Empirical rigour is pivotal. I also chase up the sources, skimming Wiki and digging....But it takes up time and I have to make a living, otherwise. Great value. Thanks again, Thomas.
Alexander J. Hislop's work, The Two Babylons was once taken seriously. Now only the traditional SDA churches use his book in public discussions while less traditional Adventists avoid bringing it up as "proof" because they understand that there is so much academically wrong after two centuries. The way I see it, Deus is in for a ruff ride. If he gets knocked off his horse enough, the mere mention of his name could reduce him to Hislop's little brother. That would be a shame because he does point to many relevant sources.
BTW I was surprised , and pleased, to see Robert Hoyland appearing with Aposatate Prophet in a discssion re early islam and related topics. Have you thought of asking him - RH not AP - for a discussion and consideration of topics?
Well, the inscriptions on the Omayad mosque were also changed (hidden under layers of cement) in the 21st century under the name of "restoration" & "renovation".
Much more digestable and synapse friendly. Post production is longer that 3 mins, for each snippet I know this would have taken better part of a morning from the raw footage. Honestly. I could not continue for more than 6 mins with the complete version -essentially raw footage. now bitesized, better BRoll and mood music makes a HUGE differencce. Congrats. Way to go...I often think we are in an age analogous to when the printing press was invented and 'books' proliferated. You tube, video editing and the digital revolution has enabled billions to connect and learn. The islamic reformation at last...?
Who can come after the Christ, but the Antichrist? It's islam+Communism. Europe will be Muslim: USA, Communist. The time of the Gentiles ( Rome ) is over before our own eyes. This Pope is the last one. Rome will fall like Constantinople, like Jerusalem.
So many ‘religious scholars’ try to refute Islam by creating laughable theories… when Islam confirms the one God, all the prophets, the judgement day and the kingdom come that forms the core of Christianity and Judaism… such a paradox..😏
@Thomas Alexander hey there and I really enjoy your videos and want you to keep up the good work. I wanted to ask in reference to your video titled, 'The Origins of Islam - 3.2 The Christian Context: Syrian Christianity in the Koran' around the 4min to 5min mark you mentioned about the harsh and strict laws on Women in the quran coming from Christian Enratites or Christian Anchorites tradition. As you can see I don't think I got the spelling right lool but anyways I would lyk to explore this topic more so I was wondering is there any sources you can point me too or any sources I can post to read on this topic as well as the specific Christians that were encouraging these practices such as Surah 4:34. Again keep up the good work and you can call me Raph 😃
Hi Ralph, I’d have to look at my notes and documents again, but one great place to start is always Adolf von Harnack’s book “The History of Dogma” which is freely available online (e.g. on the Internet Archive). It is the most comprehensive overview over early forms of Christianity that I’m aware of.
@@TAlexander thank you for replying back to my message and please if you do have time if its possible could you find me the info in your notes and pass it on. I downloaded the History of Dogma but it's not allowing me to search the specific section on Women. I wanted to ask do you remember the section within History of Dogma where it is
In general, I think understanding the Dome of the Rock is critically important for understanding early/proto-Islam. It is the oldest monumental building in Islam and has many peculiarities. In particular, I was driven to do the recent videos due to AJ Deus' paper wherein he made lots of claims about the Dome of the Rock that would be ground breaking if true. However, upon digging a bit, I found that they're not true at all. So I had to set the record straight. This is now all about credibility. Had I remained silent only because AJ is critical of the standard Islamic narrative (just like I am), then I would open myself up to being dismissed out of hand. People could rightfully argue that I am biased. At the end of the day, AJ Deus is doing a disservice to all of us. His easily refuted claims may fall back on me and others. Coming back to the beginning of my reply, next up, I will try to present my counter-narrative to AJ Deus wherein I will lay out what I believe the Dome of the Rock was initially to the Arabs who built it and how its meaning changed over time. I hope that its importance will then become obvious. The Dome itself is strong evidence that at the beginning, we're not dealing with Islam as we now know it, but with a heretical Christian group who denied the divinity of Jesus.
