ChatGPT does remember the things you've asked within the same conversation, and draws from that as if the two of you are conversing. This resets when you start a completely new conversation.
I love your videos. They are so informative. I studied denominations about 17 years ago and it takes tons of work to come to the conclusions you deliver in a very short video. Thanks so much for your hard work. Grace and Peace
But Joshua has 200 years missing from the religion of Jesus and Paul, which is rooted in the law of Abraham and the Israelites, and they only added that forgiveness was now available as the law is written in the heart and the past can be forgiven. The simple change that Jesus told to Nicodemus is all that happened, and there was no more sacrifice for sin, so they must sin no more. The religion that we find in Romans and parallel in John are to produce Born Again Jews, not in the law of Moses but the law of Abraham, where Jesus is now Lord and Judge. I say the whole premise of 'Christianity' is wrong, even as an Anglican by baptism, I find a complete disconnect to the NT. Did you?
Remember that ChatGPT is in it's infancy and the results so far are impressive. This project will certainly rock the boat in many professions. It will be interesting to watch.
ChatGPT uses often the same sort of sentence at the end because it is hard-coded to be politically correct, and likely interpreted the question as loaded (uncorrectly, as it was simply factual). This activated a switch telling the AI to reinsure us that it’s only talking of a ‘small minority’.
Difficult to do, because most people are unable to divorce themselves from their biases long enough to take a factual look at the religion. There is a pastor on UA-cam who is attempting to do so, from a Christian perspective; he's actually very kind.
Very interesting overall. Members of the Salvation Army used regularly attend Eucharist services at the Anglican Church in suburban Sydney of which I am a parishioner. Not every week, but maybe 3 or 4 times a year. They did so to take communion, they having no-one to conduct such a service, and were always welcome - joined us for morning tea afterwards and so forth. Our rector retired and after a while the Sallies gradually stopped attending. A pity
Nice catch about the EO around the 18th and 19th minutes. There are Greek Church Fathers who talked about a certain kind of ladder through which a Christian goes through, where the 1st stage is characterized by the virtue of wisdom, where the Christian is accepting the faith, the 2nd stage is characterized by bravery, because the Christians is focused on fighting against sin, the 3rd stage by the virtue of righteousness, because the Christian has stopped committing sin, and the 4th one is the stage of the virtue of purity, because the Christian has even conquered sinful mental habits and is not troubled by sinful thoughts. And they held that many ascetics (definitely those who are consider saints) have achieved the 3rd level, and some of them the 4th level. They also talked about how all saved people will be in the 4th stage, if they didn't achieve it in this life, they will reach it in the afterlife by God's purification before entering Heaven.
ChatGPT itself says it's important to verify the information it generates before using it. So if we don't know the answer we should not ask ChatGPT, it seems. If an expert has to verify it, one might as well ask the expert. In the meanwhile, we are going to be dealing with volumes of text generated by GPT wondering how much of it is accurate. We are going to need an expert certification process on all the content it generates.
All unrighteousness is sin, and is probably best explained in James, and easily achievable. I find that grace is misunderstood as it is only defined in 'Christianity' as unmerited, yet merited in the OT. 'Greasy grace' as its unmerited definition allows false teaching, so I made a Ytube video 'Myths in so-called Christianity', and #1 shows that Paul defines Grace as merited in Romans 11:6. And he also defines sin in Romans 13:8-10, which is the 10 Commandments written on your heart.
Would like to see you correct the bot when it’s wrong, or request more answers when you think there’s more possible answers. Also, it is worth trying to trick it (for instance, ask about Christian denominations but use islamic theological terminology).
Good idea! I think the Churches that speak Arabic do use some of the same religious terminology as Islam; but that’s only if they’re both using Arabic.
@@Ben..... “Can you speak to the concept of the Oneness of God in Christianity?” “Can you explain the five pillars of Christianity?” “In Christianity, who is Isa?” “What is the Christian call to prayer?” “What are some Hadiths in Christianity?” “To Catholics, what is Ghaflah?” “Why are Protestants opposed to the Kafir?” “Can you explain why Baptists believe in political quietism?” And so on. If you can convince the bot that a group actually believes these things, it will answer accordingly. If you make the question or statement confident, it will not even question what you’re saying or asking. You can also rephrase the question or open a new chat if the bot refuses to answer. ChatGPT answered the last question as follows: “Political quietism is a theological and political philosophy held by some Baptists which believes that the church should remain separate from political and secular affairs, and focus solely on spiritual matters. It asserts that the role of the Christian is to live a holy life and to be a witness to the truth, rather than to directly participate in political activities. The philosophy is based on the belief that the Kingdom of God is not of this world and that Christians should not be overly concerned with earthly politics and power struggles.” This is just totally made up! I liked its response to the five pillars question: “The five pillars of Christianity are generally considered to be the core beliefs and practices of the faith. These five pillars are: 1.) Profession of faith (Creed): Believing in and confessing the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, as stated in the Nicene Creed. 2.) Prayer: Regular communication with God through personal and communal prayer. 3.) Worship: Gathering together for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. 4.) Charity and good works: Practicing acts of love, kindness, and charity towards others, and working for the betterment of the world. 5.) Fasting and self-discipline: Engaging in fasting and other forms of self-discipline as a means of spiritual growth and greater closeness to God.” Creative, but totally made up!
8:30. If you disagree with a list, you can always ask a followup question, e.g. "How about Swedenborgians?" and it will give you a detailed answer, picking up the previous topic of disagreement to the Nicene Creed.
That's true of women in any church. If a woman feels convicted by the Holy Spirit to do it, regardless of whether it's commanded by that church, she should hold to her convictions, and should be free to do so. In particular, I would say most women would feel convicted out of respect to wear a head covering when visiting a church in part of the world where it's customary. Many Christian women also feel women should do so in public in Islamic cultures where it's customary. However, much like the woman convicted to wear one, if a woman felt convicted not to wear one, then that may be necessary to do God's will. As far as I know there aren't any churches that don't allow women to cover their heads.
Ah I commented this as well. I also commented on Catholic women doing it quite often too and I saw a comment later on that said the same thing. Looks like the Ready to Harvest commenters have beaten me to the punch xD
The Brazilian Pentecostal church Congregação Cristã no Brasil practices head covering for women, but only during service or prayer. It's present in the USA as Christian Congregation in the US
Been through one, the group that left scoffed at the suggestion that prayer would make a difference ( the problem was not doctrine or a sinful situation among leadership or members) . After they left the church grew , hundreds of people have since been saved , in hind sight we had a "back door revival"
Some very traditional Lutherans believe in the Sinlessness of Saint Mary. That is, she, who having chosen not to sin, was blameless before God (At least this is my understanding of it). Also, while it is not as common in the US, in certain countries such as Korea, women in the Catholic Church almost always wear some kind of lace head covering. Again, very traditional Lutherans may sometimes do it as well.
Catholic women sometimes use headcoverings during mass. Is out of fashion and optional but is still a custom so that might had been a good addition too.
