn’t fair to criticize Redeemed Zoomer for saying “all Christians”. The only groups that don’t adhere to these beliefs are not Christian. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc
I think that there were Pagans who believed in reincarnation, especially with Greek philosophers such as Plato who claimed he could remember his previous lives. It’s probably because the Greek religion wasn’t uniform like modern religions so beliefs could change drastically from person to person
Yeah you have to take the flow chart with a grain of salt, there’s some rather simple failure cases as mentioned, but it does work as a nice, non-hostile way to introduce other religions and their concepts to folks.
Hello, I am a follower of Divine Plato. Yes we follow the wheel of life or reincarnation, of which Jupiter (Zeus) is in charge. Plato's beliefs actually come from Orphismos or Orphism as modern people call it. Followers of Plato like me, who side with Polytheism (the belief of many gods existing as personal beings), tend to believe that the Gods were far superior to that of Mythological portrayal of Homeros (Homer) and Isiodos (Hesoid). If you're interested, do let me know!
Basically in Islam, they believe Jesus is going to reappear in the day of judgement and is gonna fight alongside the Muslims, so yeah he is considered a messiah
In Arabic Jesus is named "Isa al Masih".... That translates as Jesus the Messiah. The islamic definition of messiah is unclear to me, but they definitely name Jesus the messiah.
@@ExcuseZero nope, in Islam as far as I know there is no doctrine saying about being messiah for the Jews at all. He was sent for the Israeli and was never crusified (although someone else was). However in the Quran there's a verse saying the day "he was resurrected" and most say it mean of his second coming (at least current day interpretation), there's also Hadith about it but it's not the most sahih. Some muslim said it's Mahdi that are going to return, some saya it's Jesus, and some say both.
@@manoflowmoralvalue1560 not only that but a lot of Hadith which might have came at least 100 years after Muhammad also have a lot of messianic message like imam Mahdi and Dajjal the false Messiah. Most likely happen during a struggling time for a fantasy about the end time just like book of revelation and other apocalyptic gospel. Also that's what happened when christian and muslim live together for year's there's gotta be some asimilation of ideas
I would love to see you react to his video on the different Christian Denominations, I would love to learn more about what was going on when these splits happened.
@@seangutierrez1337im protestant (Baptist) through in through and we dont agree on certain things for sure, but i saw this other comment saying christianity is the most divisive and violent religion🤣🤣🤣🤣
Redeemed Zoomer is a Presbyterian channel but they have a lot of fun videos such as Christian denominations and the history of the Church that are worth reacting to. Also a really long series but Useful Charts has a great series on Christian denominations as well.
@@emryswilliams9190Bro I was honestly so dissapointed. First of the Nicean Creed defines Christian beleifs and if someone doesn't beleive in the trinity they aren't Christian. I think he was being unfair tbh
@@nosmokejazwinski6297 are you talking from experience? Because from what I’ve seen, Shia and Sunni Muslims would kill each other for their beliefs, Hindus and Buddhists can’t even agree on how many gods there are, and Judaism wasn’t united since Jesus. Christians all agree on the most important foundational beliefs, and we only debate less important aspects of theology
This is very interesting, as someone who studied religion (in particular Christianity) as my major in college. These are very broad strokes but you do a great job emphasizing points!
16:28 yes we muslims do believe that jesus is the messiah. In Arabic Al-massih. And we believe that he is going to come in the end of times to fight the antichrist, al-massih-al-dajjal.
I don’t like that he placed yoga in the “New Age/spiritual but not religious” category. Yoga is an ancient practice & is at the core of Hindu/Jain faiths; it’s really misleading to place it in with the tarot/crystal/horoscopes category, even if some westerners like to pick yoga as one of their spiritual practices.
Yeah he didn’t explain it well, but I think his point was “new age spirituality” will pick and choose elements from other religions and remove the original focus. In that case yoga is something some new age spirituality practicers will use in sort of vague meditation or zen aspect. Though some non spiritual people will just use it without any spiritual aspects.
I agree with you but I just wanted to add that the yoga he mentioned (Āsana yoga) is not at the core of Hinduism or Jainism because it's regarded as an exercise sort of like the Tai chi of India or greater India. The Yogas mentioned in the Vedas are different. The 4 Yogas or disciplines listed in the Vedas are 1)Karma Yoga, 2)Bhakti Yoga, 3)Rāja Yoga and 4)Jñāna Yoga. Very different from the stretches and body contortions of Āsana Yoga. But I do agree that the New Age/spiritualists do plagiarise many things because they are a new identity that is building upon multiple faith groups.
I'm a Jain. I follow along the Buddhist path, and the origins of our creed is very similar to Buddhism. The main difference is that we put an extra strong emphasis on "do no harm". We are vegetarians, some of us are vegans, but the strictest of us don't eat rooted plants, like onions, potatoes, and ginger, because to eat it, you have to uproot the plant, thus killing it. These strict Jains also wear special shoes so they don't harm any insects or plants wherever they walk, and wear certain masks when ill. During the pandemic, the mask thing just felt like a stricter extension of my faith. While a lot of us learn how to fight, the priority is always de-escalation and self-defense; you can NEVER be the aggressor. Mahaveera, our guru, was an ordinary man who cultivated extraordinary peace. Our faith revolves around the idea that we, too, must follow this path.
Idk potatoes technically can be replanted if you cut them in half so you wouldn't kill the plant if you actually correctly eat it. As in cut it in halve then plant one half and keep the other. That's like eating my arm but leaving me alive to regrow. It's not killing anything at least. I kinda get the Buddhist path but i don't really care to keep a no kill rule anymore if this was when i was 14 I'd have a no kill rule fully without questioning it
@@ceroandone that's a very common misconception. Plant based proteins are definitely used by the stricter Jains. Plus, almost all Jains drink milk on a regular basis. In just about every meal in Jain cuisine, you'll find something dairy based, and lentil based.
I'm glad you mentioned the two different types of atheists. Those who make the assertion that god certainly doesn't exist are in the minority. At least in the atheist communities I run in. I see it as a logical error to assert anything to be empirically impossible that is unfalsifiable. I'm merely unconvinced, just like I'm unconvinced of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics or string hypothesis. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being convinced with empirical and repeatable evidence, or at least models that make falsifiable predictions. 😊
Considering that perhaps 60% of the world's population lives in Asia, which is overwhelmingly Hindi, Buddhist, or Atheist by religion or by culture, there is a minority of the world's population to be parsed out among the other religions. However, it sounds like you are asserting that 90% of people who claim to be monotheists don't actually believe. To that, I would say that it is impressively reckless to assume most people secretly hold your own worldview. There are 1.9 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians across the world, each of whom have had their own experiences that lead them to belief or unbelief. It is a rather ridiculous opinion to believe that 90% of them fake their belief--not to mention utterly impossible to prove. @@jackmakackov7077
Budhhism is not about self-denial, or any kind of denial and most certainly not about beating down on your desires. That is a stark caricature. Attachment is a better word because desire implies in english very often only sense-pleasures. But you can be attached to almost anything including your sense of self. So it's more about recognition of attachments and desires and see them for what they are. Patterns of energy, merely waves on the surface of consciousness and in so doing you will lessen your attachments because you see that nothing lasts, and isn't going to lead to fulfillment and happiness (Impermanence)
@maxion5109 A lot of people often get the meaning Dukka wrong, which is why everyone thinks that buddhist believe that life is suffering and all that jazz about wanting stuff. I was looking through the comments to see if anyone else go to this yet. And here you where. Beat me to it.
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran as the messiah below is some context just in case you were curious! 3:45 [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. 3:46 He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous."
@@laucio1918There is no “Holy Spirit” in Islam in the way Christians believe. In Islam, “the Holy Spirit” is another name for the Angel Gabriel, but has nothing to do with the Christian belief.
Great video. As for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in regards to Christianity, the Nicaean Creed provides a proper definition (with or without the filioque). Even the brethren who say "no creed but Christ" can affirm the contents of the Nicaean Creed. Much of what Redeemed Zoomer covers is covered in that early church creed.
This is really my only complaint of the video. Even to this day nearly all self-described Christians affirm the Nicene Creed in the same way a communist would affirm the platform of Karl Marx.
I feel like he could have sneaked in stoicism under "do you believe any kind of spirituality?" -no-> "should you deny youself pleasures?" -yes-> Stoicism
Yeah, I think the distinction he could have made was "deny your self" and "deny yourself desires". I'm not an adherent of either Buddhism or Stoicism, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
sure but stoicism is more just a philosophy.. and being stoic is just a state of mind rather than a belief.. you could believe stoicism is based but not be stoic (usually due to temper) and you can be stoic without having any beliefs on the matter..
@@12DAMDO stoicism is not quite just a philosophy, its a quasi religion, it has elements of faith much like any religion, mainly "Logos", the devine principle and "Pneuma", the substance of the universe that intermediates the material and the divine. Stoics were at least theistic and at best pantheistic. Of course, since stoicism is a philosophy that is so open and is not organized like at all like a religion, any stoic student or philosopher can freely choose the philosophical aspects of stoicism without choosing the religious one.
@@12DAMDO I am not sure, but historically people did follow pythagoras and socrates like a cult, so the line between philosophy and religion can be blurry at many times. If you think about it, religion is basically a package of culture, ritual, faith and philosophy in one thing. Just think about how the victorians followed a lot of christian values even though they were not keen on religion at all.
14:20 The scholarly term for what you’re talking about is monolatry or henotheism (although I think the first is more accurate). No sects of Jews ever were polytheistic, but it is most likely the case that they believed other deities existed which the pagans worshiped (henotheism), they only ever worshiped their one true god (monolatry). And that connects to an interesting fact: That’s one theory on way pagan divination was originally banned in the Torah. Not because it’s fake, but because it IS real, and therefore idol worship.
Exactly Other divine and spiritual beings exist in the Judeo-Christian worldview, but God alone is unique, incomparable, and ultimate Anyone trying to make sense of the henotheistic aspects of Judaism (and Christianity), should read The Unseen Realm by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, an Old Testament scholar and historian
Fun fact, some modern denominations of Christianity, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), are returning to henotheism as it’s more in line with the teachings of the Old Testament.
@@KnuttyEntertainment My ex-Mormon friend told me that they are doing a whole “rebrand” as she called it, which will be kind of cool to see-minus all the evil stuff she describes to me
@@cboneperlstone9661 You’re going to have to be more specific. Are you referring to things like their recent decision to stop using the term Mormon, or are you referring to changes in their belief system? The former is true, the latter is misleading. As is normal for large populations over long periods of time, the majority view of things is shifting constantly, however when it comes to Latter-day Saint theology, most of the shift is moving away from mid 20th century views, but closer towards their early 19th century views due to new interpretations of foundational teachings sparked by the rise of the Internet aiding historical work that has made early 19th century documents more easily accessible, this in combination with recent advances made in archeological research have and a growing interest in apologetics among Latter-day Saints has caused them to start returning to theological ideas that are older than our common medieval traditions, and thus seem new and novel when in reality it’s just a return to earliest teachings of the religion. TL;DR this is a complicated topic and I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentLOL. Then why don't Mormons become Catholic. Mormons have no call back to true early Christian traditions. Though they aren't Christian to be honest
In Hellenic polytheism. Which is pretty much the worship of the 12 Greek Olympian gods have a belief in reincarnation. Of course practitioners of this faith differ in views. But a common thing I've read is about how a soul will drink from the waters of forgetfulness within the underworld(Hades domain) so they can then be reincarnated.
As a Jewish person with a religious studies degree, I would say that almost all sects of Judaism see their god as a part of the world rather than separate
@@Makaneek5060 it’s more so just that trying to explain differences between religions just based on a flow chart simply can’t be fully accurate. There are similarities between Judaism and Sikhism, and certain things like the Mul Mantar are perfectly in line with Judaism, but I don’t know enough about Sikh theology to know
@@cboneperlstone9661 Wikipedia says in hermeneutic of that doctrine "The general view favors the monotheistic interpretation, but not the Semitic understanding of monotheism." If that's not the case then I start to think Mul Mantar looks pretty general to all monotheism...
@@Makaneek5060 Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. They’re not really similar in anything other than general monotheism. That’s why this flowchart method of distinguishing religions is cool for a basic understanding, but nothing more. I can see why he put judaism in the “category” of “god separate from the universe” but in Judaism, god really is not. But that would then put it in the category with Sikhism, which it also is not. Redeemed zoomer’s videos are good for general ideas (although with a slight bias towards Protestantism), but not for really understanding theology. It’s sort of just a cute video idea to make a flow chart. It leaves a lot of gaps.
It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy to insist on a particular definition. The no true Scotsman Fallacy is about insufficiently justifying the exclusion of counter examples mid argument.
People totally misrepresent the No True Scotsman fallacy failing to realize not everyone is a Scotsman. One of the first requirement for Scotsman to exist is Scotland must exist. You can't claim you were a Scotsman and claim Scotland didn't exist.
Still, being arbitrary with your definitions is a slippery slope that leads to No True Scotsman-esque gatekeeping. Which is what I think he was trying to convey.
@@KnuttyEntertainment Did you notice this fallacy was only brought up when dealing with Christianity? He even brought up the different denominations when Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics ALL agree and teach what the video claimed about Christianity. All three teach the Bible is a Him book. It's all about HIM.
@@smidlee7747 That’s because Christians are the only ones with such a theological diversity AND an intense proclivity to gatekeep denominations. The guy he was reacting to has been very clear in other videos that excludes several large denominations from the label of Christian for unbiblical reasons. I’m glad that he took the time to nuance the topic as any good history teacher should.