@@TAlexander Thank you for taking the time to answer me. It is very obvious that you are a very intelligent person. You have the mind of a cross between a detective and a lawyer! I would never want to be in a debate with you! Back to my mentioning the Roman Catholic angle, as I said, I certainly do not agree with all of Dr. Walter Veith's ideas, but I think his points about the similarities between Islam and Roman Catholicism are interesting. Mike Gendron also talks about this, but from a " purer" Catholic angle, being that he was deeply involved with Roman Catholicism before he understood the True Gospel of CHRIST, and learned about the out right heresies. If I remember right, this came about because the Roman Catholics saw the effectiveness of Bible Studies in Protestantism, and so began to start their own programs. He became a leader, and it was because he had to actually Read the Scriptures that he had his " awakening " like Martin Luther did. He now has a ministry to Catholics. These are the similarities: An unbiblical reverence for Mary - similar to pagan goddess worship Works oriented religion Rote Prayers Prayer Beads Pilgrimages Male Superiority/Priesthood - Imam Specific Clothes Pagan Symbolism, especially the Crescent Moon Thinking of someone equal to CHRIST as an intercessor Extra Biblical texts I'm sure you know all about this. I do understand the relevance of the heretical " christian " sects, especially the deniers of the Divinity of CHRIST. It seems that Islam is some kind of hybrid of just about every religion or ideology in that region. Sometimes I picture different people writing the Quran. As they finish their work they set it on a table. Finally all the work is completed. Then a strong gust of wind blows the whole stack all over the place. One of the " authors " gathers all the pages and just puts them together, in no particular order, and the Quran is created! What does your symbol mean? Are you from Germany? Please forgive any mistakes . I am tired. I am also a very bad speller ( is that how you spell it? Ha!)
What you list there as commonalities are really superficial similarities, nothing that points to any deeper connection. In many cases, these are practices taken from the common ancestor Judaism, in other cases it's simply practices that have evolved independently in many religions and traditions, including many protestant traditions, presumably because they simply work on a practical level. Now I have to say that I don't feel comfortable going much deeper than that for the simple reason that I don't see myself as a missionary or anything of the sort. I do not want to tell people what to believe or what the true and correct faith is. And that includes Muslims by the way. I try to stay away from that and instead focus on what people used to believe and how these believes evolved. Having said that, I feel like you are misrepresenting Catholicism. For example, there is no Mary-worship in Catholicism. She is revered, but that's also true in most forms of Protestantism that I'm aware of. After all, all Christians believe that God chose Mary as the mother of Christ, presumably for a good reason which is worthy of reverence. What is true is that Catholics ask saints (and Mary above all) to pray on their behalf. But while that may sound strange to some, it's quite different from any kind of worship. The biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants comes down to the so called five "solas", or rather, it's mainly the first two: "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" or in English "by scripture alone" and "by faith alone". This was an innovation by Martin Luther after he looked for a way out of the practice of indulgences. He saw the effect the sale of indulgences had on the simple people and wanted to get rid of indulgences. Understandably so. So he looked at the justification the church had for selling them in the first place. He could have made a nuanced argument that you have to take the situation of people into account, that some of the sales practices were immoral, etc. But he didn't do that, instead he wanted a foundational rejection. The way the church argued was of course that you needed to do good works to be justified. But for example, as a small worker on a farm, you couldn't afford to go around doing good works, you were busy all day ensuring the survival of your family. So instead, you could give money to the church who would use it to spread the good news which will save more souls and is hence the best kind of work one could do. While the argument is not without its problems, it is at least internally consistent. So Martin Luther took the axe to its premise and he concluded that works cannot be a factor. Hence the second "sola"....by faith alone. But now he had a different problem. The Catholic church has a long tradition of teachings, going back to the original Apostles, so they would say: "Who is this monk that he thinks he can change the teachings of the Apostles? How can he claim that justification is by faith alone when clearly the traditions of the Apostles tell us otherwise?" The answer was the first "sola"...by scripture alone. Martin Luther threw out the old traditions and teachings. He rejected the idea of Apostolic succession - an argument that comes straight from Islam BTW, they also claim that the original teachings were falsified by the Christians. Apparently, Martin Luther didn't mind the obvious contradiction between the first two "solas". Not only is the Bible rather explicit that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), it is also implicitly stating that same across the Gospels where Jesus often states things that need to be done, that are necessary to achieve salvation, e.g. in Matt 5:43-45, but it's really everywhere. Or in Revelation 3:1-5. But what's more, it's not like the Bible fell down from heaven (this is not Islam after all). Scripture IS a manifestation of tradition. The texts which are