The Oneness denominations, generally Pentecostal, certainly diverge sharply from the Nicene Creed. Which denominations, while nominally holding to the "ordinances" of baptism and communion (with shot glasses of Welch's grape juice), essentially make these optional and may only serve/celebrate the Lord Supper four times per year? You give short shrift to the splitting potential of Baptists. Given that each Baptist congregation is autonomous, each congregation is also a potential denomination unto itself!
And i think they're the only type of non-nicean that can be considered Christian, since unlike the Mormons and JW, they hold to the true monotheistuc divinity of Christ, but instead by modalism instead of trinity. JW and LDS instead increase the number of divine entities above 1 and say Jesus =/=YHWH.
@ravissary79 Further, while the the Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ, they diminish this by believing in the achievement of such divinity by mortals. The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the deity of Christ entirely. Most of us that are Oneness Pentecostal, though not necessarily all, reject the Nicene Creed, but we do not deny the divinity or humanity of Christ and deny that we can become divinities ourselves.
Out of the two JW would definitely disagree more since they don’t believe any form of triune nature of god. I would love to learn more about one that disagree less than JW’s
I noted it did not mention Catholic on the issue of head covering. There are movements within the Catholic Church which encourages covering. However, it is more encouraged than required. I myself have seen those who do. However it is not prominent enough to say that it is all the rage.
I would like to see you pursue a line of questioning with ChatGPT deeper. For example, where you spotted Pentecostal as a denomination that didn’t belong, ask it which specific Pentecostal denominations ascribe to that belief. Often it keeps the answers very general. I think it would be great to dig into the specifics of the answers, especially when you think they were lacking
Okay, so I'm going to keep adding comments: traditionalist, Latin Mass only Roman Catholics, whether in communion with Rome or not (such as the SSPX for example) also practice head coverings for women.
the SSPX are IN FULL COMMUNION with Rome, don't believe the lies. being in an 'irregular canonical position' is NOT the same as being out of Communion as the Vatican has stated time and again.
The A.I. answers were amazingly coherent and RELEVANT. Which means it perfectly understood the questions even though the answers it retrieved from its database were error prone (looks like wikipedia). Maybe next time ask your questions in a roundabout way, or nuanced, or double-entendre, to up the "difficulty level" 😁
The RCC did practice head covering until the 60s, Vatican 2 had an influence although there was not a Vatican teaching on women covering their head in church....it just went away.
18:00 As a Catholic I have heard priests teach about "Confirmation in Grace", a special grace that some saints (such as the Apostles) recieved at some point in their life where they will never sin again.
I don't think it works that way. I may be wrong but confirmation in grace only means you will get God's help in staying in state of sanctifying grace until you die. Firstly it does not mean somebody will not sin, it only means he/she will not commit a mortal sin. And it also does not mean somebody gets a plot armour against sin, I think that person is still capable of mortal sin, but because of what person he/she is with some God's help there is a way to stay in sanctifying grace until the death. I am not a theologian, but if I understand it correctly commitment in grace is like an alcoholic staying sober to the end of his life, but he still is an alcoholic (and the God's help is like protecting somebody from tripping over and falling into barrel of wine :D). As far I am aware the only person to receive grace of being sinless is Mary.
@@Hadar1991 in terms of sinless saints there are three that can be added to the list with varying levels of certainty on my part. Firstly John the Baptist who was filled with the Spirit of God from his mother's womb (not immaculately conceived), St. Joseph, and Job which is explicitly called perfect in the scripture. As for why I am saying John and Joseph? I have simply heard this taught very often but I don't know exactly where the claim comes from. Now as for what confirmation in grace is, it of course doesn't happen at the beginning of life, but it happens at some point for some people. A personal who is entirety freed from sin, though yes technically he might be capable of choosing sin, has no desire to sin anymore and will never voluntarily displease God, and because God does not allow anyone to be forced into sin, they will simply never again displease God because He has already perfected them. There are some people who, after confessing their last sin, go on to never sin again even though they still desire it, but this is not because God's work in them has finished. But God can make a man perfect even in this life so that he never even desires or consideration sin again.
I agree with this, living in the LA area in the early 2000s and the whole "Cool Christian" vibe was strong and so many of these guys were from various non-dom churches and never explained how they were different or similar
Thanks for the video friend. I do have a question: In this video your first question was about denominations most closely follow Catholicism. How about denominations least to follow Catholicism? 🤔
If you want a completely new answer without the AI being influenced from previous questions, you have to start a new chat (button on the top left.) Otherwise it can get a little stuck
I asked ChatGPT about my own group of Christians, the Plymouth Brethren. What are the distinctives of the Plymouth Brethren? The response was short but mostly accurate as far as it went: "The Plymouth Brethren is a conservative, Evangelical Christian movement that emphasizes a strict adherence to the Bible, personal holiness, and the gathering of believers in simple, unstructured meetings. It is characterized by a focus on the priesthood of all believers, rejection of denominationalism, and an emphasis on the need for individual conversion. The Plymouth Brethren movement was founded in the early 19th century in Plymouth, England and has since spread to many other countries." I noted that it highlighted that we avoid "denominationalism" in its response. This is an interesting yet critical distinctive. On the last question in the video, we do practice head coverings for sisters and definitively uncovered heads for brothers while praying or preaching.
To me Plymouth Brethren was the closes to the Biblical church, as in Revelation Ch3:7, the church in Philadelphia, "the church of brotherly love", but because they split into Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren, which destroy the testimony of the ground of the church. But fortunately, the ground of the church was restored by Watchman Nee, the successor to the vision of Plymouth Brethren
As a Catholic, entire sanctification is possible but is only known to have happened once, when God applied the merits of Christ’s atonement retroactively to the Blessed Virgin Mary in order to preserve her from the stain of original sin. So while it is possible, it is an extraordinary (ie non-ordinary) means by which God’s grace is applied-the ordinary means of the sacraments do not remove concupiscence (the tendency towards sin) and thus we expect to struggle with sin our entire lives and while we can live victorious over sin, we wont have complete victory until the next life.
Hi Josh, very interesting video as ever. One question which I was itching for you to ask ChatGPT but didn't (!)(and I know I've brought this subject area up before): in the light of The Pentarchy is there a difference between The Western Patriarchate (ie pre-Western Reformation Church of Western Europe) and the modern (ie post Council of Trent) Roman Catholic Church? It always seems wrong to me to identify these two with each other. I know that one came out of the other (as did many if not all Protestant Denominations) but the Roman Catholic Church is in many ways, or so it seems to this bear of little brain, very different from The Western Patriarchate it came out of.
I'm curious, how come you're using Trent as the demarcation line?...it's the same Church. The outward liturgical expressions may have evolved over the past 2000 years, along with a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith, but the seat of Peter has remained consistent throughout.