@@KnuttyEntertainment Even if that's true he is reviewing this video and falsely accuse him of this fallacy here. That's very misleading. He simply claim some disagree with the fundamentals of Christianity. As CS Lewis wrote we need to keep "Christian" simply someone who believes in the fundamentals of the faith which the guy video covered well and instead claim some individuals are not a good Christians. He talks about how gentleman used to mean someone who owned property and now it only means someone we like losing it's meaning. Lewis said we already had words describing people we like without making gentleman meaningless.
So you said that Christians debated the divinity of christ... as far as I'm aware that is not true. No heresy im aware of denined Christ's, death resurrection or divinity. The Gnostics were not Christians they were an older sect of pagan Greek and egyptian hybrid regions that tried to convert Christians by adding Christians beliefs to their existing mythology (they did this for all religions), the early councils had no disagreement on any of the core Christian tenets rather they were on more subtle issues (e.g. what does it mean that Christ is God? Was he always existing or was he created etc.) Even the heresitics would have said he was god its just their definition of that did not agree with an orthodox position.
@@forestria_gaming Arius believed Jesus was created by God but his essence was God... essentially a possessed human body by God. Arians still affirmed the deity of christ. This is a common misconception.
I've been Christian for a while and I'm pretty sure I can no longer be convinced. That aside - Jesus was definitely not the first person who is historically thought of as being incarnated. In fact Rama and Krishna.. not only many hero cults that believed their God was once man. I don't personally find Christianity as unique as people make it seem. Especially with the salvation and redemption story which is not very unique at all. No hate towards anyone though.. just wanted to put my thoughts out there
Mr. Terry at about 2:48 you made an unforced error. You thought you heard the man say that "Buddhists" don't preach that Buddha was a god. What the man said was that the "Buddha" never claimed to be a god. Jesus proclaimed a divine nature to himself, the Buddha denied it and asked that not even statues of himself be produced to prevent such a belief being promoted. That's a big difference.
Some pagans and pagan religions do and did believe in reincarnation. The Celts come to mind. Some Greeks did as well, and many Romans also held a belief that reincarnation could very well be real. There is even some references to it in Norse belief, or at least a portion of the person would be reincarnated while other aspects of them were not.
I was born and raised in Iran, an islamic county, from things ive been taught my whole life, Jesus is in fact a messiah, but not the only one. It is said that Jesus and Mahdi, will both show up near the end of times to rid the world of all evil. It's never been clear to me why Jesus would be here, but it's said that he will be.
Well, I believe that islam have some sort of final judgement at the end of times, and some believe that particularly pious people should be able to intercede for mercy when others are judged. Either way, Christians will be judged individually and as a group at that time, so is a given that Jesus is going to be there, regardless of whether he can intercede or not. Don't quote me on that, I'm fairly familiar with other religions, but I only have a general understanding of Islam and I could very well be way off base.
The term for the intermediate step between polytheism and monotheism is called monolatry, where other gods are acknowledged to exist but your god is the most powerful.
For a good counter to the theory about Judaism starting polytheistic, I highly suggest looking into the theory of Original Monotheism put forward by Wilhelm Schmidt
It was touched on briefly at the beginning, the two types of atheists, but I think a missing vocab word in this whole discussion was Gnosticism vs Agnosticism. People often confuse Agnostics and Atheists as two separate things, but they're two facets that describe the same beliefs. You can think of it like a plot, X axis is (A)theism, Y axis is (A)gnosticism. Theism refers to the belief, Gnosticism refers to the certainty of the belief. You have Gnostic Atheists, who are the militant "god is dead, there is no god!" type, Agnostic Atheists are the "I don't know, it can't be proven, I don't claim to have the answers" type. Similarly, you have Gnostic Theists who are the militant evangelical bible thumper "god is real, and its my god, everyone else is wrong!" types, and Agnostic Theists who are the "this is what I believe, I do think there is a god, but you do you" type.
"Gnostic" refers to "knowing". There is no such thing as an agnostic theist because all theists believe they know the truth. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters, so inherently they are between atheists and those who believe in any sort of supernatural (including theists). Many agnostics describe it as "consciously undecided". "Gnosticism" was its own historical Christian sect that has nothing to do with the "Bible thumper" trope. They were an offshoot group that came up with their own separate doctrine not at all based on the Bible or Torah that directly contradicted both. If they had survived, they would be just as separate as Islam is now. The distinction you are trying to make between theists is proselytism - how they believe their calling to teach others the truth they know is. A "Bible thumper" feels they need to be in your face about it, often to the point of being argumentative (hence the gesture of thumping the Bible). The "you do you" theist is a reaction to the backlash of the "Bible thumpers". Most modern Christians, for example, recognize that you aren't going to truly believe just because someone wouldn't stop yelling at you. One of the current leading views is that we should minister to people (ie. do good things for others) and God will give us opportunities to share the truth, and if you're not wanting to be preached to, that's where we say "you do you". We still want you to come to know what we believe to be the truth, but we also recognize that if you're not receptive to it, it's harmful to pressure you. In marketing terms, it's more like the difference between hard sell tactics and soft sell tactics. Hard sell gets more short term money while soft sell gets more long term brand loyalty, and with faith the goal is the ultimate long term.
@@MerennulliWell worded comment. The original left me confused with his definition of Gnosticism as I’ve always considered it in the light that you mentioned. The characterization of “Bible thumpers” seemed inaccurate too. It would make sense than any theist would think that their beliefs are actually objectively true.
@@Merennulli - These words can be used in multiple contexts. Yours being valid does not invalidate others'. I agree that BlackhartFilms was describing proselytism and could have clarified better, but I think he was trying to using it as a shorthand for perceived certainty and using that to distinguish between knowledge and belief. I don't think the distinctions were wrong, as you seem to contend, so much as the descriptions were inaccurate. Further, you say "There is no such thing as an agnostic theist because all theists believe they know the truth. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters" but I know theists, people who believe there is a god, who also acknowledge they could be wrong and they aren't sure said belief is correct. At least one of these people has described themselves to me as an agnostic theist. Being a person who both believes in a god but also "doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters", are they not right to classify themselves as such even by your own definition? Or are they not even theists in your view, despite belief a god, unless they also claim to know they are right?
I think the issue here is academic vs colloquial uses of the word. If you are being explicit about the "Gnosticism movement" than you are referring specifically to a particular religious sect and its beliefs. However, if you google you'll find lots of venn diagrams and alignment plots that feature (a)theism and (a)gnosticism as parts of a spectrum of belief. I tried to explain in very broad terms and generalisations, really in a way that would be understood by a layman american viewer. We could get deeper into academic terminology and the historical contexts of specific sects and branches of theology, but the broad principle really remains the same- that spirituality, and people's personal religious beliefs are all on a wide spectrum from deep certainty and conviction, through to open-minded skepticism or doubt. We like clean labels to put people in boxes, but reality is fuzzy and its often difficult to pin a single label to someone and really get a full picture of their personal philosophy, moral code, and belief from just a singular label.
@@apawnandking4768 These are specific things that have existing names. When you try to use terms in your own way without regard for existing terminology, you aren't communicating. Language changes with collective usage, not the personal redefinitions of individuals. I don't know the person you are speaking of, and there are different ways to interpret what you described as agnostic theism. You could be describing deism, the belief that there's probably a deity but that it's not one of the involved deities of a religion. You could mean someone who is agnostic but favors the idea of theism (which, I realize will feel nit-picky, but that's theistic agnosticism, not agnostic theism - which one is the adjective makes a significant difference in meaning). Or you could be describing someone who has a specific theistic belief but has doubts (Which, despite what many say, is a good thing sometimes. Doubt is how faith is tested.). Or it could be something else entirely. But theism is a belief in specific knowledge, and that is in opposition to believing you don't know.
As an orthodox Jew, I would say: The reason why we don’t believe Jesus is the messiah is not because “apparently the world hasn’t been fixed yet”! It’s because there’s a process of being verified as a prophet, and as the messiah, and Jesus did neither of those things. Performing miracles is not good enough. The bible itself says that God gives false prophets the ability to perform miracles in order to test us to see if we will remain loyal to him. If I did a magic trick that looks miraculous, and I said I was the messiah, would you believe me? No! So why is Jesus believed to call himself the messiah just because he walked on water?
there are so many faiths that could still be discussed, for instance gnostic religions, dualistic religions.... There were so many extinct christians schism like nestorianism and arianism which have different philosophies on Jesus' nature
I commented something similar elsewhere, I would love to see what they have to say about religions that believe the material world was created by an evil god. Those have fairly interesting perspectives, and sadly make more sense than the opposite (by that I mean that in a universe specifically created as a trap for the soul, the existence of some goodness is incidental but plausible, but a universe created by an all powerful, perfectly good god there is no room for evil). Also, a lot of those are technically Christian heresies, and they are not as much as extinct as intentionally destroyed in epic bloodbaths. The end result is the same, but the process pretty much validates their basic premise... far more than the opposite (dunno if are familiar with the reference, but "kill them all, that god will know their own" comes from one of these specific massacres)
Going to write this as I listen to the Christian segment. 1. To say Christianity is all about Christ is a bit misleading. Christ, Himself, points out that his goal was to reunite us to the Father. To Christians, YHWH is still what Christianity is all about. It's just that Christ is the ultimate gateway to that end goal. 2. Like I said in my comment on the logical fallacies section, the No True Scotsman fallacy is relevant when you're talking about someone's roots. So it isn't wrong to say someone isn't truly Christian if they reject certain core tenets of Christianity. The Catholic Church has existed, unbroken, since Christ's resurrection. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles, the first Christians, is still maintained by the Catholic Church. Same with the Bible and all major definitions of what exactly a Christian is. Much like the Jews, you can be ethnically Jewish, but the religious Jews only care about the people who actually practice Judaism since those are the ones holding to the Old Covenant with their forefathers. It wouldn't make sense for an outsider to come up and say, "hey, you can't say this person isn't a practicing Jew just because he doesn't obey the Torah". Just so, it doesn't make any sense for a non-Christian to say, "no, these people are Christians even though they don't practice anything handed down by the apostles as The Way". NOTE: I wouldn't mind using Christianity as a blanket term for all people who believe in Jesus except that it often means people conflate Christianity with the worst they find. A perfect example would be the Westboro Baptists or Mormons. Neither is Christian, but because they say they are, people just accept it. NOTE 2: Christianity is a very clearly defined religion which has been coopted to mean "anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah. That isn't true. There are specific tenets that one must adhere to to truly be Christian. 3. That is NOT No True Scotsman. That is a very accurate, very succinct definition of Christianity. Anything else is something masquerading as Christianity. If I were to say that I'm an archaeologist and go around teaching that the fossil record is a lie and evolution is fake, I can't cling to the archaeologist title. If you call yourself Christian but do not adhere to the Apostles' Creed (the Nicene Creed expanded and clarified certain positions present in the Apostles' Creed), you are not a Christian. Period. End of story. I'm trying to think of additional parallels and having a difficult time without falling into the NTS fallacy. Bottom line, Christianity is defined, there are core tenets. Not following those tenets but believing in Jesus doesn't make you a Christian. 4. Those councils and debates aren't the reason why we have so many branches of Christianity (I know the Reformation is about to come up so I'll save this for that point). It's actually why we only had one up until the Great Schism and then why we only had two, both exceedingly similar with seemingly only semantic differences up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. Moreover, it's why the Catholic Church is still together today. We recognized that no one man held all knowledge and so heavily debated everything including the specific words of every document. An excellent parallel is when the US Congress debates whether something should be "will" or "shall" it sounds semantic but those two words have very different meanings in law. 5. I'm rather surprised (though less so upon learning the channel is Protestant) that he didn't go into the two great Schisms in the history of Christianity. The bottom line is you have Catholicism which is the main branch which has been in continuous practice for nearly 2000 years; Orthodox which can pretty much claim exactly the same as, by all accounts, it's seems like mostly an issue of semantics and both branches mostly recognize the validity of each other's sacraments, just not allowing each other to participate; and Protestantism which is a mix of Christians and non-Christians primarily based on whether or not they practice a Trinitarian Baptism. Protestantism is the ONLY branch which contains denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are not denominations of Christianity. You either belong to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church. There is no such Protestant church. You're Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, Evangelical, Presbyterian, etc. Protestants don't believe Catholics are Christians, despite the 2000 years of continuous history proving them wrong, and often fail to answer the question of what exactly happened prior to their particular founder suddenly discovering the "true message" of Jesus. Anywho, I'm open for answering questions. Not so much for debate per se.
Hey man, found this paragraph quite interesting and pretty knowledgeable. I’m not hugely religious right now but it’s a topic I love to learn about. I’m a little confused when you say “If you call yourself Christian but do not adhere to the Apostles’ Creed, you are not Christian. I’m not trying to argue against this point, I’m confused how other (sub-groups?) of Christians fit under this notion. In the Apostles’ Creed it says “I believe in the Catholic Church” my current understanding is that Catholics are one of many groups of Christians. So if to be Christian you must believe in the Catholic Church does that mean other groups (like Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian) believe in a Catholic Church? If so, why aren’t they just catholic? If I need to reword parts of this to better explain my question I can. But I’d love to hear your response because this is totally new ground for me.
