Another fantastic Hamercopia of knowledge this evening. Always a privilege to be able to experience the wisdom imparted through this medium. I give tonight 5 bags of popcorn, 2 sodas and one of those giant keys in the painting. See you next week for the Book of Daniel lecture. Until then, be excellent to each other Hamerheads!
He is quite a historian. It is more than just objective facts. He also opens up your mind, makes me realize that I have looked at things with a lot of assumptions spoon fed to me that did not capture the historical realities at all. I have taken an interest in the history of Christianity for some time, he is the only person of faith whose perceptions I have found worth listening to, an objective historian who looks at the evidence and reasonably conjectures what the best possible explanation(s) are under the prevailing high level of uncertainty.
If the authority of the scriptures does not require the scriptures to be literally true, then the authority of the popes does not require the Peter claim to be literally true either.
"Pope" is not an official title of the Bishop of Rome, it's a colloquial "style". His actual title is _"His Holiness, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God"_ The actual Pope is the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and his official title is _“Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and of all Egypt, the Pentapolis and Pelousia, Nubia, the Sudan, Jerusalem, Libya, Ethiopia and all Africa, and the Holy See of Saint Mark the Apostle."_ So, no, the Catholic they call the Pope is not actually the Pope, and the Pope is not a Catholic! {:o:O:}
A few questions for people, if anyone bothers to answer: 1. If you're a Protestant who takes the Bible literally, how do you justify not listening to the Pope when you read the passage about Jesus making Peter the rock of his church? 2. If you're a Catholic who believes Peter was the first Pope, how do you come to terms with the fact there is no historical evidence for him ever being in Rome, and that he was actually the Bishop of Antioch? Yes I realize these questions kinda contradict each other, but my main point is: don't they kinda contradict themselves?
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic grade and high school, reject it early on though. First of all that passage about Peter is subject to other interpretations. And it is clear that Peter did not take leadership at the death of Jesus, James the Just did. That is clear from Paul, from Josephus, and even Acts. Although Acts is a dubious tale, we can see how it conflicts with what Paul himself wrote in his authentic epistles. But forget trying to get though to the Catholics on these subjects, they just withdraw into saying it is oral tradition and they believe what their church hierarchy has told them. They just tune you out when confronted with evidence that counters their beliefs.
@PraiseDog subject to other interpretations? Jesus changes Simon's name to kepha, and says he is going to build his church on kepha? Kepha being rock in the language Jesus spoke, aramaic. You need to check out catholic answers on that one.
The whole bible is a contradiction, It was never meant 2 be read literally. That's why the world is in the mess it is. All these denominations do is create factions. It's basically gang warfare
Roman catholics mistranslated original greek text, it says that upon this petra(f) the church will be built and Shimon will be called Petrus(m). Petra in greek can mean something massive or undeniable, it was supposed to be play on words by greek author. Why do you think roman catholics only allowed latin bibles
Peter went to Rome based on the oral tradition that found its way in the writings of Bishops Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Ceasarea in the 2nd and 4th centuries. However, even if Peter was not in Rome, it will not change the fact that he was the first leader of the Church based on the triple commission of Christ in John 21:15-17.
I enjoy much of your teaching even if I don't always agree with it. I find you to be quite scholarly. Can you please clarify something for me? Why are Unitarian based churches Included as Christian. Since Christian is derived from the idea that Jesus is the Christ. Is that not Trinitarian?.
When Unitarians are included as Christian, it's because their movement emerged from historic Christianity. However, because their theology has changed from Trinitarianism, some categorists no longer define them as Christian, but Post-Christian. Valid arguments can be made for both positions.
On behalf of our Ethiopian, Maronite, Armenian, Coptic, Greek Orthodox and other Catholic branches, it would be more accurate to specify Roman Catholic when talking about the Pope.
Another fantastic Hamercopia of knowledge this evening. Always a privilege to be able to experience the wisdom imparted through this medium. I give tonight 5 bags of popcorn, 2 sodas and one of those giant keys in the painting. See you next week for the Book of Daniel lecture. Until then, be excellent to each other Hamerheads!
this is a video by hamer
Hamerhead reporting in 😂😂
On the Bible, at the Centre place. 😉
These lectures are very educational, up with the best I have found. Looking forward to listening to this one, thanks.
they're really good and interesting
Thanks!
Thank you John and Centre Place. Excellent presentation and analysis, as always. Blessings 🙏 to all
Mulțumim!