@A Desert Sojourner it is very simple: up until the Western Reformation there was one Church in Western Europe which was the fifth Patriarchate of the Pentarchy, the other four being the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch, set up by Justinian as a college of senior patriarchates to oversee the evangelisation of the world and act as a buffer against the increasing monarchial views of the Western Patriarchate. During the Western Reformation, the Patriarchate of the West fell apart. The first local church to emerge was The Church of England in 1536 when it became autocephalous. Those churches which remained loyal to the Patriarch of the West met at The Council of Trent and made changes to the practice of the by now former Patriarchate of the West and emerged as The Roman Catholic Church, just one amongst several reformed denominations. The Western Patriarch had been drifting away from the other Patriarchates since ad 807 anyway, all the Western Reformation did was to finalise the implosion of the Western Latin Church.
@@Paul020253 *up until the Western Reformation there was one Church in Western Europe which was the fifth Patriarchate of the Pentarchy, the other four being the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch, set up by Justinian as a college of senior patriarchates to oversee the evangelisation of the world and act as a buffer against the increasing monarchial views of the Western Patriarchate.* Emperor Justinian may have codified the Pentarchy in the 6th century but what APOSTOLIC authority did he actually possess to enact this setup as binding over the universal Church? And, considering the legitimate Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch refused to accept Chalcedon (451), how could the Pentarchy function when 2/5's of it was in schism before Justinian was even born? Besides this, within a century of Justinian-Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem would fall to Islamic conquest, eventually followed by Constantinople, thereby rendering the Pentarchy impotent. Only Rome would be spared, almost as if by Divine Providence. *During the Western Reformation, the Patriarchate of the West fell apart. The first local church to emerge was The Church of England in 1536 when it became autocephalous. Those churches which remained loyal to the Patriarch of the West met at The Council of Trent and made changes to the practice of the by now former Patriarchate of the West and emerged as The Roman Catholic Church, just one amongst several reformed denominations.* Brother, that's an interesting, if somewhat inaccurate, version of events! The Western Church never fell apart. In the early 16th century various Protestant sects began to splinter off from the one and same Catholic Church. Perhaps you could be more specific about what changes Trent made to the "practice" of the pre-Reformation Church. Remember, until 2006, one of the pope's official titles was still Patriarch of the West.
first of all: the Catholic Church is not a reformed church, it is not a protestant church or anything like that, simply because it maintains the Succession of the Apostles. Therefore, it makes no sense to think that by a council all this was lost, the sacrament of ordination remained the same. And the Anglican church is not "autocephalous" or anything like that, it started out as a schismatic church and then completely broke up (mainly on the death of Henry VIII, who still kept a bit of tradition)
The difficulty in answering, "Once saved always saved," is how do we measure or determine salvation from an observational position. Those that assert salvation can't be lost, argue if it appears one has lost salvation, then that person was never actually saved. But how can we know or prove that the person was never saved....it seems a conclusion with evidentiary support. Hebrews seems to indicate that the saved can lose salvation. My position on this is that I should heed the warning in Hebrews.
I would like to mention as well for the conversation about head coverings that while in Catholicism it’s not necessary now, before the ecumenical council of Vatican 2 it was mandatory and typically in the liturgical celebration of the mass in the Tridentine order, otherwise known as the Latin mass, women do frequently veil and cover their heads.
Quite right about the potential for dialogue between the Orthodox and holiness traditions on entire sanctification. Orthodox theology admits the possibility of "noetic vision" available to the "pure in heart," but it isn't a permanent state of sinlessness or inability to sin. As God is infinite, so is our movement toward Him. Even the holy bodiless powers in heaven aren't spiritually static. They are constantly encircling the throne of God. Our final salvation, to borrow a term from St Maximus the Confessor, is an ever-moving repose.
This was a fascinating exercise. One important clarification regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Nicene Creed: while it is correct to assert that Latter-day Saints don't formally affirm the Nicene Creed (or any of the "creeds" for that matter), our beliefs do align with the creed, at least in its original formulation (but perhaps not with every interpretation of it). However, Latter-day Saints are generally wary of doctrinal pronouncements made by councils or committees, as well as the word creed specifically, probably due to our history and theology. Unfortunately, many Latter-day Saints are also unfamiliar with the Nicene Creed or confuse it with the Athanasian Creed, so if you ask a rank and file member if they believe it they'll likely deny it, despite not knowing what it says or which one you refer to. Furthermore, despite the antipathy toward the Athanasian Creed, one could still argue that it isn't entirely incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine, although most Latter-day Saints would be aghast at such a suggestion.
Nicene Creed starts with "We believe in one God" and Mormonism fails here already. I am not sure about all Mormon denomination, but the original teaching of Smith were that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same being (at least not in substance), which makes Mormonism de facto a polytheistic religion, or being more specific a tritheistic religion.
On the issue of head coverings, many of the Oneness Pentecostal churches that use them tend from certain Latin American, Philippino, or similar cultures. Generally the teaching on head covers had been that a woman's uncut hair was her covering, and thus no woman should cut her hair. Many Oneness churches and organizations have discarded this teaching and allow women to cut or trim their hair. I look for the UPCI to leave this standard in the next 15-20 years.
You have amazing quality content. Brought up Lutheran (WELS synod). Haven't been to church except Christmas with family for like 20 years. Did some youth groups sith friends at a Baptist Church in high school. The many denominations of Christianity has always fascinated me. Also confused me. I'm a believer but I question which is the "correct" one or most "true" one. Something I've always struggled with. Your videos are super insightful on the differences between the countless options out there. I was brought up in one but is that the best one? Tough questions. Lol. Religion is like that. In a world of sin and many false prophets and teachings the way to the one which feels best and true with free thinking and critical thinking I find a challenge. Keep up the good work. As a personal question to Ready to Harvest being an expert in theological issues does being do challenge what you may have been brought up in of currently believe? How have you sorted through the endless research snd landed on what you feel is the correct path? Loaded question I know....
You should read The Catalysm of the Kingdom of Heaven. Written to establish a Christian creed and an essential gospel. Quite a different, yet Orthodox work.
I grew up in the Holiness church, and most of them believe sanctification isn't about being sin free, but having the sin nature taken out. Many of them believe you have to be sin free in order to a considered saved, and that you lose your salvation when you willingly sin. It's a common misrepresentation.
It should be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses when a woman is functioning in a job that that is usually required of an elder she should wear a head covering while doing that
I was asking ChatGPT to list out any Calvinist Theologians or traditions that have a history of pacifism or anti-war teachings...Every answer it gave me was firmly not Calvinist.
the roman catholic faith has head covering. but took it out in the 60's. roman catholics that are italian,greek,spanish wear the catholic viels,which is called the mitilla. the women wear this head covering to humble before God at mass. but it is not requried. i am roman catholic and i also do a lot of studying the differences of relgion. but very interesting what a ai has to say about issues and topics.
@5:08 The catholic church is the original?!?! Where in heavens did it get that?!?! Actually history will tell you that and that's where chatgpt is getting that from. God bless His holy catholic and apostolic church
If you want to get new, unguided answers, it may help to clear your cache (but then your cookies/passwords/forms may be cleared, too). I think using a vpn may produce fresh answers, too. But that one is just a guess.