As a Protestant, I'd like some further explaining on how not believing in the Apostle's Creed doesn't make one Christian. I agree with you whole heartedly about the Trinity as I had a very similar reaction to yours when Mr. Terry started talking about it. One can't disbelieve the the Trinity and still be a Christian because at that point it's something else. It would be like a man claiming to be Muslim while believing Muhammad didn't receive a divine revelation. It's not Islam at that point, it's something else. The Apostle's Creed was a later adaptation of the Nicene Creed which made no mention of the Catholic Church at all. Using an umbrella to group Protestant denominations is rought, but using broad strokes, we believe that Catholics are Christians, we just think you're doing it wrong. Heck, we think everyone who isn't doing things according to our particular denomination is doing it wrong! In my observations, the split between Protestants and Catholics, in large, comes down to a question of authority. Does The Bible have authority over The Church, or does The Church have authority over The Bible? Protestants see The Bible as the ultimate authority, but because different interpretations exist, different denominations exist. Catholocism doesn't have this problem because in Catholicism, The Church consolidated The Bible to begin with, and as such, has the upper authority. The Church decides what the Bible means and that is simply that. I'm a Baptist, myself. I believe that the Father sent the Holy Ghost unto a virgin, and she birthed the Son. I believe that the Son was Jesus Christ, the Messiah, my Lord and Savior. I believe with all my heart that Christ died upon the Cross so that my sins could be forgiven, and that he rose again after three days. I believe he met with the Apostles in Galilee and tasked them with preaching the gospel of the Trinity. Am I not a Christan because I don't believe all true believers are adherents to the Catholic Church? Orthodox and Catholic, Baptist and Methodist, we're all Christian. We tend to disagree with the stuff that isn't so plainly written. Reading between the lines of the word is where things get messy.
@@risingthreat3154 Context is key here. Catholic, in this sense, does not refer to how we differentiate between the three branches of Christianity today. You have the Catholic Church and the catholic Church. The catholic Church is more how we use the term in the Apostles' Creed as it simply refers to the universal Church. Yes, the Catholic Church is still the universal Church and it would be completely accurate to have both capitalized, but, in this instance, it simply means that the Church is universal. And this is where Catholics tend to go wrong by either fully invoking NTS or seemingly invoking NTS. According to Catholic doctrine, all grace flows through the Catholic Church as she is Christ's Church. And the anthropomorphism is entirely on purpose. Catholics profess that the Catholic Church is a full entity, wholly independent of her various parts but necessarily containing us. That's why we claim the Catholic Church can never change, only our understanding of her teachings. When we profess a belief in the holy Catholic Church, we are professing a belief in an entity with higher authority than the Pope, the unchanging Bride of Christ which he left for us to teach us and guide us to the truth of his teaching. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are among the many branches of Protestantism, a separate branch of Christianity which prioritizes personal revelation and alignment with worldly priorities over adherence to established teachings and traditions. There are more denominations of Protestantism than there are non-Christian religions in the world and most espouse some form of heresy that was discussed and defined over a thousand years ago. The thing about Catholicism is that our sacraments are universal, meaning anyone can participate so long as the form, function, and belief underlining them are correct. Baptism is the main sacrament that expresses whether or not someone can be Christian as it's the ritual cleansing of original sin and a rebirth. Baptism requires three things to be valid: the person performing it must be validly baptized, the person performing it must have a full and correct understanding of the Trinity and use the Trinitarian form (a correct understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and you must be baptized with running water. If these three conditions are met, you are considered validly baptized. If you weren't baptized as a Catholic, you're considered a Catholic in schism and a heretic based on whatever belief you espouse. If you eventually convert to Catholicism, you'll go through all the rites of Christian initiation EXCEPT Baptism as we profess "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins". I was thinking about it last night and I think I know how to truly explain why this isn't NTS (because I know from the outside it still looks like it is). NTS says, "you're not truly Scottish because Scots don't do this" despite the fact that the person actually comes from Scottish descent. Protestantism very literally and very publicly began by saying, "I want to do this and because I want to do this, you're not truly Christian so I'm going to start my own church". It's literally the NTS in reverse.
Well put, except for the mention of Lutheranism. Much like protestants being unable to accept that Catholics are indeed Christian, most Catholics, despite papal reconciliation with the Lutheran church, don't seem to realise that Lutherans affirm most things that Catholics do (the big differences being the legitimacy of the papacy and works-based salvation). In fact, Lutherans tend to despise the label of protestant as the idea of 'be as anti-Catholic as possible' does not accurately represent their views on the faith.
@@appleonion5830 Except Lutheranism is the proto-typical Protestant, named for the founder, Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 grievances to the door. It literally started as "here are my problems and you guys suck". Most Protestants are never taught about the counter-reformation which was a wholly Catholic endeavor to root out corruption and illegitimate practices from within the Church. It worked and fixed every legitimate issue Luther had with the Church. The problem Luther (and every Protestant at that time) faced was an issue of pride. They'd gone too far and now needed to follow through with the threat of leaving. Thus we now have this weak assertion that the papacy is illegitimate. We literally have the documentation showing it's a direct line of succession from Peter. So either Christ's Church failed in the 1500s and the Church is now dead, or the Church continues, alive and well, from Rome and the papacy. Even ignoring the religious side of the argument, the logic of it must follow. You can't declare the leader of the Church is illegitimate, break the line of succession, and go to form your own religion while also claiming Christianity is alive and well. It doesn't work from a purely logical standpoint.
According to Gaius Julius Caesar the Gauls believed in reincarnation if i am not mistaken. I believe that he wrote this in book 6 of the commentarii de bello Gallico.
The Celtic Triskellion also shows it suppose to apparently represent life, death and reincarnation. It's hard to trust Roman sources as they were hypocrites at points often judging other cultures for things they did themselves.
The Hindu reincarnation is inextricably tied to karma. As far as I know, no pagan religions have ever believed such a thing. Only Plato comes close to it when he describes souls being born as women and animals (low births) and men (the highest birth). Thankfully this didn't catch on like most of his other thoughts.
@@LuzianJ Hey there friend. It was not my intention to relate the 2 religions to each other. I just meant that there are or were more religions that believe in reincarnation.
As far as non Hindu Pagan religions that believe in reincarnation, I know that in Greek mythology you can drink from the waters of the river Lethe in the underworld forget everything and be reincarnated.
I thought it was very interesting when I took a Western Civilization class and my teacher talked about the origins of all the major religions, the books and stories of each and how different religions are connected. Like there are people who say Muslims don't believe in the Bible. They do, they just have more books. That sort of thing.
I think you're confusing Islam with Mormonism, there. Whilst the Quran claims to be preaching the same message as the Bible (and, in some passages) affirms its authority(, there are virtually no Muslims of any sect who would use any part of the Bible as a source of doctrine. The vast majority of Muslims today seem to believe that the Bible has been corrupted so that it teaches a completely different message from the original text.
@@laurataylor8717 Mormons have three additional books. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet and as the Messiah (though it's unclear what they understand that term to mean). Jews (other than Messianic Jews - people who are both Jewish and Christian) don't acknowledge Jesus as having any religious significance. They definitely do not consider him to be a prophet or the Messiah. Judaism as it exists today is, in part, built on an explicit rejection of Jesus.
5:45 i can answer that, in hellenism, greek paganism, people who die notably, either they were a great artist, or a hero of some sort, or just use your life to do explicit good, go to Elysium. A field of eternal pleasure and wonder and beauty, and once there you can choose to stay there, or choose to reincarnate back into earth if you want.
Honestly, the terms "pagan", "new age" and "spiritual but not religious" are really badly defined here simply because they're all so broad a set of umbrellas that you can't define any of them so simplistically. I'd even say that it's almost a mistake to define them as strong categories at all. I say that as a neopagan who has known many others for the last 40 years and read some about the history of the title and related faiths.
@@kamarwashington hence why i said "weird fundamentalist thing" because i havent watched enough of his kingdomcraft videos to get a full view of what his theological stance is other than highly conservative with a crusadery aesthetic
Useful charts' videos about the Christian denominations are excellent. His video on other things related to the Bible and Christianity, however, basically pretend that the conservative end of scholarship doesn't exist. So they don't give you an accurate picture of what scholarship as a whole actually thinks.
5:33 It depends on how you define "reincarnation". The Hindu one is inextricably tied to karma. The closest thing to this can be found in Plato's soul theory, Plato thought women and animals were of low birth since they were "lower creations" and men were the "higher creation". There are tales of Norse people inheriting traits of gods in a sense they were reborn through them but I am not aware of any pagan religions that believed in "reincarnation" that is defined in eastern religions.
Jesus (Isa a.s) is definitely called the messiah in Islam. The Quran explicitly refers to Isa as the “masih” which is the Arabic for messiah. Now messiah doesn’t mean savior. Analyzing it’s use in the Jewish Bible and old Hebrew it means “anointed one” or “the one who is wiped” because the Kings of the Jews were anointed by God and were wiped in a ceremony. The Messiah, supposed to be the king of the Jews and the anointed one at the end of times is given this title. Savior is really a connotation we have rather than the etymological denotation. Hope this was informative.
I think for trying to break down lots of complex belief systems with lots of of differing beliefs within them in a very short amount of time he did well there's a popular 30ish minute video just trying to break down different types of Christian and still missed/simplified alot so to do so many religions it's acceptable.
Something about Paganism is that the gods are mortal and can die. For instance, Höðr was killed by Vali. Also, the gods can die of old age, but are given special apples which slows down the aging process. All that's ignoring the fact that "pagan" isn't a religion, but a grouping of religions, too.
You asked in minute 5:40 whether or not "pagan" religions hold a doctrine of reincarnation. I am a follower of Divine Plato, and we believe that there exists the Wheel of Life or Reincarnation, which is Orphic in origin. It means that we can reincarnate in the next life, but should this process be infinite or finite is something I would need to look back at. That aside, we hold the belief that there exists a God, in fact many of them, but instead of "trying to win their favors" like how Redeemed Zoomer says in 6:12, we instead believe with ALL our hearts that the Gods are infinite beings that Love us. The Gods in Orphism, especially with a platonic theological framework, are Gods beyond this universe. But this knowledge isn't known much by people, or they don't take this seriously.
@ 16:30 Nope the Quran does refer Jesus as the Messiah as Christians like one on "GodLogic Apologetics" brought this very issue up to Muslims why was Jesus in the Quran the only one refer to as the Messiah? Sheikh Uthman try to claim there were others who were refer to as Messiah. GP asked for a source and Uthman tried to trick him by quoting a modern Muslim's footnote. Some label him Skeikh footnote Uthman. Sheikh Uthman was trying to claim Jesus was a Muslim. The basic requirements of Christianity is the deity of Christ, his death on the cross for our sins and his resurrection. If you deny any of these three then by definition you are not a Christian. No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply. An example of the no true Scotsman fallacy would be like: Christians goes to church on Sunday. A person is not in church , thus this person is not a true Christian. It's generally true Christians will attend church but a person who fell out of church doesn't necessary prove they are not a believer. That's completely different from someone who denies the resurrection or the deity of Christ.
Yes? Jesus indeed is considered the Messiah in Islam, everyone knows that and I don't see how that's an "issue". And no, Sheikh Uthman always say that Jesus is the Messiah in his debates, why not watch his debates uncut on his channel or other channels instead of the edited versions in the apologistic channels? I guess Christians love echo chambers. And yes, we believe Jesus was a Muslim.
@@hashira9223 Muslims are the enemy of Jesus Christ as instead of repenting to God and become more like Jesus Christ Muslims rebel against God and try to make Jesus like them. Jesus Christ clearly claim to be the Son of God its impossible for him to be a Muslim..
Lol let me cook you. Philippians 2:6 John 1:1-8 Isaiah 9:5-6 Revelations 1:22. There is Biblical evidence. You cannot destroy 2000 years of Theology bro 😂😂😂
I feel like everything he said needs an Asterix next to it, because it’s vastly over simplifying and in some cases wrong. But it gives a very brief general idea of things I guess.
Muslims call Jesus the messiah because they believe he will save Islam from the anti-christ and Jews in the end times and that he saved his people by delivering the “uncorrupted gospels”
17:40 Jews believe that he was a Rabbi and that he was Jewish, but not a prophet or messiah. A lot of early Christian texts and teachings before the codification of “Christianity” the religion are in line with Jewish thought at the time and overlapped with multiple different Jewish sects (in terms of apocalypticism like the Essenes but a lot of the doctrines of the Pharisees while rejecting others, etc). Islam believes that Jesus was a rabbi, a prophet, and a special classification of prophet called a rasool. He also is considered a messiah. I do not know what the concept of a messiah means in Islam, but it might be similar to Judaism. Judaism used the term messiah for anyone that brings redemption, so there’s at least one messiah (redeemer) per “historical age”. The most famous was King Cyrus of Persia who redeemed the Jews from Babylonian exile. “The Messiah” refers to the final redemption with a final redeemer in Judaism. So I know the Quran calls Jesus a messiah, but I would assume it is closer to the Jewish interpretation, though I don’t know.
20:38 fun fact a friend of my father was on a plane with his other friends during Ramadan and when the sunset everybody start eating on the Airplane except for him because he could easily see the sun through the plane window so technically the Sun didn’t set he refused to eat so much that one of the flight attendants told him you can eat it no problem. The Sun has set from where we takeoff and he said no I’m not gonna eat because I still see the Sun very clearly and he didn’t eat for the entire flight😂😂😂😂😂
You said that a lot of the bible isn't about jesus, and idk if you are a christian or not, but as a christian, i can say that the entite bible is about jesus and pointing to jesus
Well most of the Old Testament is about God’s people and their journey to the promised land. Many of the prophecies are pointing to Jesus, but the narrative is about the Israelites until the New Testament
Okay, so the funny thing about Judaism is that it's by definition monotheistic... but because it's an ethnoreligion and a culture, you get a lot of variation within it. From atheists who follow it as an orthopraxy through pantheists who believe that God is in everything. We kinda don't care as much?