Thanks
As always I will have to watch this more than once. John always has so much knowledge.
He is quite a historian. It is more than just objective facts. He also opens up your mind, makes me realize that I have looked at things with a lot of assumptions spoon fed to me that did not capture the historical realities at all. I have taken an interest in the history of Christianity for some time, he is the only person of faith whose perceptions I have found worth listening to, an objective historian who looks at the evidence and reasonably conjectures what the best possible explanation(s) are under the prevailing high level of uncertainty.
If the authority of the scriptures does not require the scriptures to be literally true, then the authority of the popes does not require the Peter claim to be literally true either.
Peter's confession is the rock (not Peter).
Thank you for explaining the Babylon reference: I never understood it.
Thank you for this in-depth and expansive exploration! I have never enjoyed learning so much!
just in time for Conclave!
it's a blessing to listen
Excellent explanation
hi hamer. thanks.
Lecture starts at 6:40
hi love the video
"Pope" is not an official title of the Bishop of Rome, it's a colloquial "style".
His actual title is _"His Holiness, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God"_
The actual Pope is the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and his official title is _“Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and of all Egypt, the Pentapolis and Pelousia, Nubia, the Sudan, Jerusalem, Libya, Ethiopia and all Africa, and the Holy See of Saint Mark the Apostle."_
So, no, the Catholic they call the Pope is not actually the Pope, and the Pope is not a Catholic!
{:o:O:}
A few questions for people, if anyone bothers to answer:
1. If you're a Protestant who takes the Bible literally, how do you justify not listening to the Pope when you read the passage about Jesus making Peter the rock of his church?
2. If you're a Catholic who believes Peter was the first Pope, how do you come to terms with the fact there is no historical evidence for him ever being in Rome, and that he was actually the Bishop of Antioch?
Yes I realize these questions kinda contradict each other, but my main point is: don't they kinda contradict themselves?
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic grade and high school, reject it early on though. First of all that passage about Peter is subject to other interpretations. And it is clear that Peter did not take leadership at the death of Jesus, James the Just did. That is clear from Paul, from Josephus, and even Acts. Although Acts is a dubious tale, we can see how it conflicts with what Paul himself wrote in his authentic epistles. But forget trying to get though to the Catholics on these subjects, they just withdraw into saying it is oral tradition and they believe what their church hierarchy has told them. They just tune you out when confronted with evidence that counters their beliefs.
@PraiseDog subject to other interpretations? Jesus changes Simon's name to kepha, and says he is going to build his church on kepha? Kepha being rock in the language Jesus spoke, aramaic.
You need to check out catholic answers on that one.
The whole bible is a contradiction, It was never meant 2 be read literally. That's why the world is in the mess it is. All these denominations do is create factions. It's basically gang warfare
Roman catholics mistranslated original greek text, it says that upon this petra(f) the church will be built and Shimon will be called Petrus(m). Petra in greek can mean something massive or undeniable, it was supposed to be play on words by greek author. Why do you think roman catholics only allowed latin bibles
Peter went to Rome based on the oral tradition that found its way in the writings of Bishops Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Ceasarea in the 2nd and 4th centuries. However, even if Peter was not in Rome, it will not change the fact that he was the first leader of the Church based on the triple commission of Christ in John 21:15-17.
I enjoy much of your teaching even if I don't always agree with it. I find you to be quite scholarly. Can you please clarify something for me? Why are Unitarian based churches
Included as Christian. Since Christian is derived from the idea that Jesus is the Christ. Is that not Trinitarian?.
When Unitarians are included as Christian, it's because their movement emerged from historic Christianity. However, because their theology has changed from Trinitarianism, some categorists no longer define them as Christian, but Post-Christian. Valid arguments can be made for both positions.
My favorite Pope was Pope Hilarius. He really put the ha in eucharist.
On behalf of our Ethiopian, Maronite, Armenian, Coptic, Greek Orthodox and other Catholic branches, it would be more accurate to specify Roman Catholic when talking about the Pope.
So pope papa father
❤
The ah umm
Mendicant means Brahmin. Aristotle said the Jews are the descendants of the Brahmins
This is a lecture full of lies. I hope u get sued
Who should head the church then ? You post a 2hr+ vid of you giving us what you believe to be the truth. Clown !!!
I hope you grow a brain.
1. Please give an example of the lie
2. You cant sue a person for lying