Churches of Christ reject all creeds (generic), in favor of very strict "sola scriptura," however the basic tenants of much or most of the Nicene Creed would find acceptance in most COC circles. I can't imagine however, most Evangelicals not having problems with the phrase "baptism for forgiveness of sins," for which, churches of Christ would endorse. Of course most Evangelicals would attempt to "spiritualize" baptism in the Nicene Creed, but the original intent in the 4th century was water baptism.
2:14 In fact, it got "recognition of the Pope as the head of the Church" partly wrong, not a similarity with Eastern Orthodox. However, Assyrians and Copts and Armenians all have a kind of parallel papacies a kind of "episcopus episcoporum" ...
10:15 ChatGPT does not reuse the last paragraph because it came up in your previous conversation. Instead, it will probably always answer in a similar way in situations in which beliefs are held by a minority of people.
Does the United Methodist Church teach entire sanctification? I could be wrong, but I do not think that it does at this point. I understood the sentence about the baptism with the Holy Spirit to equate it with entire sanctification although I can see where it could be seen as ambiguous. The EO do not think that Theosis is ever complete in this life (indeed, not before the general resurrection) and I have never heard a mention of anyone, even the most ascetic or saintly monk, as being sinless in this life. I was raised largely holiness and am now an ISM OO priest that actually nearly became EO. Also regarding the Assyrian Church of the East: it is, I think, more "nestorian" in theory than in practice. Finally, I have to say that the name of your channel, "ready to harvest," while the channel is dedicated to giving objective information about various denominations and Christian traditions, kind of sends a double message. The name implies that you are evangelizing, which you clearly are not, but encouraging dialogue about the beliefs and practices of the various Christian denominations and traditions.
One (group of) denominations not explicitly mentioned are the varieties of (so called by some) "Plymouth" Brethren. I don't know where they are placed in the "Evangelical firmament" these days or if they have just melted into the loosely Evangelical penumbra 🤔
I can see that oral exams need to become more common to be sure student actual understand the subject matter. I am very impressed with your scholarship. Getting away from the details, isn't it apparent that the denominations keep multiplying and isn't that exact what Jesus did not want? I wonder what denomination you belong to?
I maintain that the most misnamed denomination of any religion has to be the United Methodist Church. Methodist, they presumably are - and Church they certainly are - but United? As the great religious thinker Meatloaf famously observed, "Now don't be sad 'cause two out of three ain't bad."
I could be wrong but I thought I’ve heard a UMC theologian talk about Entire Sanctification as not committing intentional sin. I guess the idea was you might still unwittingly sin while being in a state off E/S. Anyone else heard of that?
It's a very bad idea asking a computer about Christianity, it's like asking a colourblind person about painting. The whole point of Christianity is to stop us from turning into computers.
I find the answers quite short and remind me of high school essays. I guess resetting the chat after each question and adding a lot of qualifications to the questions is needed. Maybe you'd have to enter a few pages to get the AI to spit out a long well-formed answer.
"Entire sanctification" sounds a lot like the idea of the "immaculate conception" - Mary as free from sin by God's grace from the moment of her conception.
I would consider Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Scientology and 7th Day Adventists that follow White, and Mormons not Christians and certainly not Protestants--but cults only. One must accept Christ's divinity as 100% Man/God incarnate who gave up his life, was resurrected and ascended to the Father, and will Return to be called 'Christian.' In my mind, this is a 100% must believe and Scripture/Jesus is VERY clear in more than one place to back this statement up. Orthodox Jews have been blinded by their Creator to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles and to usher in the anti-Christ and Christ's return. To this end, Creeds albeit expressions of beliefs really don't matter. It's Christ's words that make ALL the difference for we have Salvation through faith and following Him.
@@jamesparson ChatGPT does not understand that the divinity of Christ matters. If you reject Christ as God's divine Son, you reject the Father that sent Him. This is the one thing that separates Christians from unbelievers. Unbelief is the unforgivable sin.
@@jamesparson It's not a threat. It's truth which comes from Jesus himself. Jesus loves Mankind and gave himself that we might live and reign with him on a renewed earth/heaven in the new City of Jerusalem. He gives us a choice, whereas before we had none. Without Jesus we would be in continual bondage to sin and death. Death is the consequence of sin. Accepting Jesus and following Him gives us life eternal.
I'm confused. You declare Mormons to not be Christians and then the only requirement you give to be Christian is one that the Mormons stand behind 100%. 🤔 So I asked you to clarify: Is believing in Christ, as stated in your comment, Christian or not?
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
There is a saying in the South when teenagers pull pranks and want to run away before getting caught: "Let's make like a Baptist church and split."
happens in the Philippine Baptist churches too
I think I've heard that phrase before growing up.
ChatGPT does remember the things you've asked within the same conversation, and draws from that as if the two of you are conversing. This resets when you start a completely new conversation.
Can confirm on the reset. I inadvertently started a new conversation and it definitely reset.
Yeah it kind of gets into a rut the longer it goes unless you actively shake it out of it with your prompts
Definitely not too long. These posts are among the most thoughtful and interesting on the platform. Thanks as always.
I love your videos. They are so informative. I studied denominations about 17 years ago and it takes tons of work to come to the conclusions you deliver in a very short video. Thanks so much for your hard work. Grace and Peace
But Joshua has 200 years missing from the religion of Jesus and Paul, which is rooted in the law of Abraham and the Israelites, and they only added that forgiveness was now available as the law is written in the heart and the past can be forgiven.
The simple change that Jesus told to Nicodemus is all that happened, and there was no more sacrifice for sin, so they must sin no more.
The religion that we find in Romans and parallel in John are to produce Born Again Jews, not in the law of Moses but the law of Abraham, where Jesus is now Lord and Judge.
I say the whole premise of 'Christianity' is wrong, even as an Anglican by baptism, I find a complete disconnect to the NT.
Did you?
Remember that ChatGPT is in it's infancy and the results so far are impressive. This project will certainly rock the boat in many professions. It will be interesting to watch.
ChatGPT uses often the same sort of sentence at the end because it is hard-coded to be politically correct, and likely interpreted the question as loaded (uncorrectly, as it was simply factual). This activated a switch telling the AI to reinsure us that it’s only talking of a ‘small minority’.
you wrote incorrectly, you know...
I’d like to see some videos going in depth about the LDS religion. Thank you professor
Difficult to do, because most people are unable to divorce themselves from their biases long enough to take a factual look at the religion. There is a pastor on UA-cam who is attempting to do so, from a Christian perspective; he's actually very kind.
Very interesting overall. Members of the Salvation Army used regularly attend Eucharist services at the Anglican Church in suburban Sydney of which I am a parishioner. Not every week, but maybe 3 or 4 times a year. They did so to take communion, they having no-one to conduct such a service, and were always welcome - joined us for morning tea afterwards and so forth. Our rector retired and after a while the Sallies gradually stopped attending. A pity
A Salvation Army lady asked my dad to baptize her in the Jordan river because her church does not baptize. My dad was very happy to do so.