Greek Pagans did believe in reincarnation, so not perfectly accurate there, paganism itself is more like new age, practices loosely associated with religious practices but not organized. Actually a historical person would probably have classified a new age practitioner as pagan.
About Christianity i think he got it right about all branches, because all christians who do not believe in those things are either extinct (arians) or very few in numbers (unitarians) or modernists (which they themselves recognize that they don’t hold to “traditional Christian beliefs”). Plus, if anything, ignorance on the nuances of christian doctrine is not the thing redeemed zoomer can be accused of as he constantly interacts with christians from all denominations and is ecumenical.
One thing I noticed was not only was Christianity's symbol colored different from the rest, but it also used the so-called "fast food colors", mainly red and yellow (ketchup & mustard!) which not just grabs attention, but sparks a certain urge or "hunger" if you will.
I use the term 'agnostic' to describe my opinion on God, Allah to Zeus, take your pick. There is no evidence for or against and I lack the faith to decide one way or another. My biggest problem with religion is the one I have with all human philosophical creations. Too often it is not used as a guideline to be a better person but rather an excuse to be a dick to other human beings.
Most religions are founded on the principles of "be nice to each other" but then there's always those dickheads that go "Yeah, but these guys don't want to be nice for the sane reason as me so they're bad"
There is definitely evidence for God. There are philosophers who argue for his existence using evidence that we have today. The question is if the evidence stands up to scrutiny. As for your second point, this is like saying "Too often, cars are not used as transportation but rather an excuse to run over people." You aren't gonna hear on the news about a man who helped an old lady carry her groceries because of his religion, but you are gonna hear about the one corrupt [pastor who kept church funds for himself. My church helped a nearby city with repairs after Hurricane Sandy struck, for nothing in return. They didn't get any attention and they didn't ask for any attention. But if you're actually interested in what science says on how religion affects people, I recommend you read (at least the summaries): "If you love me, keep my commandments": A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. The Religious Orientation Scale: Review and Meta-Analysis of Social Desirability Effects A meta-analytic review of religious or spiritual involvement and social health among cancer patients
I've read Yahweh was the storm and war god. His wife was Ashereth. El was the chief god, like Zeus, and became the incomprehensible creative force aspect of god. Then there was Adonai, and I forget what he was. Then there was the crabby grandpa god who looked after creation of humans.
I've noticed that it's either Buddha, or Mahaveera as the ninth avatar (I'm a Jain, Mahaveera is our guru). It might be a matter of locality, since Hindu practices change drastically even from city to city. Hinduism is less a single religion, and more like a lot of religions in a trenchcoat.
Brother.....Jesus is not related to us pls.....if some people saying good thing about Jesus it doesn't mean we believe in teachings as abrahmic ideology contradicts with core dharmik ideologye@@mariosportsmaster7662
I am a Pagan. Many Pagan paths do accept reincarnation. Also, the deities are not always seen in so anthropomorphic a manner. Mythic literalism is a very minor position in both ancient and modern forms of Paganism.
You misspoke 11:27 there is no caste system in Islam. Muslims didn’t invent the caste system it was a Indian cultural thing that existed before the Mughals came
I think if you want to understand all these religions you need to know in which historical context they were created. Most of them are are trying to be a spiritual guide to help people live a fulfilling life to have a functioning society. That can mean totally different things in ancient Egypt or China. If you go only by their scripture you're just learning their dogmas and can't really grasp how they came to be.
Some Hindus regard Buddha as a god. Vishnu centric Hindus consider Buddha one of the avatars of Vishnu, so he is part of the pantheon. But that doesn't mean they're Buddhist, it means they're Hindus who syncretized Buddha into their thing. Also, the conflict between poly and mono is in the Bible, the scriptures are a hodgepodge. The Ten Commandments starts with God saying other gods exist but they are not superior to him. Moses, having a Midianite wife, builds a Nehushtan to save people from poisonous serpents. Asharah, El's wife, still existed in Israel but they were cut down later. This was mostly a political maneuver by I believe Hezekiah the reformer who "found" early documents of the law. It's most likely he had scholars just make things up.
About Hinduism: According to Bhagavad-Gita, there is one God, but the "Gods and Goddess" that are mentioned are different functional aspects of the almighty. It is mentioned to pray to Lord Krishna, the God Himself, who will grant every prayers accordingly. Choose His subordinates, i.e; other Gods and Goddesses, and pray to grant your wish, unless The God grant your wish, it will be not granted.
To say calling Jesus the messiah in Islam is not accurate is silly. His name in Islamic sources is Isa Al-Masīḥ, meaning Jesus the Messiah Islam does teach that Jesus is the messiah, meaning promised king of the jews, destroyer of God's enemies, future ruler of earth and fixer of the world, they don't mean it the same way jews and Christians do, who don't mean it the same as eachother either. Unlike jews and Christians they don't make any connection or see any relevance of the messiah being the descendent of King David. They put no weight also into the prophecies of the tanakh/old testament into what the messiah must do to prove he is the messiah. He is also not the most important person that God has sent, that would be Muhammad. Also, unlike jews they do not believe that the messiah will make the world follow the torah or rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. And unlike Christians they dont believe the messiah/jesus will reign over earth forever, he will reign 40 years and then die. He will also not make Christianity the religion of the world, he will make Islam and Islamic law the law of the world. Also unlike Jews and Christians there are actually 2 messiahs. Only Jesus is a messiah and a prophet. The other is the Mahdi. A messiah but not a prophet. He will fight alongside Jesus to destroy the enemies of God, help kill the antichrist/ Al-Masih ad-Dajjal and help bring the kingdom of God on earth And unlike Christians they deny that the title messiah means that jesus is the son of God, creator of the world, God incarnate, or sacrificial lamb. So, yes, they believe he is the messiah, but the meaning is slightly different to how jews and Christians conceive of it.
I think that this video provided a good overview, with the huge asterisk that it's extremely oversimplified and there's a lot of exceptions all over the place to all of the general statements made. For example, I'm a non-Nicene Christian, so I'd argue with a lot of what he said about the nature of God and Jesus. However, it would be extremely difficult to make any generalizations about any of these major religious groups without noting that there are exceptions, and there's no way to cram it into 10 minutes.
Islam, and in particular does refer to Jesus (called Isa in the Qur'an) as "Al-Masih" which means "the Messiah". It doesn't mean savior or superman,. It simply means an anointed one. historically, it meant the King. In Judaism and Christianity, it came to mean a type of savior. In Islam, they basically jettisoned that concept to "the messiah", while keeping the title.
There is a great passage written that does help explain Jesus’ relation to god that I do somewhat agree with and may help called the Athanasian Creed: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.
Well, if any of those Pagans decide to go for "pre-roman Belgae tribe" and don't have reincarnation they're missing a big point of it. Even if I don't think they'll really further that the gallo-roman religion
Jews believe Jesus is burning in hell for claiming to be God and blaspheming but Muslims believe he is the Messiah. The arabic name for Jesus which is Isa Al Masih means “Jesus the Messiah” Islam and Judaism have a very different view on Jesus. Christian’s believe Jesus died and was resurrected and is the suffering servant described in Isaiah 53 and 63.
Biblical antiquity points to Muhammad, being the false prophet spoken of, when Moses went to speak to God at the burning bush, before he left he told his followers "don't worship any false gods while I'm gone". In comes Muhammad, claiming he agrees with you guys this and that but with the stipulations of so/so right. And then in the Quran the word points to Muhammad not even being the Messiah, it strictly references Jesus being the one chosen by Allah, not Muhammad. But part of the misconception also comes from the high officials not properly delivering the words and twisting it to further indoctrinate the middle least on a lie based on truth. Again, this is just me spreading awareness of antiquity,
Jesus (Eesaa) is indeed called the Messiah (Maseeh in arabic) in Islam. The belief is that he did not die and will return one day to fight the Antichrist (Dajal). Narration would suggest that each prophet had an epithet. Abraham was the Friend of Allah, Moses was the Speaker of Allah, and Jesus was indeed the Messiah of Allah.
Yes, Muslims refer to Jesus as the Messiah and believe in a second coming - a much different second coming than what many Christians believe in. The term just has different connotations to it in comparison to Jesus in Christianity. Edit: By connotations I mean their version of Christ as Messiah didn't save souls like the Christian view.
As a Muslim, yes Jesus is the Messiah, it is mentioned in the Quran multiple times and his reappearance will not be on the day of judgment, but his appearance will be one of the first major signs of the day of judgment.
What do you think the role of religion will be in the future?
The universe is explainable through science, we just aren't smart enough to formulate the proper questions so we can answer them.
I think more cultural
@@Crocoroar Oh we have the questions alright, it's just that every time we come up with an answer, we have ever more questions.
@@frenzalrhomb6919 Honestly, Skynet is probably gonna kill us all before it solves all our problems and it is probably like 4 years away. Then again, we probably said that when Todd Howard was bragging about his "Radiant AI" in Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion and that was like 2 decades ago. Who can say?
It will have similar influence as in the past for the foreseeable future. I wonder if large number w nonbelief, New Age thinking (Dionysis) was same in late Rome before it became Christian.
Jefferson thought more rational Unitarian-Universalist beliefs would soon become norm in US over 200 years ago. But what is IMHO beliefs that used to be a very irrational, and by some old fashioned standards heretical, version of Christianity (End Times Dispensationalism) is very influential now, almost a de facto state religion in politics and mass media discussion.
Thanks for covering my video in a helpful and supportive manner!
Hi Zoomer I love ur content
I love your content, even if I'm not a protestant or planning to be one
are you also TeirZoo?
@@swag31556 u put their similar voices in my head
@FlygonkingVGC lol right?
22:30 it's not an all encompassing breakdown, but it is like 95% of Christianity. I don't think it's any more "no true scotsman" than he gave the other religions in how their beliefs are generally structured. You're probably just more familiar with the varieties of Christianity than other religions
Yeah the original video nailed mainstream, Nicene Christianity. The guy had 2 minutes, getting annoyed because he didn’t use half of it to give equal time to the fringe sects that the 95% wouldn’t even consider Christian was just dumb.
I agree. The Nicene creed is the definition for Christian, so it isn’t fair to criticize Redeemed Zoomer for saying “all Christians”. The only groups that don’t adhere to these beliefs are not Christian. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc
I think that there were Pagans who believed in reincarnation, especially with Greek philosophers such as Plato who claimed he could remember his previous lives. It’s probably because the Greek religion wasn’t uniform like modern religions so beliefs could change drastically from person to person
Tons of Wiccans ans Neopagans today accept some form or reincarnation too
Celtic paganism has their version of a 2-step reincarnation
Yeah you have to take the flow chart with a grain of salt, there’s some rather simple failure cases as mentioned, but it does work as a nice, non-hostile way to introduce other religions and their concepts to folks.
Hello, I am a follower of Divine Plato. Yes we follow the wheel of life or reincarnation, of which Jupiter (Zeus) is in charge. Plato's beliefs actually come from Orphismos or Orphism as modern people call it. Followers of Plato like me, who side with Polytheism (the belief of many gods existing as personal beings), tend to believe that the Gods were far superior to that of Mythological portrayal of Homeros (Homer) and Isiodos (Hesoid). If you're interested, do let me know!
Pythagora was also one such greek who believed in reincarnation and even claimed one past life of his was a soldier in the Trojan war!
Basically in Islam, they believe Jesus is going to reappear in the day of judgement and is gonna fight alongside the Muslims, so yeah he is considered a messiah
Literally in the Quran he was called Al Masih Isa (Jesus the Messiah)
They think he'll descend down near a Mosque in Damascus and institute Sharia Law Worldwide.
The man problem is that jesus is god
@@fastestfail2645 I know agree
@@fastestfail2645 Its not the problem, its the solution. :)
In Arabic Jesus is named "Isa al Masih".... That translates as Jesus the Messiah. The islamic definition of messiah is unclear to me, but they definitely name Jesus the messiah.
It seems Muslims believe Jesus was messiah to the Jews only, but still a guided one/prophet.
@@ExcuseZero nope, in Islam as far as I know there is no doctrine saying about being messiah for the Jews at all. He was sent for the Israeli and was never crusified (although someone else was). However in the Quran there's a verse saying the day "he was resurrected" and most say it mean of his second coming (at least current day interpretation), there's also Hadith about it but it's not the most sahih. Some muslim said it's Mahdi that are going to return, some saya it's Jesus, and some say both.
@ExcuseZero Jesus Is a Prophet, But When He Comes Back, Then He Will Be The Messiah That Will Fight Dajjal With The Help Of Mahdi
Messiah is meaningless in Islam, Mohammed probably heard Christians call Jesus Messiah and he used that to get closer to them.
@@manoflowmoralvalue1560 not only that but a lot of Hadith which might have came at least 100 years after Muhammad also have a lot of messianic message like imam Mahdi and Dajjal the false Messiah. Most likely happen during a struggling time for a fantasy about the end time just like book of revelation and other apocalyptic gospel.
Also that's what happened when christian and muslim live together for year's there's gotta be some asimilation of ideas
Celtic Pagans Believed in reincarnation, the Triskellion is a symbol three representing life, death and reincarnation.
I would love to see you react to his video on the different Christian Denominations, I would love to learn more about what was going on when these splits happened.
As a Catholic, I’d love to see that!
Useful Charts has a great video on this exact thing, well, actually its a series of videos in the form of a family tree
As another Catholic, I’d also like to see a reaction video to Redeemed Zoomer’s video on the different Christian denominations!
@@seangutierrez1337im protestant (Baptist) through in through and we dont agree on certain things for sure, but i saw this other comment saying christianity is the most divisive and violent religion🤣🤣🤣🤣
Redeemed Zoomer is a Presbyterian channel but they have a lot of fun videos such as Christian denominations and the history of the Church that are worth reacting to.
Also a really long series but Useful Charts has a great series on Christian denominations as well.
RZ: Says something about Christianity
Mr. Terry: AHA NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!
Yes Terry doesn't understand that fallacy. Did you notice he only apply this fallacy to Christianity?
@@smidlee7747 I did. I think it's safe to say that Christianity is the least divided major religion of the bunch, rather what Terry is claiming.
@@emryswilliams9190Bro I was honestly so dissapointed. First of the Nicean Creed defines Christian beleifs and if someone doesn't beleive in the trinity they aren't Christian. I think he was being unfair tbh
@@emryswilliams9190Huh? It’s quite literally one of the most, if not the most divided religion.
@@nosmokejazwinski6297 are you talking from experience? Because from what I’ve seen, Shia and Sunni Muslims would kill each other for their beliefs, Hindus and Buddhists can’t even agree on how many gods there are, and Judaism wasn’t united since Jesus. Christians all agree on the most important foundational beliefs, and we only debate less important aspects of theology
This is very interesting, as someone who studied religion (in particular Christianity) as my major in college. These are very broad strokes but you do a great job emphasizing points!
16:28 yes we muslims do believe that jesus is the messiah. In Arabic Al-massih. And we believe that he is going to come in the end of times to fight the antichrist, al-massih-al-dajjal.
I don’t like that he placed yoga in the “New Age/spiritual but not religious” category. Yoga is an ancient practice & is at the core of Hindu/Jain faiths; it’s really misleading to place it in with the tarot/crystal/horoscopes category, even if some westerners like to pick yoga as one of their spiritual practices.
Yeah he didn’t explain it well, but I think his point was “new age spirituality” will pick and choose elements from other religions and remove the original focus. In that case yoga is something some new age spirituality practicers will use in sort of vague meditation or zen aspect. Though some non spiritual people will just use it without any spiritual aspects.
I agree with you but I just wanted to add that the yoga he mentioned (Āsana yoga) is not at the core of Hinduism or Jainism because it's regarded as an exercise sort of like the Tai chi of India or greater India. The Yogas mentioned in the Vedas are different. The 4 Yogas or disciplines listed in the Vedas are 1)Karma Yoga, 2)Bhakti Yoga, 3)Rāja Yoga and 4)Jñāna Yoga. Very different from the stretches and body contortions of Āsana Yoga.
But I do agree that the New Age/spiritualists do plagiarise many things because they are a new identity that is building upon multiple faith groups.
I'm a Jain. I follow along the Buddhist path, and the origins of our creed is very similar to Buddhism. The main difference is that we put an extra strong emphasis on "do no harm". We are vegetarians, some of us are vegans, but the strictest of us don't eat rooted plants, like onions, potatoes, and ginger, because to eat it, you have to uproot the plant, thus killing it. These strict Jains also wear special shoes so they don't harm any insects or plants wherever they walk, and wear certain masks when ill. During the pandemic, the mask thing just felt like a stricter extension of my faith. While a lot of us learn how to fight, the priority is always de-escalation and self-defense; you can NEVER be the aggressor.
Mahaveera, our guru, was an ordinary man who cultivated extraordinary peace. Our faith revolves around the idea that we, too, must follow this path.
Idk potatoes technically can be replanted if you cut them in half so you wouldn't kill the plant if you actually correctly eat it. As in cut it in halve then plant one half and keep the other. That's like eating my arm but leaving me alive to regrow. It's not killing anything at least. I kinda get the Buddhist path but i don't really care to keep a no kill rule anymore if this was when i was 14 I'd have a no kill rule fully without questioning it
Don't protein bro?
@@HeckenschutzeMoH this is true, and some still do.
@@Suno-ta-sei maybe. I'm not that strict. But those loopholes must have been thought about later on.
@@ceroandone that's a very common misconception. Plant based proteins are definitely used by the stricter Jains. Plus, almost all Jains drink milk on a regular basis. In just about every meal in Jain cuisine, you'll find something dairy based, and lentil based.
I'm glad you mentioned the two different types of atheists. Those who make the assertion that god certainly doesn't exist are in the minority. At least in the atheist communities I run in. I see it as a logical error to assert anything to be empirically impossible that is unfalsifiable. I'm merely unconvinced, just like I'm unconvinced of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics or string hypothesis. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being convinced with empirical and repeatable evidence, or at least models that make falsifiable predictions. 😊
I guess most people are atheist to most gods (greek, norse, etc.) Also, thank you for being a channel member!
The way I see it most atheists want physical evidence as proof for god not just rely on belief
I am an agnostic atheist too!
There is some gods who are evidently not the case, but not sure if that makes me gnostic or keeps me as agnostic.
I believe that 90% of the world knows there is absolutely no god. Some lie to themselves some just lie to other people about what they believe.
Considering that perhaps 60% of the world's population lives in Asia, which is overwhelmingly Hindi, Buddhist, or Atheist by religion or by culture, there is a minority of the world's population to be parsed out among the other religions.
However, it sounds like you are asserting that 90% of people who claim to be monotheists don't actually believe. To that, I would say that it is impressively reckless to assume most people secretly hold your own worldview. There are 1.9 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians across the world, each of whom have had their own experiences that lead them to belief or unbelief. It is a rather ridiculous opinion to believe that 90% of them fake their belief--not to mention utterly impossible to prove. @@jackmakackov7077
Budhhism is not about self-denial, or any kind of denial and most certainly not about beating down on your desires. That is a stark caricature. Attachment is a better word because desire implies in english very often only sense-pleasures. But you can be attached to almost anything including your sense of self. So it's more about recognition of attachments and desires and see them for what they are. Patterns of energy, merely waves on the surface of consciousness and in so doing you will lessen your attachments because you see that nothing lasts, and isn't going to lead to fulfillment and happiness (Impermanence)
this works with both positive states as well as negative, neither last and will pass in time
@maxion5109 A lot of people often get the meaning Dukka wrong, which is why everyone thinks that buddhist believe that life is suffering and all that jazz about wanting stuff. I was looking through the comments to see if anyone else go to this yet. And here you where. Beat me to it.
Yeah, but it doesn't surprise me that that kid barely did any research
The crossover I needed but never thought I needed to have.
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran as the messiah below is some context just in case you were curious!
3:45 [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ].
3:46 He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous."
Does Islam believe Jesus is the son of God? I'm just curious in case you know.
@@devin8811 no they don’t, however I think they believe he is the Holy Spirit or at least has it with him
@@laucio1918There is no “Holy Spirit” in Islam in the way Christians believe.
In Islam, “the Holy Spirit” is another name for the Angel Gabriel, but has nothing to do with the Christian belief.
Great video. As for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in regards to Christianity, the Nicaean Creed provides a proper definition (with or without the filioque). Even the brethren who say "no creed but Christ" can affirm the contents of the Nicaean Creed. Much of what Redeemed Zoomer covers is covered in that early church creed.
Exactly. It's not a NTS fallacy if indeed you do step outside the very definition of Christianity, as defined in the Nicaean Creed.
This is really my only complaint of the video. Even to this day nearly all self-described Christians affirm the Nicene Creed in the same way a communist would affirm the platform of Karl Marx.
I feel like he could have sneaked in stoicism under "do you believe any kind of spirituality?" -no-> "should you deny youself pleasures?" -yes-> Stoicism
Yeah, I think the distinction he could have made was "deny your self" and "deny yourself desires". I'm not an adherent of either Buddhism or Stoicism, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
sure but stoicism is more just a philosophy.. and being stoic is just a state of mind rather than a belief.. you could believe stoicism is based but not be stoic (usually due to temper) and you can be stoic without having any beliefs on the matter..
@@12DAMDO stoicism is not quite just a philosophy, its a quasi religion, it has elements of faith much like any religion, mainly "Logos", the devine principle and "Pneuma", the substance of the universe that intermediates the material and the divine. Stoics were at least theistic and at best pantheistic. Of course, since stoicism is a philosophy that is so open and is not organized like at all like a religion, any stoic student or philosopher can freely choose the philosophical aspects of stoicism without choosing the religious one.
@@irgendwer3610 at that point i wonder what's the difference between philosophy and religion.. like, would Socrates be considered a religion too?
@@12DAMDO I am not sure, but historically people did follow pythagoras and socrates like a cult, so the line between philosophy and religion can be blurry at many times. If you think about it, religion is basically a package of culture, ritual, faith and philosophy in one thing. Just think about how the victorians followed a lot of christian values even though they were not keen on religion at all.
14:20
The scholarly term for what you’re talking about is monolatry or henotheism (although I think the first is more accurate). No sects of Jews ever were polytheistic, but it is most likely the case that they believed other deities existed which the pagans worshiped (henotheism), they only ever worshiped their one true god (monolatry).
And that connects to an interesting fact: That’s one theory on way pagan divination was originally banned in the Torah. Not because it’s fake, but because it IS real, and therefore idol worship.
Exactly
Other divine and spiritual beings exist in the Judeo-Christian worldview, but God alone is unique, incomparable, and ultimate
Anyone trying to make sense of the henotheistic aspects of Judaism (and Christianity), should read The Unseen Realm by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, an Old Testament scholar and historian
Fun fact, some modern denominations of Christianity, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), are returning to henotheism as it’s more in line with the teachings of the Old Testament.
@@KnuttyEntertainment
My ex-Mormon friend told me that they are doing a whole “rebrand” as she called it, which will be kind of cool to see-minus all the evil stuff she describes to me
@@cboneperlstone9661 You’re going to have to be more specific. Are you referring to things like their recent decision to stop using the term Mormon, or are you referring to changes in their belief system? The former is true, the latter is misleading.
As is normal for large populations over long periods of time, the majority view of things is shifting constantly, however when it comes to Latter-day Saint theology, most of the shift is moving away from mid 20th century views, but closer towards their early 19th century views due to new interpretations of foundational teachings sparked by the rise of the Internet aiding historical work that has made early 19th century documents more easily accessible, this in combination with recent advances made in archeological research have and a growing interest in apologetics among Latter-day Saints has caused them to start returning to theological ideas that are older than our common medieval traditions, and thus seem new and novel when in reality it’s just a return to earliest teachings of the religion.
TL;DR this is a complicated topic and I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentLOL. Then why don't Mormons become Catholic. Mormons have no call back to true early Christian traditions. Though they aren't Christian to be honest
In Hellenic polytheism. Which is pretty much the worship of the 12 Greek Olympian gods have a belief in reincarnation. Of course practitioners of this faith differ in views. But a common thing I've read is about how a soul will drink from the waters of forgetfulness within the underworld(Hades domain) so they can then be reincarnated.
Always a good sign when Mr Terry uploads
As a Jewish person with a religious studies degree, I would say that almost all sects of Judaism see their god as a part of the world rather than separate
Interesting, so theologically similar to Sikhs?
@@Makaneek5060 it’s more so just that trying to explain differences between religions just based on a flow chart simply can’t be fully accurate. There are similarities between Judaism and Sikhism, and certain things like the Mul Mantar are perfectly in line with Judaism, but I don’t know enough about Sikh theology to know
@@cboneperlstone9661 Wikipedia says in hermeneutic of that doctrine "The general view favors the monotheistic interpretation, but not the Semitic understanding of monotheism." If that's not the case then I start to think Mul Mantar looks pretty general to all monotheism...
@@Makaneek5060 Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. They’re not really similar in anything other than general monotheism. That’s why this flowchart method of distinguishing religions is cool for a basic understanding, but nothing more. I can see why he put judaism in the “category” of “god separate from the universe” but in Judaism, god really is not. But that would then put it in the category with Sikhism, which it also is not.
Redeemed zoomer’s videos are good for general ideas (although with a slight bias towards Protestantism), but not for really understanding theology. It’s sort of just a cute video idea to make a flow chart. It leaves a lot of gaps.
@@cboneperlstone9661 ok fair, because I had no idea where Yazidism and Mandaeism could go.
It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy to insist on a particular definition. The no true Scotsman Fallacy is about insufficiently justifying the exclusion of counter examples mid argument.
People totally misrepresent the No True Scotsman fallacy failing to realize not everyone is a Scotsman. One of the first requirement for Scotsman to exist is Scotland must exist. You can't claim you were a Scotsman and claim Scotland didn't exist.
Still, being arbitrary with your definitions is a slippery slope that leads to No True Scotsman-esque gatekeeping. Which is what I think he was trying to convey.
@@KnuttyEntertainment Did you notice this fallacy was only brought up when dealing with Christianity? He even brought up the different denominations when Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics ALL agree and teach what the video claimed about Christianity. All three teach the Bible is a Him book. It's all about HIM.
@@smidlee7747 That’s because Christians are the only ones with such a theological diversity AND an intense proclivity to gatekeep denominations. The guy he was reacting to has been very clear in other videos that excludes several large denominations from the label of Christian for unbiblical reasons.