Love these videos where legit experts grill ChatGPT. Fascinating
Nice catch about the EO around the 18th and 19th minutes. There are Greek Church Fathers who talked about a certain kind of ladder through which a Christian goes through, where the 1st stage is characterized by the virtue of wisdom, where the Christian is accepting the faith, the 2nd stage is characterized by bravery, because the Christians is focused on fighting against sin, the 3rd stage by the virtue of righteousness, because the Christian has stopped committing sin, and the 4th one is the stage of the virtue of purity, because the Christian has even conquered sinful mental habits and is not troubled by sinful thoughts. And they held that many ascetics (definitely those who are consider saints) have achieved the 3rd level, and some of them the 4th level. They also talked about how all saved people will be in the 4th stage, if they didn't achieve it in this life, they will reach it in the afterlife by God's purification before entering Heaven.
Thank you, Joshua. Very engaging.🌹🌹🌹🌹
ChatGPT itself says it's important to verify the information it generates before using it. So if we don't know the answer we should not ask ChatGPT, it seems. If an expert has to verify it, one might as well ask the expert. In the meanwhile, we are going to be dealing with volumes of text generated by GPT wondering how much of it is accurate. We are going to need an expert certification process on all the content it generates.
Entire Sanctification is possible only when the definition of “sin” is adjusted to fit the assertion.
All unrighteousness is sin, and is probably best explained in James, and easily achievable.
I find that grace is misunderstood as it is only defined in 'Christianity' as unmerited, yet merited in the OT. 'Greasy grace' as its unmerited definition allows false teaching, so I made a Ytube video 'Myths in so-called Christianity', and #1 shows that Paul defines Grace as merited in Romans 11:6. And he also defines sin in Romans 13:8-10, which is the 10 Commandments written on your heart.
Would like to see you correct the bot when it’s wrong, or request more answers when you think there’s more possible answers. Also, it is worth trying to trick it (for instance, ask about Christian denominations but use islamic theological terminology).
Good ideas.
Ahem 👍
that terminology twist is sneaky
Good idea! I think the Churches that speak Arabic do use some of the same religious terminology as Islam; but that’s only if they’re both using Arabic.
@@Ben.....
“Can you speak to the concept of the Oneness of God in Christianity?”
“Can you explain the five pillars of Christianity?”
“In Christianity, who is Isa?”
“What is the Christian call to prayer?”
“What are some Hadiths in Christianity?”
“To Catholics, what is Ghaflah?”
“Why are Protestants opposed to the Kafir?”
“Can you explain why Baptists believe in political quietism?”
And so on. If you can convince the bot that a group actually believes these things, it will answer accordingly. If you make the question or statement confident, it will not even question what you’re saying or asking. You can also rephrase the question or open a new chat if the bot refuses to answer.
ChatGPT answered the last question as follows:
“Political quietism is a theological and political philosophy held by some Baptists which believes that the church should remain separate from political and secular affairs, and focus solely on spiritual matters. It asserts that the role of the Christian is to live a holy life and to be a witness to the truth, rather than to directly participate in political activities. The philosophy is based on the belief that the Kingdom of God is not of this world and that Christians should not be overly concerned with earthly politics and power struggles.”
This is just totally made up!
I liked its response to the five pillars question:
“The five pillars of Christianity are generally considered to be the core beliefs and practices of the faith. These five pillars are:
1.) Profession of faith (Creed): Believing in and confessing the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, as stated in the Nicene Creed.
2.) Prayer: Regular communication with God through personal and communal prayer.
3.) Worship: Gathering together for communal worship and the celebration of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist.
4.) Charity and good works: Practicing acts of love, kindness, and charity towards others, and working for the betterment of the world.
5.) Fasting and self-discipline: Engaging in fasting and other forms of self-discipline as a means of spiritual growth and greater closeness to God.”
Creative, but totally made up!
8:30. If you disagree with a list, you can always ask a followup question, e.g. "How about Swedenborgians?" and it will give you a detailed answer, picking up the previous topic of disagreement to the Nicene Creed.
Some confessional Lutheran women choose to cover for Mass, but it is a personal choice and an adiaphoron.
That's true of women in any church. If a woman feels convicted by the Holy Spirit to do it, regardless of whether it's commanded by that church, she should hold to her convictions, and should be free to do so. In particular, I would say most women would feel convicted out of respect to wear a head covering when visiting a church in part of the world where it's customary. Many Christian women also feel women should do so in public in Islamic cultures where it's customary. However, much like the woman convicted to wear one, if a woman felt convicted not to wear one, then that may be necessary to do God's will.
As far as I know there aren't any churches that don't allow women to cover their heads.
Ah I commented this as well. I also commented on Catholic women doing it quite often too and I saw a comment later on that said the same thing. Looks like the Ready to Harvest commenters have beaten me to the punch xD
Head coverings for women is also true among some extreme traditionalist Catholics and sede vacante groups.
And, some NOT extreme traditionalist catholics veil as well...or use hats.
The Brazilian Pentecostal church Congregação Cristã no Brasil practices head covering for women, but only during service or prayer. It's present in the USA as Christian Congregation in the US
Very much Baptist here. And sadly, I've been through three church splits during my lifetime, in 1975, 1987, and 2011.
Been through one, the group that left scoffed at the suggestion that prayer would make a difference ( the problem was not doctrine or a sinful situation among leadership or members) . After they left the church grew , hundreds of people have since been saved , in hind sight we had a "back door revival"
@@littlet-rex8839 Praise the Lord!
Definitely an awesome presentation and very exciting.
Some very traditional Lutherans believe in the Sinlessness of Saint Mary. That is, she, who having chosen not to sin, was blameless before God (At least this is my understanding of it). Also, while it is not as common in the US, in certain countries such as Korea, women in the Catholic Church almost always wear some kind of lace head covering. Again, very traditional Lutherans may sometimes do it as well.
I am Lutheran and have never been taught in the sinlessness of Mary.
@@run4cmt As am I. If I recall correctly it is mostly among very high church Lutherans, and it is adiaphora.
"The baptist church" made me giggle
Catholic women sometimes use headcoverings during mass. Is out of fashion and optional but is still a custom so that might had been a good addition too.
at a TLM most women wear veils
The Oneness denominations, generally Pentecostal, certainly diverge sharply from the Nicene Creed.
Which denominations, while nominally holding to the "ordinances" of baptism and communion (with shot glasses of Welch's grape juice), essentially make these optional and may only serve/celebrate the Lord Supper four times per year?
You give short shrift to the splitting potential of Baptists. Given that each Baptist congregation is autonomous, each congregation is also a potential denomination unto itself!
And i think they're the only type of non-nicean that can be considered Christian, since unlike the Mormons and JW, they hold to the true monotheistuc divinity of Christ, but instead by modalism instead of trinity. JW and LDS instead increase the number of divine entities above 1 and say Jesus =/=YHWH.
@ravissary79
Further, while the the Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ, they diminish this by believing in the achievement of such divinity by mortals. The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the deity of Christ entirely. Most of us that are Oneness Pentecostal, though not necessarily all, reject the Nicene Creed, but we do not deny the divinity or humanity of Christ and deny that we can become divinities ourselves.
@@jayt9608 exactly. Yall are still Christian, but just with a massive "fighting words" talking point.
Out of the two JW would definitely disagree more since they don’t believe any form of triune nature of god.
I would love to learn more about one that disagree less than JW’s
these are great!
Recognition of the Pope as head of the Church: I don’t think so!
I noted it did not mention Catholic on the issue of head covering.
There are movements within the Catholic Church which encourages covering. However, it is more encouraged than required.
I myself have seen those who do. However it is not prominent enough to say that it is all the rage.
I would like to see you pursue a line of questioning with ChatGPT deeper. For example, where you spotted Pentecostal as a denomination that didn’t belong, ask it which specific Pentecostal denominations ascribe to that belief. Often it keeps the answers very general. I think it would be great to dig into the specifics of the answers, especially when you think they were lacking
Okay, so I'm going to keep adding comments: traditionalist, Latin Mass only Roman Catholics, whether in communion with Rome or not (such as the SSPX for example) also practice head coverings for women.
the SSPX are IN FULL COMMUNION with Rome, don't believe the lies. being in an 'irregular canonical position' is NOT the same as being out of Communion as the Vatican has stated time and again.
The A.I. answers were amazingly coherent and RELEVANT. Which means it perfectly understood the questions even though the answers it retrieved from its database were error prone (looks like wikipedia).
Maybe next time ask your questions in a roundabout way, or nuanced, or double-entendre, to up the "difficulty level" 😁
The old joke claims that One Dutchman is a theologian, two Dutch makes a church, and three Dutch causes a split in the church.
The RCC did practice head covering until the 60s, Vatican 2 had an influence although there was not a Vatican teaching on women covering their head in church....it just went away.
The one part of the broader Christendom that rejects the Nicean Creed are the Oneness groups, (Apostolic, Jesus only, etc)
18:00 As a Catholic I have heard priests teach about "Confirmation in Grace", a special grace that some saints (such as the Apostles) recieved at some point in their life where they will never sin again.
I don't think it works that way. I may be wrong but confirmation in grace only means you will get God's help in staying in state of sanctifying grace until you die. Firstly it does not mean somebody will not sin, it only means he/she will not commit a mortal sin. And it also does not mean somebody gets a plot armour against sin, I think that person is still capable of mortal sin, but because of what person he/she is with some God's help there is a way to stay in sanctifying grace until the death. I am not a theologian, but if I understand it correctly commitment in grace is like an alcoholic staying sober to the end of his life, but he still is an alcoholic (and the God's help is like protecting somebody from tripping over and falling into barrel of wine :D).
As far I am aware the only person to receive grace of being sinless is Mary.
@@Hadar1991 in terms of sinless saints there are three that can be added to the list with varying levels of certainty on my part. Firstly John the Baptist who was filled with the Spirit of God from his mother's womb (not immaculately conceived), St. Joseph, and Job which is explicitly called perfect in the scripture. As for why I am saying John and Joseph? I have simply heard this taught very often but I don't know exactly where the claim comes from.
Now as for what confirmation in grace is, it of course doesn't happen at the beginning of life, but it happens at some point for some people. A personal who is entirety freed from sin, though yes technically he might be capable of choosing sin, has no desire to sin anymore and will never voluntarily displease God, and because God does not allow anyone to be forced into sin, they will simply never again displease God because He has already perfected them. There are some people who, after confessing their last sin, go on to never sin again even though they still desire it, but this is not because God's work in them has finished. But God can make a man perfect even in this life so that he never even desires or consideration sin again.
I was surprised that Plymouth brethren wasn’t a response to the head covering question
Maybe you can do a live asking ChatGPT questions :D
I really should.
Can you please expound on the “Non-Denominational” denomination ? Please
I agree with this, living in the LA area in the early 2000s and the whole "Cool Christian" vibe was strong and so many of these guys were from various non-dom churches and never explained how they were different or similar
I believe Joshua already has a couple of videos that clarify the nondenominational denomination.
@@robertthompson3447 ill have to go through is catalog then, thanks!
ua-cam.com/video/mwAcdFyViGc/v-deo.html
Thanks for the video friend. I do have a question:
In this video your first question was about denominations most closely follow Catholicism. How about denominations least to follow Catholicism? 🤔
If you want a completely new answer without the AI being influenced from previous questions, you have to start a new chat (button on the top left.) Otherwise it can get a little stuck
Long videos are great, I was having fun right along with you!
I asked ChatGPT about my own group of Christians, the Plymouth Brethren. What are the distinctives of the Plymouth Brethren? The response was short but mostly accurate as far as it went: "The Plymouth Brethren is a conservative, Evangelical Christian movement that emphasizes a strict adherence to the Bible, personal holiness, and the gathering of believers in simple, unstructured meetings. It is characterized by a focus on the priesthood of all believers, rejection of denominationalism, and an emphasis on the need for individual conversion. The Plymouth Brethren movement was founded in the early 19th century in Plymouth, England and has since spread to many other countries." I noted that it highlighted that we avoid "denominationalism" in its response. This is an interesting yet critical distinctive. On the last question in the video, we do practice head coverings for sisters and definitively uncovered heads for brothers while praying or preaching.
To me Plymouth Brethren was the closes to the Biblical church, as in Revelation Ch3:7, the church in Philadelphia, "the church of brotherly love", but because they split into Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren, which destroy the testimony of the ground of the church.
But fortunately, the ground of the church was restored by Watchman Nee, the successor to the vision of Plymouth Brethren
@@peterhsieh380 agree. 😞
ChatGPT sounds like a AI politician. Answering the question but not really answering it. LOL.😄
I think ChatGPT is a good work in progress. You still are the more knowledgeable one. 😁
As a Catholic, entire sanctification is possible but is only known to have happened once, when God applied the merits of Christ’s atonement retroactively to the Blessed Virgin Mary in order to preserve her from the stain of original sin. So while it is possible, it is an extraordinary (ie non-ordinary) means by which God’s grace is applied-the ordinary means of the sacraments do not remove concupiscence (the tendency towards sin) and thus we expect to struggle with sin our entire lives and while we can live victorious over sin, we wont have complete victory until the next life.
The first question I asked was about the non-reciprocity of the genus maiestaticum. ChatGPT was stumped.
Me too... care to elaborate?
Hi Josh, very interesting video as ever. One question which I was itching for you to ask ChatGPT but didn't (!)(and I know I've brought this subject area up before): in the light of The Pentarchy is there a difference between The Western Patriarchate (ie pre-Western Reformation Church of Western Europe) and the modern (ie post Council of Trent) Roman Catholic Church? It always seems wrong to me to identify these two with each other. I know that one came out of the other (as did many if not all Protestant Denominations) but the Roman Catholic Church is in many ways, or so it seems to this bear of little brain, very different from The Western Patriarchate it came out of.
I'm curious, how come you're using Trent as the demarcation line?...it's the same Church. The outward liturgical expressions may have evolved over the past 2000 years, along with a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith, but the seat of Peter has remained consistent throughout.