I’m glad that he took the time to nuance the topic as any good history teacher should.
@@KnuttyEntertainment Even if that's true he is reviewing this video and falsely accuse him of this fallacy here. That's very misleading. He simply claim some disagree with the fundamentals of Christianity.
As CS Lewis wrote we need to keep "Christian" simply someone who believes in the fundamentals of the faith which the guy video covered well and instead claim some individuals are not a good Christians. He talks about how gentleman used to mean someone who owned property and now it only means someone we like losing it's meaning. Lewis said we already had words describing people we like without making gentleman meaningless.
So you said that Christians debated the divinity of christ... as far as I'm aware that is not true. No heresy im aware of denined Christ's, death resurrection or divinity. The Gnostics were not Christians they were an older sect of pagan Greek and egyptian hybrid regions that tried to convert Christians by adding Christians beliefs to their existing mythology (they did this for all religions), the early councils had no disagreement on any of the core Christian tenets rather they were on more subtle issues (e.g. what does it mean that Christ is God? Was he always existing or was he created etc.) Even the heresitics would have said he was god its just their definition of that did not agree with an orthodox position.
Arius was the person who believed that Jesus was not God. That was why Christianity had the Council of Nicea and eventually created the Nicean Creed.
@@forestria_gaming Arius believed Jesus was created by God but his essence was God... essentially a possessed human body by God. Arians still affirmed the deity of christ.
This is a common misconception.
I've been Christian for a while and I'm pretty sure I can no longer be convinced. That aside - Jesus was definitely not the first person who is historically thought of as being incarnated. In fact Rama and Krishna.. not only many hero cults that believed their God was once man. I don't personally find Christianity as unique as people make it seem. Especially with the salvation and redemption story which is not very unique at all. No hate towards anyone though.. just wanted to put my thoughts out there
Mr. Terry at about 2:48 you made an unforced error. You thought you heard the man say that "Buddhists" don't preach that Buddha was a god. What the man said was that the "Buddha" never claimed to be a god. Jesus proclaimed a divine nature to himself, the Buddha denied it and asked that not even statues of himself be produced to prevent such a belief being promoted. That's a big difference.
Some pagans and pagan religions do and did believe in reincarnation. The Celts come to mind. Some Greeks did as well, and many Romans also held a belief that reincarnation could very well be real. There is even some references to it in Norse belief, or at least a portion of the person would be reincarnated while other aspects of them were not.
I was born and raised in Iran, an islamic county, from things ive been taught my whole life, Jesus is in fact a messiah, but not the only one. It is said that Jesus and Mahdi, will both show up near the end of times to rid the world of all evil. It's never been clear to me why Jesus would be here, but it's said that he will be.
Well, I believe that islam have some sort of final judgement at the end of times, and some believe that particularly pious people should be able to intercede for mercy when others are judged. Either way, Christians will be judged individually and as a group at that time, so is a given that Jesus is going to be there, regardless of whether he can intercede or not.
Don't quote me on that, I'm fairly familiar with other religions, but I only have a general understanding of Islam and I could very well be way off base.
Isa (AS) is the only one prophet who his follower is deceived to think that he is a deity beside the Almighty.
The term for the intermediate step between polytheism and monotheism is called monolatry, where other gods are acknowledged to exist but your god is the most powerful.
I didn't know there was a term for that. thank you!
For a good counter to the theory about Judaism starting polytheistic, I highly suggest looking into the theory of Original Monotheism put forward by Wilhelm Schmidt
Redeemed zoomer goes so hard on church history and Christian theology he is very educational
Muslims have said they believe Jesus was the messiah so the video is correct 16:35
16:25 Allah calls Jesus alayhi salam the Messiah multiple times in the Quran. Redeemed Zoomer is right about this.
It was touched on briefly at the beginning, the two types of atheists, but I think a missing vocab word in this whole discussion was Gnosticism vs Agnosticism.
People often confuse Agnostics and Atheists as two separate things, but they're two facets that describe the same beliefs. You can think of it like a plot, X axis is (A)theism, Y axis is (A)gnosticism. Theism refers to the belief, Gnosticism refers to the certainty of the belief. You have Gnostic Atheists, who are the militant "god is dead, there is no god!" type, Agnostic Atheists are the "I don't know, it can't be proven, I don't claim to have the answers" type. Similarly, you have Gnostic Theists who are the militant evangelical bible thumper "god is real, and its my god, everyone else is wrong!" types, and Agnostic Theists who are the "this is what I believe, I do think there is a god, but you do you" type.
"Gnostic" refers to "knowing". There is no such thing as an agnostic theist because all theists believe they know the truth. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters, so inherently they are between atheists and those who believe in any sort of supernatural (including theists). Many agnostics describe it as "consciously undecided".
"Gnosticism" was its own historical Christian sect that has nothing to do with the "Bible thumper" trope. They were an offshoot group that came up with their own separate doctrine not at all based on the Bible or Torah that directly contradicted both. If they had survived, they would be just as separate as Islam is now.
The distinction you are trying to make between theists is proselytism - how they believe their calling to teach others the truth they know is. A "Bible thumper" feels they need to be in your face about it, often to the point of being argumentative (hence the gesture of thumping the Bible). The "you do you" theist is a reaction to the backlash of the "Bible thumpers". Most modern Christians, for example, recognize that you aren't going to truly believe just because someone wouldn't stop yelling at you. One of the current leading views is that we should minister to people (ie. do good things for others) and God will give us opportunities to share the truth, and if you're not wanting to be preached to, that's where we say "you do you". We still want you to come to know what we believe to be the truth, but we also recognize that if you're not receptive to it, it's harmful to pressure you. In marketing terms, it's more like the difference between hard sell tactics and soft sell tactics. Hard sell gets more short term money while soft sell gets more long term brand loyalty, and with faith the goal is the ultimate long term.
@@MerennulliWell worded comment. The original left me confused with his definition of Gnosticism as I’ve always considered it in the light that you mentioned.
The characterization of “Bible thumpers” seemed inaccurate too. It would make sense than any theist would think that their beliefs are actually objectively true.
@@Merennulli - These words can be used in multiple contexts. Yours being valid does not invalidate others'.
I agree that BlackhartFilms was describing proselytism and could have clarified better, but I think he was trying to using it as a shorthand for perceived certainty and using that to distinguish between knowledge and belief. I don't think the distinctions were wrong, as you seem to contend, so much as the descriptions were inaccurate.
Further, you say "There is no such thing as an agnostic theist because all theists believe they know the truth. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters" but I know theists, people who believe there is a god, who also acknowledge they could be wrong and they aren't sure said belief is correct. At least one of these people has described themselves to me as an agnostic theist. Being a person who both believes in a god but also "doesn't believe they know and chooses to be aware of their lack of knowledge on theological matters", are they not right to classify themselves as such even by your own definition? Or are they not even theists in your view, despite belief a god, unless they also claim to know they are right?
I think the issue here is academic vs colloquial uses of the word. If you are being explicit about the "Gnosticism movement" than you are referring specifically to a particular religious sect and its beliefs. However, if you google you'll find lots of venn diagrams and alignment plots that feature (a)theism and (a)gnosticism as parts of a spectrum of belief. I tried to explain in very broad terms and generalisations, really in a way that would be understood by a layman american viewer. We could get deeper into academic terminology and the historical contexts of specific sects and branches of theology, but the broad principle really remains the same- that spirituality, and people's personal religious beliefs are all on a wide spectrum from deep certainty and conviction, through to open-minded skepticism or doubt. We like clean labels to put people in boxes, but reality is fuzzy and its often difficult to pin a single label to someone and really get a full picture of their personal philosophy, moral code, and belief from just a singular label.
@@apawnandking4768 These are specific things that have existing names. When you try to use terms in your own way without regard for existing terminology, you aren't communicating. Language changes with collective usage, not the personal redefinitions of individuals.
I don't know the person you are speaking of, and there are different ways to interpret what you described as agnostic theism. You could be describing deism, the belief that there's probably a deity but that it's not one of the involved deities of a religion. You could mean someone who is agnostic but favors the idea of theism (which, I realize will feel nit-picky, but that's theistic agnosticism, not agnostic theism - which one is the adjective makes a significant difference in meaning). Or you could be describing someone who has a specific theistic belief but has doubts (Which, despite what many say, is a good thing sometimes. Doubt is how faith is tested.). Or it could be something else entirely. But theism is a belief in specific knowledge, and that is in opposition to believing you don't know.
As an orthodox Jew, I would say: The reason why we don’t believe Jesus is the messiah is not because “apparently the world hasn’t been fixed yet”! It’s because there’s a process of being verified as a prophet, and as the messiah, and Jesus did neither of those things. Performing miracles is not good enough. The bible itself says that God gives false prophets the ability to perform miracles in order to test us to see if we will remain loyal to him. If I did a magic trick that looks miraculous, and I said I was the messiah, would you believe me? No! So why is Jesus believed to call himself the messiah just because he walked on water?
there are so many faiths that could still be discussed, for instance gnostic religions, dualistic religions.... There were so many extinct christians schism like nestorianism and arianism which have different philosophies on Jesus' nature
I commented something similar elsewhere, I would love to see what they have to say about religions that believe the material world was created by an evil god. Those have fairly interesting perspectives, and sadly make more sense than the opposite (by that I mean that in a universe specifically created as a trap for the soul, the existence of some goodness is incidental but plausible, but a universe created by an all powerful, perfectly good god there is no room for evil).
Also, a lot of those are technically Christian heresies, and they are not as much as extinct as intentionally destroyed in epic bloodbaths. The end result is the same, but the process pretty much validates their basic premise... far more than the opposite (dunno if are familiar with the reference, but "kill them all, that god will know their own" comes from one of these specific massacres)
Going to write this as I listen to the Christian segment.
1. To say Christianity is all about Christ is a bit misleading. Christ, Himself, points out that his goal was to reunite us to the Father. To Christians, YHWH is still what Christianity is all about. It's just that Christ is the ultimate gateway to that end goal.
2. Like I said in my comment on the logical fallacies section, the No True Scotsman fallacy is relevant when you're talking about someone's roots. So it isn't wrong to say someone isn't truly Christian if they reject certain core tenets of Christianity. The Catholic Church has existed, unbroken, since Christ's resurrection. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles, the first Christians, is still maintained by the Catholic Church. Same with the Bible and all major definitions of what exactly a Christian is. Much like the Jews, you can be ethnically Jewish, but the religious Jews only care about the people who actually practice Judaism since those are the ones holding to the Old Covenant with their forefathers. It wouldn't make sense for an outsider to come up and say, "hey, you can't say this person isn't a practicing Jew just because he doesn't obey the Torah". Just so, it doesn't make any sense for a non-Christian to say, "no, these people are Christians even though they don't practice anything handed down by the apostles as The Way".
NOTE: I wouldn't mind using Christianity as a blanket term for all people who believe in Jesus except that it often means people conflate Christianity with the worst they find. A perfect example would be the Westboro Baptists or Mormons. Neither is Christian, but because they say they are, people just accept it.
NOTE 2: Christianity is a very clearly defined religion which has been coopted to mean "anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah. That isn't true. There are specific tenets that one must adhere to to truly be Christian.
3. That is NOT No True Scotsman. That is a very accurate, very succinct definition of Christianity. Anything else is something masquerading as Christianity. If I were to say that I'm an archaeologist and go around teaching that the fossil record is a lie and evolution is fake, I can't cling to the archaeologist title. If you call yourself Christian but do not adhere to the Apostles' Creed (the Nicene Creed expanded and clarified certain positions present in the Apostles' Creed), you are not a Christian. Period. End of story. I'm trying to think of additional parallels and having a difficult time without falling into the NTS fallacy. Bottom line, Christianity is defined, there are core tenets. Not following those tenets but believing in Jesus doesn't make you a Christian.
4. Those councils and debates aren't the reason why we have so many branches of Christianity (I know the Reformation is about to come up so I'll save this for that point). It's actually why we only had one up until the Great Schism and then why we only had two, both exceedingly similar with seemingly only semantic differences up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. Moreover, it's why the Catholic Church is still together today. We recognized that no one man held all knowledge and so heavily debated everything including the specific words of every document. An excellent parallel is when the US Congress debates whether something should be "will" or "shall" it sounds semantic but those two words have very different meanings in law.
5. I'm rather surprised (though less so upon learning the channel is Protestant) that he didn't go into the two great Schisms in the history of Christianity. The bottom line is you have Catholicism which is the main branch which has been in continuous practice for nearly 2000 years; Orthodox which can pretty much claim exactly the same as, by all accounts, it's seems like mostly an issue of semantics and both branches mostly recognize the validity of each other's sacraments, just not allowing each other to participate; and Protestantism which is a mix of Christians and non-Christians primarily based on whether or not they practice a Trinitarian Baptism. Protestantism is the ONLY branch which contains denominations. Catholic and Orthodox are not denominations of Christianity. You either belong to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church. There is no such Protestant church. You're Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, Evangelical, Presbyterian, etc. Protestants don't believe Catholics are Christians, despite the 2000 years of continuous history proving them wrong, and often fail to answer the question of what exactly happened prior to their particular founder suddenly discovering the "true message" of Jesus.
Anywho, I'm open for answering questions. Not so much for debate per se.