@A Desert Sojourner it is very simple: up until the Western Reformation there was one Church in Western Europe which was the fifth Patriarchate of the Pentarchy, the other four being the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch, set up by Justinian as a college of senior patriarchates to oversee the evangelisation of the world and act as a buffer against the increasing monarchial views of the Western Patriarchate. During the Western Reformation, the Patriarchate of the West fell apart. The first local church to emerge was The Church of England in 1536 when it became autocephalous. Those churches which remained loyal to the Patriarch of the West met at The Council of Trent and made changes to the practice of the by now former Patriarchate of the West and emerged as The Roman Catholic Church, just one amongst several reformed denominations. The Western Patriarch had been drifting away from the other Patriarchates since ad 807 anyway, all the Western Reformation did was to finalise the implosion of the Western Latin Church.
@@Paul020253 *up until the Western Reformation there was one Church in Western Europe which was the fifth Patriarchate of the Pentarchy, the other four being the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch, set up by Justinian as a college of senior patriarchates to oversee the evangelisation of the world and act as a buffer against the increasing monarchial views of the Western Patriarchate.*
Emperor Justinian may have codified the Pentarchy in the 6th century but what APOSTOLIC authority did he actually possess to enact this setup as binding over the universal Church? And, considering the legitimate Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch refused to accept Chalcedon (451), how could the Pentarchy function when 2/5's of it was in schism before Justinian was even born? Besides this, within a century of Justinian-Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem would fall to Islamic conquest, eventually followed by Constantinople, thereby rendering the Pentarchy impotent. Only Rome would be spared, almost as if by Divine Providence.
*During the Western Reformation, the Patriarchate of the West fell apart. The first local church to emerge was The Church of England in 1536 when it became autocephalous. Those churches which remained loyal to the Patriarch of the West met at The Council of Trent and made changes to the practice of the by now former Patriarchate of the West and emerged as The Roman Catholic Church, just one amongst several reformed denominations.*
Brother, that's an interesting, if somewhat inaccurate, version of events! The Western Church never fell apart. In the early 16th century various Protestant sects began to splinter off from the one and same Catholic Church. Perhaps you could be more specific about what changes Trent made to the "practice" of the pre-Reformation Church. Remember, until 2006, one of the pope's official titles was still Patriarch of the West.
first of all: the Catholic Church is not a reformed church, it is not a protestant church or anything like that, simply because it maintains the Succession of the Apostles. Therefore, it makes no sense to think that by a council all this was lost, the sacrament of ordination remained the same.
And the Anglican church is not "autocephalous" or anything like that, it started out as a schismatic church and then completely broke up (mainly on the death of Henry VIII, who still kept a bit of tradition)
The difficulty in answering, "Once saved always saved," is how do we measure or determine salvation from an observational position.
Those that assert salvation can't be lost, argue if it appears one has lost salvation, then that person was never actually saved. But how can we know or prove that the person was never saved....it seems a conclusion with evidentiary support.
Hebrews seems to indicate that the saved can lose salvation.
My position on this is that I should heed the warning in Hebrews.
The ChatGPT I use often make stuff up, and sometimes insist that its right even when called out. It's a bit funny, actually...
I would like to mention as well for the conversation about head coverings that while in Catholicism it’s not necessary now, before the ecumenical council of Vatican 2 it was mandatory and typically in the liturgical celebration of the mass in the Tridentine order, otherwise known as the Latin mass, women do frequently veil and cover their heads.
Quite right about the potential for dialogue between the Orthodox and holiness traditions on entire sanctification.
Orthodox theology admits the possibility of "noetic vision" available to the "pure in heart," but it isn't a permanent state of sinlessness or inability to sin. As God is infinite, so is our movement toward Him. Even the holy bodiless powers in heaven aren't spiritually static. They are constantly encircling the throne of God. Our final salvation, to borrow a term from St Maximus the Confessor, is an ever-moving repose.
Maybe ask a question about denominations that practice speaking in tongues
how is your question about which denomination splits the most is loaded, as we know that they do split
This was a fascinating exercise. One important clarification regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Nicene Creed: while it is correct to assert that Latter-day Saints don't formally affirm the Nicene Creed (or any of the "creeds" for that matter), our beliefs do align with the creed, at least in its original formulation (but perhaps not with every interpretation of it). However, Latter-day Saints are generally wary of doctrinal pronouncements made by councils or committees, as well as the word creed specifically, probably due to our history and theology. Unfortunately, many Latter-day Saints are also unfamiliar with the Nicene Creed or confuse it with the Athanasian Creed, so if you ask a rank and file member if they believe it they'll likely deny it, despite not knowing what it says or which one you refer to. Furthermore, despite the antipathy toward the Athanasian Creed, one could still argue that it isn't entirely incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine, although most Latter-day Saints would be aghast at such a suggestion.
Nicene Creed starts with "We believe in one God" and Mormonism fails here already. I am not sure about all Mormon denomination, but the original teaching of Smith were that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same being (at least not in substance), which makes Mormonism de facto a polytheistic religion, or being more specific a tritheistic religion.
On the issue of head coverings, many of the Oneness Pentecostal churches that use them tend from certain Latin American, Philippino, or similar cultures. Generally the teaching on head covers had been that a woman's uncut hair was her covering, and thus no woman should cut her hair. Many Oneness churches and organizations have discarded this teaching and allow women to cut or trim their hair. I look for the UPCI to leave this standard in the next 15-20 years.
“Which Christian denomination is closest to God?” Lol
You have amazing quality content. Brought up Lutheran (WELS synod). Haven't been to church except Christmas with family for like 20 years. Did some youth groups sith friends at a Baptist Church in high school. The many denominations of Christianity has always fascinated me. Also confused me. I'm a believer but I question which is the "correct" one or most "true" one. Something I've always struggled with. Your videos are super insightful on the differences between the countless options out there. I was brought up in one but is that the best one? Tough questions. Lol. Religion is like that. In a world of sin and many false prophets and teachings the way to the one which feels best and true with free thinking and critical thinking I find a challenge. Keep up the good work. As a personal question to Ready to Harvest being an expert in theological issues does being do challenge what you may have been brought up in of currently believe? How have you sorted through the endless research snd landed on what you feel is the correct path? Loaded question I know....
How much of Christianity do you think is just cultural practices and customs?
You should read The Catalysm of the Kingdom of Heaven. Written to establish a Christian creed and an essential gospel. Quite a different, yet Orthodox work.
Very interesting video. You are better than any computer.
I grew up in the Holiness church, and most of them believe sanctification isn't about being sin free, but having the sin nature taken out. Many of them believe you have to be sin free in order to a considered saved, and that you lose your salvation when you willingly sin. It's a common misrepresentation.
It should be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses when a woman is functioning in a job that that is usually required of an elder she should wear a head covering while doing that
Re: the pope, many of the Oriental Orthodox Churches do style their Patriarchs as "popes."
Head coverings... traditional Catholics, anyone?
One thing you can do with ChatGPT is tell it when it has made a mistake, and it will identify and rectify it.
Have you done a video on Christadelphians? I had no idea they existed until recently
May I request that you research about the Church Of Christ ( Iglesia Ni Cristo) registered by Brother Felix Y. Manalo. I would love to see that video.
I would like to try to use ChatGPT myself!
I was asking ChatGPT to list out any Calvinist Theologians or traditions that have a history of pacifism or anti-war teachings...Every answer it gave me was firmly not Calvinist.
How do I gain access to it?
Is it a website?
An app?
the roman catholic faith has head covering. but took it out in the 60's. roman catholics that are italian,greek,spanish wear the catholic viels,which is called the mitilla. the women wear this head covering to humble before God at mass. but it is not requried. i am roman catholic and i also do a lot of studying the differences of relgion. but very interesting what a ai has to say about issues and topics.
@5:08 The catholic church is the original?!?! Where in heavens did it get that?!?!
Actually history will tell you that and that's where chatgpt is getting that from. God bless His holy catholic and apostolic church
Catholics tell that to themselves.
@James Möhler AND chatgpt, AND Google, AND history, AND common sense tells you that the catholic church is the church founded by Jesus Christ
The one thing about being able to split easy is that the bottom up rule can preserve a faction without humanism infultration.
When I saw the highlight (which denomination splits the most) I knew the Baptists would win. Though when they win doing that, everyone loses.
If you want to get new, unguided answers, it may help to clear your cache (but then your cookies/passwords/forms may be cleared, too). I think using a vpn may produce fresh answers, too. But that one is just a guess.
Or use a separate browser all together
Churches of Christ reject all creeds (generic), in favor of very strict "sola scriptura," however the basic tenants of much or most of the Nicene Creed would find acceptance in most COC circles. I can't imagine however, most Evangelicals not having problems with the phrase "baptism for forgiveness of sins," for which, churches of Christ would endorse. Of course most Evangelicals would attempt to "spiritualize" baptism in the Nicene Creed, but the original intent in the 4th century was water baptism.
2:55 _"first among equals"_
Only EO would make that point.
2:14 In fact, it got "recognition of the Pope as the head of the Church" partly wrong, not a similarity with Eastern Orthodox.
However, Assyrians and Copts and Armenians all have a kind of parallel papacies a kind of "episcopus episcoporum" ...
10:15 ChatGPT does not reuse the last paragraph because it came up in your previous conversation. Instead, it will probably always answer in a similar way in situations in which beliefs are held by a minority of people.
Does the United Methodist Church teach entire sanctification? I could be wrong, but I do not think that it does at this point.
I understood the sentence about the baptism with the Holy Spirit to equate it with entire sanctification although I can see where it could be seen as ambiguous.
The EO do not think that Theosis is ever complete in this life (indeed, not before the general resurrection) and I have never heard a mention of anyone, even the most ascetic or saintly monk, as being sinless in this life. I was raised largely holiness and am now an ISM OO priest that actually nearly became EO.
Also regarding the Assyrian Church of the East: it is, I think, more "nestorian" in theory than in practice.
Finally, I have to say that the name of your channel, "ready to harvest," while the channel is dedicated to giving objective information about various denominations and Christian traditions, kind of sends a double message. The name implies that you are evangelizing, which you clearly are not, but encouraging dialogue about the beliefs and practices of the various Christian denominations and traditions.
Would it also be worthwhile to consider how nuns have a practice of head coverings for women within Roman Catholics?
One (group of) denominations not explicitly mentioned are the varieties of (so called by some) "Plymouth" Brethren. I don't know where they are placed in the "Evangelical firmament" these days or if they have just melted into the loosely Evangelical penumbra 🤔
You laughed! So, you are not just a machine-gun conversationalist, but an actual human being. 😆
I can see that oral exams need to become more common to be sure student actual understand the subject matter. I am very impressed with your scholarship. Getting away from the details, isn't it apparent that the denominations keep multiplying and isn't that exact what Jesus did not want? I wonder what denomination you belong to?
The protestants.
Which denomination split the most? Dutch Reformed people like me know the answer without thinking about it lol
I maintain that the most misnamed denomination of any religion has to be the United Methodist Church. Methodist, they presumably are - and Church they certainly are - but United? As the great religious thinker Meatloaf famously observed, "Now don't be sad 'cause two out of three ain't bad."
I would have so much fun with that
I could be wrong but I thought I’ve heard a UMC theologian talk about Entire Sanctification as not committing intentional sin. I guess the idea was you might still unwittingly sin while being in a state off E/S. Anyone else heard of that?
interesting, seems like this AI is taking over the world
It's a very bad idea asking a computer about Christianity, it's like asking a colourblind person about painting. The whole point of Christianity is to stop us from turning into computers.
There was a Muslim who tried to use ChatGPT against Sentinel Apologetics on Christianity. It failed miserably IMO
I find the answers quite short and remind me of high school essays. I guess resetting the chat after each question and adding a lot of qualifications to the questions is needed. Maybe you'd have to enter a few pages to get the AI to spit out a long well-formed answer.
I have a question you can ask.
What Christian denominations follow the great commission as Jesus commanded his apostles?
Coptic women sometimes cover their heads but its cultural and most women do not. At least in my local church.
Hey try ask the A.I. to give an analogy.
Most interesting.
✝️🙏🙂
"Entire sanctification" sounds a lot like the idea of the "immaculate conception" - Mary as free from sin by God's grace from the moment of her conception.
Church of Christ splits the most. IMHO
If we say that we have no sin ....
Aside from being Oneness, how would True Jesus Church disagree with the Nicene creed?
I would consider Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Scientology and 7th Day Adventists that follow White, and Mormons not Christians and certainly not Protestants--but cults only. One must accept Christ's divinity as 100% Man/God incarnate who gave up his life, was resurrected and ascended to the Father, and will Return to be called 'Christian.' In my mind, this is a 100% must believe and Scripture/Jesus is VERY clear in more than one place to back this statement up. Orthodox Jews have been blinded by their Creator to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles and to usher in the anti-Christ and Christ's return. To this end, Creeds albeit expressions of beliefs really don't matter. It's Christ's words that make ALL the difference for we have Salvation through faith and following Him.
What does that have to do with ChatGPT?
@@jamesparson ChatGPT does not understand that the divinity of Christ matters. If you reject Christ as God's divine Son, you reject the Father that sent Him. This is the one thing that separates Christians from unbelievers. Unbelief is the unforgivable sin.
@@redit5332 I have heard that threat before. I even heard that threat when I was Catholic.
@@jamesparson It's not a threat. It's truth which comes from Jesus himself. Jesus loves Mankind and gave himself that we might live and reign with him on a renewed earth/heaven in the new City of Jerusalem. He gives us a choice, whereas before we had none. Without Jesus we would be in continual bondage to sin and death. Death is the consequence of sin. Accepting Jesus and following Him gives us life eternal.
I'm confused. You declare Mormons to not be Christians and then the only requirement you give to be Christian is one that the Mormons stand behind 100%. 🤔
So I asked you to clarify: Is believing in Christ, as stated in your comment, Christian or not?