Hey man, found this paragraph quite interesting and pretty knowledgeable. I’m not hugely religious right now but it’s a topic I love to learn about. I’m a little confused when you say “If you call yourself Christian but do not adhere to the Apostles’ Creed, you are not Christian. I’m not trying to argue against this point, I’m confused how other (sub-groups?) of Christians fit under this notion. In the Apostles’ Creed it says “I believe in the Catholic Church” my current understanding is that Catholics are one of many groups of Christians. So if to be Christian you must believe in the Catholic Church does that mean other groups (like Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian) believe in a Catholic Church? If so, why aren’t they just catholic? If I need to reword parts of this to better explain my question I can. But I’d love to hear your response because this is totally new ground for me.
As a Protestant, I'd like some further explaining on how not believing in the Apostle's Creed doesn't make one Christian. I agree with you whole heartedly about the Trinity as I had a very similar reaction to yours when Mr. Terry started talking about it. One can't disbelieve the the Trinity and still be a Christian because at that point it's something else. It would be like a man claiming to be Muslim while believing Muhammad didn't receive a divine revelation. It's not Islam at that point, it's something else. The Apostle's Creed was a later adaptation of the Nicene Creed which made no mention of the Catholic Church at all.
Using an umbrella to group Protestant denominations is rought, but using broad strokes, we believe that Catholics are Christians, we just think you're doing it wrong. Heck, we think everyone who isn't doing things according to our particular denomination is doing it wrong! In my observations, the split between Protestants and Catholics, in large, comes down to a question of authority. Does The Bible have authority over The Church, or does The Church have authority over The Bible? Protestants see The Bible as the ultimate authority, but because different interpretations exist, different denominations exist. Catholocism doesn't have this problem because in Catholicism, The Church consolidated The Bible to begin with, and as such, has the upper authority. The Church decides what the Bible means and that is simply that.
I'm a Baptist, myself. I believe that the Father sent the Holy Ghost unto a virgin, and she birthed the Son. I believe that the Son was Jesus Christ, the Messiah, my Lord and Savior. I believe with all my heart that Christ died upon the Cross so that my sins could be forgiven, and that he rose again after three days. I believe he met with the Apostles in Galilee and tasked them with preaching the gospel of the Trinity. Am I not a Christan because I don't believe all true believers are adherents to the Catholic Church? Orthodox and Catholic, Baptist and Methodist, we're all Christian. We tend to disagree with the stuff that isn't so plainly written. Reading between the lines of the word is where things get messy.
@@risingthreat3154 Context is key here. Catholic, in this sense, does not refer to how we differentiate between the three branches of Christianity today. You have the Catholic Church and the catholic Church. The catholic Church is more how we use the term in the Apostles' Creed as it simply refers to the universal Church. Yes, the Catholic Church is still the universal Church and it would be completely accurate to have both capitalized, but, in this instance, it simply means that the Church is universal.
And this is where Catholics tend to go wrong by either fully invoking NTS or seemingly invoking NTS. According to Catholic doctrine, all grace flows through the Catholic Church as she is Christ's Church. And the anthropomorphism is entirely on purpose. Catholics profess that the Catholic Church is a full entity, wholly independent of her various parts but necessarily containing us. That's why we claim the Catholic Church can never change, only our understanding of her teachings. When we profess a belief in the holy Catholic Church, we are professing a belief in an entity with higher authority than the Pope, the unchanging Bride of Christ which he left for us to teach us and guide us to the truth of his teaching.
Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are among the many branches of Protestantism, a separate branch of Christianity which prioritizes personal revelation and alignment with worldly priorities over adherence to established teachings and traditions. There are more denominations of Protestantism than there are non-Christian religions in the world and most espouse some form of heresy that was discussed and defined over a thousand years ago.
The thing about Catholicism is that our sacraments are universal, meaning anyone can participate so long as the form, function, and belief underlining them are correct. Baptism is the main sacrament that expresses whether or not someone can be Christian as it's the ritual cleansing of original sin and a rebirth. Baptism requires three things to be valid: the person performing it must be validly baptized, the person performing it must have a full and correct understanding of the Trinity and use the Trinitarian form (a correct understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and you must be baptized with running water. If these three conditions are met, you are considered validly baptized. If you weren't baptized as a Catholic, you're considered a Catholic in schism and a heretic based on whatever belief you espouse. If you eventually convert to Catholicism, you'll go through all the rites of Christian initiation EXCEPT Baptism as we profess "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins".
I was thinking about it last night and I think I know how to truly explain why this isn't NTS (because I know from the outside it still looks like it is). NTS says, "you're not truly Scottish because Scots don't do this" despite the fact that the person actually comes from Scottish descent. Protestantism very literally and very publicly began by saying, "I want to do this and because I want to do this, you're not truly Christian so I'm going to start my own church". It's literally the NTS in reverse.
Well put, except for the mention of Lutheranism. Much like protestants being unable to accept that Catholics are indeed Christian, most Catholics, despite papal reconciliation with the Lutheran church, don't seem to realise that Lutherans affirm most things that Catholics do (the big differences being the legitimacy of the papacy and works-based salvation). In fact, Lutherans tend to despise the label of protestant as the idea of 'be as anti-Catholic as possible' does not accurately represent their views on the faith.
@@appleonion5830 Except Lutheranism is the proto-typical Protestant, named for the founder, Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 grievances to the door. It literally started as "here are my problems and you guys suck". Most Protestants are never taught about the counter-reformation which was a wholly Catholic endeavor to root out corruption and illegitimate practices from within the Church. It worked and fixed every legitimate issue Luther had with the Church. The problem Luther (and every Protestant at that time) faced was an issue of pride. They'd gone too far and now needed to follow through with the threat of leaving. Thus we now have this weak assertion that the papacy is illegitimate. We literally have the documentation showing it's a direct line of succession from Peter. So either Christ's Church failed in the 1500s and the Church is now dead, or the Church continues, alive and well, from Rome and the papacy. Even ignoring the religious side of the argument, the logic of it must follow. You can't declare the leader of the Church is illegitimate, break the line of succession, and go to form your own religion while also claiming Christianity is alive and well. It doesn't work from a purely logical standpoint.
According to Gaius Julius Caesar the Gauls believed in reincarnation if i am not mistaken. I believe that he wrote this in book 6 of the commentarii de bello Gallico.
The Celtic Triskellion also shows it suppose to apparently represent life, death and reincarnation. It's hard to trust Roman sources as they were hypocrites at points often judging other cultures for things they did themselves.
The Hindu reincarnation is inextricably tied to karma. As far as I know, no pagan religions have ever believed such a thing. Only Plato comes close to it when he describes souls being born as women and animals (low births) and men (the highest birth). Thankfully this didn't catch on like most of his other thoughts.
@@LuzianJ Hey there friend. It was not my intention to relate the 2 religions to each other. I just meant that there are or were more religions that believe in reincarnation.
@@DeGeneraal289 Hey, never said you did. I was just pointing out people mean very different things when they speak of "reincarnation".
@@LuzianJ Hey there, no problem mate. Thank you for your response.
As far as non Hindu Pagan religions that believe in reincarnation, I know that in Greek mythology you can drink from the waters of the river Lethe in the underworld forget everything and be reincarnated.
I thought it was very interesting when I took a Western Civilization class and my teacher talked about the origins of all the major religions, the books and stories of each and how different religions are connected. Like there are people who say Muslims don't believe in the Bible. They do, they just have more books. That sort of thing.
I think you're confusing Islam with Mormonism, there. Whilst the Quran claims to be preaching the same message as the Bible (and, in some passages) affirms its authority(, there are virtually no Muslims of any sect who would use any part of the Bible as a source of doctrine. The vast majority of Muslims today seem to believe that the Bible has been corrupted so that it teaches a completely different message from the original text.
I know the Mormons have the book of Mormon in addition. Muslims do also acknowledge Jesus, the same way Jews do.
I know the Mormons have the book of Mormon in addition. Muslims do also acknowledge Jesus, the same way Jews do.
@@laurataylor8717 Mormons have three additional books. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet and as the Messiah (though it's unclear what they understand that term to mean). Jews (other than Messianic Jews - people who are both Jewish and Christian) don't acknowledge Jesus as having any religious significance. They definitely do not consider him to be a prophet or the Messiah. Judaism as it exists today is, in part, built on an explicit rejection of Jesus.
5:45 i can answer that, in hellenism, greek paganism, people who die notably, either they were a great artist, or a hero of some sort, or just use your life to do explicit good, go to Elysium. A field of eternal pleasure and wonder and beauty, and once there you can choose to stay there, or choose to reincarnate back into earth if you want.
Honestly, the terms "pagan", "new age" and "spiritual but not religious" are really badly defined here simply because they're all so broad a set of umbrellas that you can't define any of them so simplistically. I'd even say that it's almost a mistake to define them as strong categories at all. I say that as a neopagan who has known many others for the last 40 years and read some about the history of the title and related faiths.
As a Heathen/Pagan, I agree with your assessment(s)!
:-)
shojld be linda expected from redeemed zoomer, he's some weord fundamentalist thing
@@hakcedHe’s a Presbyterian. He actually critiques fundamentalism pretty regularly.
@@kamarwashington hence why i said "weird fundamentalist thing" because i havent watched enough of his kingdomcraft videos to get a full view of what his theological stance is other than highly conservative with a crusadery aesthetic
@@hakced You don’t seem very knowledgeable about Christianity.
Love your work!
The channel UsefulCharts has fantastic videos about the Bible, Christianity, and many historical subjects!
Useful charts' videos about the Christian denominations are excellent. His video on other things related to the Bible and Christianity, however, basically pretend that the conservative end of scholarship doesn't exist. So they don't give you an accurate picture of what scholarship as a whole actually thinks.
5:33 It depends on how you define "reincarnation". The Hindu one is inextricably tied to karma. The closest thing to this can be found in Plato's soul theory, Plato thought women and animals were of low birth since they were "lower creations" and men were the "higher creation". There are tales of Norse people inheriting traits of gods in a sense they were reborn through them but I am not aware of any pagan religions that believed in "reincarnation" that is defined in eastern religions.
Jesus (Isa a.s) is definitely called the messiah in Islam. The Quran explicitly refers to Isa as the “masih” which is the Arabic for messiah. Now messiah doesn’t mean savior. Analyzing it’s use in the Jewish Bible and old Hebrew it means “anointed one” or “the one who is wiped” because the Kings of the Jews were anointed by God and were wiped in a ceremony. The Messiah, supposed to be the king of the Jews and the anointed one at the end of times is given this title. Savior is really a connotation we have rather than the etymological denotation. Hope this was informative.
I think for trying to break down lots of complex belief systems with lots of of differing beliefs within them in a very short amount of time he did well there's a popular 30ish minute video just trying to break down different types of Christian and still missed/simplified alot so to do so many religions it's acceptable.
Something about Paganism is that the gods are mortal and can die.
For instance, Höðr was killed by Vali.
Also, the gods can die of old age, but are given special apples which slows down the aging process.
All that's ignoring the fact that "pagan" isn't a religion, but a grouping of religions, too.
16:43 Muslims literally call Jessus “Al-Massih” meaning Messiah and that he will comebackby the end of time
You asked in minute 5:40 whether or not "pagan" religions hold a doctrine of reincarnation. I am a follower of Divine Plato, and we believe that there exists the Wheel of Life or Reincarnation, which is Orphic in origin. It means that we can reincarnate in the next life, but should this process be infinite or finite is something I would need to look back at. That aside, we hold the belief that there exists a God, in fact many of them, but instead of "trying to win their favors" like how Redeemed Zoomer says in 6:12, we instead believe with ALL our hearts that the Gods are infinite beings that Love us. The Gods in Orphism, especially with a platonic theological framework, are Gods beyond this universe. But this knowledge isn't known much by people, or they don't take this seriously.
@ 16:30 Nope the Quran does refer Jesus as the Messiah as Christians like one on "GodLogic Apologetics" brought this very issue up to Muslims why was Jesus in the Quran the only one refer to as the Messiah? Sheikh Uthman try to claim there were others who were refer to as Messiah. GP asked for a source and Uthman tried to trick him by quoting a modern Muslim's footnote. Some label him Skeikh footnote Uthman. Sheikh Uthman was trying to claim Jesus was a Muslim.
The basic requirements of Christianity is the deity of Christ, his death on the cross for our sins and his resurrection. If you deny any of these three then by definition you are not a Christian. No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply.
An example of the no true Scotsman fallacy would be like:
Christians goes to church on Sunday. A person is not in church , thus this person is not a true Christian.
It's generally true Christians will attend church but a person who fell out of church doesn't necessary prove they are not a believer. That's completely different from someone who denies the resurrection or the deity of Christ.
Yes? Jesus indeed is considered the Messiah in Islam, everyone knows that and I don't see how that's an "issue". And no, Sheikh Uthman always say that Jesus is the Messiah in his debates, why not watch his debates uncut on his channel or other channels instead of the edited versions in the apologistic channels? I guess Christians love echo chambers. And yes, we believe Jesus was a Muslim.
@@hashira9223 Muslims are the enemy of Jesus Christ as instead of repenting to God and become more like Jesus Christ Muslims rebel against God and try to make Jesus like them.
Jesus Christ clearly claim to be the Son of God its impossible for him to be a Muslim..
@@hashira9223What is the Messaiah in Islam?
The Christ is god trinitarian view is not biblical in origin and certain Christian fundamentalists reject it. Overall a very good roundup.
Right. The concept of the Trinity predates Christianity, and it was added into the dogma years later by the Catholic church.
Lol let me cook you.
Philippians 2:6
John 1:1-8
Isaiah 9:5-6
Revelations 1:22.
There is Biblical evidence.
You cannot destroy 2000 years of Theology bro 😂😂😂
@@munashemanamike4217 Theology is a farce. Santa Claus-ology is just as worthy of your time. Bro.
I feel like everything he said needs an Asterix next to it, because it’s vastly over simplifying and in some cases wrong. But it gives a very brief general idea of things I guess.
The point is to be broad, it’s supposed to be a quick video. If you get into too many details, the video could be hours long
Muslims call Jesus the messiah because they believe he will save Islam from the anti-christ and Jews in the end times and that he saved his people by delivering the “uncorrupted gospels”
17:40
Jews believe that he was a Rabbi and that he was Jewish, but not a prophet or messiah. A lot of early Christian texts and teachings before the codification of “Christianity” the religion are in line with Jewish thought at the time and overlapped with multiple different Jewish sects (in terms of apocalypticism like the Essenes but a lot of the doctrines of the Pharisees while rejecting others, etc).
Islam believes that Jesus was a rabbi, a prophet, and a special classification of prophet called a rasool. He also is considered a messiah. I do not know what the concept of a messiah means in Islam, but it might be similar to Judaism. Judaism used the term messiah for anyone that brings redemption, so there’s at least one messiah (redeemer) per “historical age”. The most famous was King Cyrus of Persia who redeemed the Jews from Babylonian exile. “The Messiah” refers to the final redemption with a final redeemer in Judaism. So I know the Quran calls Jesus a messiah, but I would assume it is closer to the Jewish interpretation, though I don’t know.
Oh yea I watched this one to help explain paths for myself and the faith I grew up with
20:38 fun fact a friend of my father was on a plane with his other friends during Ramadan and when the sunset everybody start eating on the Airplane except for him because he could easily see the sun through the plane window so technically the Sun didn’t set he refused to eat so much that one of the flight attendants told him you can eat it no problem. The Sun has set from where we takeoff and he said no I’m not gonna eat because I still see the Sun very clearly and he didn’t eat for the entire flight😂😂😂😂😂
You said that a lot of the bible isn't about jesus, and idk if you are a christian or not, but as a christian, i can say that the entite bible is about jesus and pointing to jesus
Well most of the Old Testament is about God’s people and their journey to the promised land. Many of the prophecies are pointing to Jesus, but the narrative is about the Israelites until the New Testament
@sephsolves9150 are you conflating the New Testament as if it is the entire Bible?
Okay, so the funny thing about Judaism is that it's by definition monotheistic... but because it's an ethnoreligion and a culture, you get a lot of variation within it. From atheists who follow it as an orthopraxy through pantheists who believe that God is in everything. We kinda don't care as much?
Greek Pagans did believe in reincarnation, so not perfectly accurate there, paganism itself is more like new age, practices loosely associated with religious practices but not organized. Actually a historical person would probably have classified a new age practitioner as pagan.
@MrTerry : what do you believe in? Just curious, I'm a Norse Druid
I believe in pizza on Friday nights. Thank you for being a channel member!
@@MrTerry hey even a norse druid loves a good pizza. So, don't blame ya
@MrTerry also, I've pretty binged your entire channel and every video was amazing and even taught/corrected thing I thought I knew/ knew
@@MrTerry That's a religion I'd be happy to join 😅
Druid is a Celtic term, not Norse.
About Christianity i think he got it right about all branches, because all christians who do not believe in those things are either extinct (arians) or very few in numbers (unitarians) or modernists (which they themselves recognize that they don’t hold to “traditional Christian beliefs”). Plus, if anything, ignorance on the nuances of christian doctrine is not the thing redeemed zoomer can be accused of as he constantly interacts with christians from all denominations and is ecumenical.
One thing I noticed was not only was Christianity's symbol colored different from the rest, but it also used the so-called "fast food colors", mainly red and yellow (ketchup & mustard!) which not just grabs attention, but sparks a certain urge or "hunger" if you will.
Makes sense, the little guy is a manipulator in training
I use the term 'agnostic' to describe my opinion on God, Allah to Zeus, take your pick. There is no evidence for or against and I lack the faith to decide one way or another.
My biggest problem with religion is the one I have with all human philosophical creations. Too often it is not used as a guideline to be a better person but rather an excuse to be a dick to other human beings.
Most religions are founded on the principles of "be nice to each other" but then there's always those dickheads that go "Yeah, but these guys don't want to be nice for the sane reason as me so they're bad"
@@dominiklehn2866 Humans are always looking for excuses to be bad.
There is definitely evidence for God. There are philosophers who argue for his existence using evidence that we have today. The question is if the evidence stands up to scrutiny.
As for your second point, this is like saying "Too often, cars are not used as transportation but rather an excuse to run over people."
You aren't gonna hear on the news about a man who helped an old lady carry her groceries because of his religion, but you are gonna hear about the one corrupt [pastor who kept church funds for himself. My church helped a nearby city with repairs after Hurricane Sandy struck, for nothing in return. They didn't get any attention and they didn't ask for any attention. But if you're actually interested in what science says on how religion affects people, I recommend you read (at least the summaries):
"If you love me, keep my commandments": A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime.
The Religious Orientation Scale: Review and Meta-Analysis of Social Desirability Effects
A meta-analytic review of religious or spiritual involvement and social health among cancer patients
16:22 yes, i have heard imams say that Isa was the jewish messiah
There was a UA-cam video that talked about where Yahweh came from with the guy saying there was evidence he was originally a storm god
I've read Yahweh was the storm and war god. His wife was Ashereth. El was the chief god, like Zeus, and became the incomprehensible creative force aspect of god. Then there was Adonai, and I forget what he was. Then there was the crabby grandpa god who looked after creation of humans.
@@LJ-pi6npSource?
In Hinduism we consider Buddha to be the 9th avatara of Lord Vishnu. As for reincarnation I will advise you to read the story of Shanti Devi.
I've noticed that it's either Buddha, or Mahaveera as the ninth avatar (I'm a Jain, Mahaveera is our guru). It might be a matter of locality, since Hindu practices change drastically even from city to city. Hinduism is less a single religion, and more like a lot of religions in a trenchcoat.
Isn’t Jesus also considered an avatar in certain sects of Hinduism?
@@mariosportsmaster7662 i don't think so.
@@mariosportsmaster7662 Some do believe that
Brother.....Jesus is not related to us pls.....if some people saying good thing about Jesus it doesn't mean we believe in teachings as abrahmic ideology contradicts with core dharmik ideologye@@mariosportsmaster7662
I’m a Hellenic Pagan, and I can confirm that we believe in reincarnation, (to an extent)
Saying you can be Christian and not believe in the Trinity is like saying you can be atheist and believe in God
I am a Pagan. Many Pagan paths do accept reincarnation.
Also, the deities are not always seen in so anthropomorphic a manner. Mythic literalism is a very minor position in both ancient and modern forms of Paganism.
You misspoke 11:27 there is no caste system in Islam. Muslims didn’t invent the caste system it was a Indian cultural thing that existed before the Mughals came
I think if you want to understand all these religions you need to know in which historical context they were created. Most of them are are trying to be a spiritual guide to help people live a fulfilling life to have a functioning society. That can mean totally different things in ancient Egypt or China. If you go only by their scripture you're just learning their dogmas and can't really grasp how they came to be.
Some Hindus regard Buddha as a god. Vishnu centric Hindus consider Buddha one of the avatars of Vishnu, so he is part of the pantheon. But that doesn't mean they're Buddhist, it means they're Hindus who syncretized Buddha into their thing.
Also, the conflict between poly and mono is in the Bible, the scriptures are a hodgepodge. The Ten Commandments starts with God saying other gods exist but they are not superior to him. Moses, having a Midianite wife, builds a Nehushtan to save people from poisonous serpents. Asharah, El's wife, still existed in Israel but they were cut down later. This was mostly a political maneuver by I believe Hezekiah the reformer who "found" early documents of the law. It's most likely he had scholars just make things up.
It is about Jesus...
It is the seed promised to Adam and Eve.
Trinity... is Unity in how the work together.
is this channel run by the same guy as TeirZoo? voices are the exact same
Nah, Tier Zoo actually respects women
@@Irreverent_Radiationoh please
About Hinduism:
According to Bhagavad-Gita, there is one God, but the "Gods and Goddess" that are mentioned are different functional aspects of the almighty. It is mentioned to pray to Lord Krishna, the God Himself, who will grant every prayers accordingly. Choose His subordinates, i.e; other Gods and Goddesses, and pray to grant your wish, unless The God grant your wish, it will be not granted.
16:20 The term us muslims use is prophet not a messiah. I can understand the mix-up.
We do call him messiah, (al-masih in arabic)
To say calling Jesus the messiah in Islam is not accurate is silly. His name in Islamic sources is Isa Al-Masīḥ, meaning Jesus the Messiah
Islam does teach that Jesus is the messiah, meaning promised king of the jews, destroyer of God's enemies, future ruler of earth and fixer of the world, they don't mean it the same way jews and Christians do, who don't mean it the same as eachother either.
Unlike jews and Christians they don't make any connection or see any relevance of the messiah being the descendent of King David. They put no weight also into the prophecies of the tanakh/old testament into what the messiah must do to prove he is the messiah. He is also not the most important person that God has sent, that would be Muhammad.
Also, unlike jews they do not believe that the messiah will make the world follow the torah or rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
And unlike Christians they dont believe the messiah/jesus will reign over earth forever, he will reign 40 years and then die. He will also not make Christianity the religion of the world, he will make Islam and Islamic law the law of the world.
Also unlike Jews and Christians there are actually 2 messiahs. Only Jesus is a messiah and a prophet. The other is the Mahdi. A messiah but not a prophet. He will fight alongside Jesus to destroy the enemies of God, help kill the antichrist/ Al-Masih ad-Dajjal and help bring the kingdom of God on earth
And unlike Christians they deny that the title messiah means that jesus is the son of God, creator of the world, God incarnate, or sacrificial lamb.
So, yes, they believe he is the messiah, but the meaning is slightly different to how jews and Christians conceive of it.
I think that this video provided a good overview, with the huge asterisk that it's extremely oversimplified and there's a lot of exceptions all over the place to all of the general statements made. For example, I'm a non-Nicene Christian, so I'd argue with a lot of what he said about the nature of God and Jesus. However, it would be extremely difficult to make any generalizations about any of these major religious groups without noting that there are exceptions, and there's no way to cram it into 10 minutes.
I love the new age religion because it's way more transparent than any of them will admit.
*religions
All religions explained in one sentence: Humans didn't understand how the world worked, so they used their imaginations to create gods to explain it.
Islam, and in particular does refer to Jesus (called Isa in the Qur'an) as "Al-Masih" which means "the Messiah". It doesn't mean savior or superman,. It simply means an anointed one. historically, it meant the King. In Judaism and Christianity, it came to mean a type of savior. In Islam, they basically jettisoned that concept to "the messiah", while keeping the title.
Yoooooooooooooooooooo....... Ive been watching this dude for a while now, nice to see you review one of his videos.
Spiritual and religion are totally different from each other
There is a great passage written that does help explain Jesus’ relation to god that I do somewhat agree with and may help called the Athanasian Creed: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.
Well, if any of those Pagans decide to go for "pre-roman Belgae tribe" and don't have reincarnation they're missing a big point of it.
Even if I don't think they'll really further that the gallo-roman religion
Jews believe Jesus is burning in hell for claiming to be God and blaspheming but Muslims believe he is the Messiah. The arabic name for Jesus which is Isa Al Masih means “Jesus the Messiah” Islam and Judaism have a very different view on Jesus. Christian’s believe Jesus died and was resurrected and is the suffering servant described in Isaiah 53 and 63.
Biblical antiquity points to Muhammad, being the false prophet spoken of, when Moses went to speak to God at the burning bush, before he left he told his followers "don't worship any false gods while I'm gone". In comes Muhammad, claiming he agrees with you guys this and that but with the stipulations of so/so right. And then in the Quran the word points to Muhammad not even being the Messiah, it strictly references Jesus being the one chosen by Allah, not Muhammad. But part of the misconception also comes from the high officials not properly delivering the words and twisting it to further indoctrinate the middle least on a lie based on truth.
Again, this is just me spreading awareness of antiquity,
This is not 10 minutes
"and and uh and" -Mr Terry History 2024😊
Jesus (Eesaa) is indeed called the Messiah (Maseeh in arabic) in Islam. The belief is that he did not die and will return one day to fight the Antichrist (Dajal).
Narration would suggest that each prophet had an epithet. Abraham was the Friend of Allah, Moses was the Speaker of Allah, and Jesus was indeed the Messiah of Allah.
Yes, Muslims refer to Jesus as the Messiah and believe in a second coming - a much different second coming than what many Christians believe in. The term just has different connotations to it in comparison to Jesus in Christianity.
Edit: By connotations I mean their version of Christ as Messiah didn't save souls like the Christian view.
I am a Kemetic Pagan, and we believe in a form of reincarnation
For a min I thought Terry was saying he was a zoomer in the title lol. If he was a zoomer, he would be yhe oldest zoomer ever lol.
As A Muslim We Believe That Jesus AS Is The Messiah
As a Hindu myself, I’d consider “Hinduism” a pagan religion.
As a Muslim, yes Jesus is the Messiah, it is mentioned in the Quran multiple times and his reappearance will not be on the day of judgment, but his appearance will be one of the first major signs of the day of judgment.
There is a set orthodoxy of scripture, so it seem like He was staying in the generally accepted doctrine