included were included because they were in line with the traditions and teachings of the church which the church argued were the traditions and teachings of the Apostles themselves. "Sola scriptura" is therefore an impossibility. There is no scripture without tradition. In many ways this mirrors the old argument between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about whether or not the Oral Torah should be a factor. Then again, it's also different in many ways, so better not dwell on it.... Either way, instead of relying on a long standing tradition when interpreting scripture, it was now down to the subjective individual. Martin Luther opened a can of worms here which he eventually came to regret when others took him at his word and started to interpret scripture in their subjective ways, ways which Martin Luther didn't agree with, leading for example to the so called Peasants' War, something Martin Luther later argued vehemently against. But the peasants simply did what he told them to do: They read the Bible and interpreted it without tradition or church teachings, including Luther's teachings. This subjective approach also lead to the terror regime of John Calvin in Geneva or that of the Anabaptists in Münster and the splintering of Christianity, particularly that of Protestantism itself. There are now tens of thousands of Protestant churches, each with their own teachings and their own interpretations of scripture. As such, it is also a similar state of affairs as in the Islamic world which never had something like a centralised church which safeguarded tradition and where every Imam does bring in his subjective position. Now, after all of that, let me get back to the beginning: I'm merely summarising history here, and inadequately so. And I don't even feel comfortable doing so because it can easily be taken as me preaching. I'm not saying what you or anybody else should believe or what the true faith is. I'm not a preacher, I think everybody has to figure this out for themselves. All I'm trying to do is to provide historical context. I think at the end of the day, we shouldn't succumb to infighting. The differences between Catholics and Protestants are really rather small, particularly compared to all the other forms of Christianity that used to exist. For example, going back to James 2:24 mentioned above: The Protestant interpretation is that works demonstrate that one is already justified by faith whereas Catholics believe that works keep the faith alive. The difference here is really miniscule. Both believe that works and faith go hand in hand. Does it really matter that much which mechanism lies at the bottom of it? I mean, it's certainly a topic worth debating, but it shouldn't divide us. And yes, I am from Germany. My mother comes from an average Catholic family, my father from a Pietistic Lutheran family (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism ), so I did grow up with insights into both traditions as they exist today.
@@cindyweatherly4501 hmm, so much ignorance in your reply… guess you are one of those ‘pic ‘n mix’ Protestants who just follow the part in the Bible you agree with.. I.e very little..😏
@@TAlexander Thomas, thank you very, very much for the effort and time that you put into answering my questions. I was familiar with some of your points, especially about the traditions verses " by scripture alone " debate. You have an admirable tolerance for nuance. For some reason I'm always wanting to get " to the bottom of things ", and wanting to see things as " black and white" as possible. For instance when I'm asked about what traditions I except as Biblical I always say what I read in Paul's letters, and the other books of the New Testament. I'm not a scholar, but I don't understand why one has to go beyond what is written? And I don't know exactly when the New Testament was canonized, but obviously the people, lead by GOD, the HOLY SPIRIT, determined what the correct theology and church government was. What came first - the canonization of the New Testament or the Church as an Institution? What I always want to do is have a " cut off line" - Before Roman Catholicism or the Orthodox Church, and certainly before Protestantism. Is that impossible? Just a few more thoughts about Mary, and then I'll not speak of the topic again. I don't remember if I said that in Roman Catholicism Mary is worshipped, but if I did that's not what I mean. I mean that I see an unbiblical focus on Mary, and maybe that began because of the common practice of goddess worship. It's sort of a " carry over." There is also the teaching about Mary being enthroned near GOD, and that she did not die but rather was taken up, like Enoch. If these are not true teachings of the Church I apologize. I think I've already mentioned the shock I felt when I found out about Calvinism and that such a heresy could even exist in the Church. I mean it's about Soteriology! A man named Dr. Ken Wilson, hand surgeon, theologian and scholar on Augustine ( he got his PhD at Oxford) wrote: The Augustinian Foundation of Calvinism. Dr. Leighton Flowers has a program on TH-cam: Soteriology 101, that's very interesting. Regarding " works" I am just now reviewing that subject in my studies. Just this morning I wrote: " If you love Me you will keep my commandments" ( John 14:15) CHRIST said this in the upperroom, the evening before his crucifixion. And John said, " We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commands" ( 1 John 2:3) So I understand " works " as primarily related to relationship rather than salvation. We are saved by faith in the finished work of CHRIST, but that Faith to be True Faith must have outward expressions of obedience. " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." ( James 2:26) I am So relieved that I do not have to determine whether or not a person's faith is true or not! I don't know where he or she is on their journey with CHRIST. Thomas one of my spiritual mentors is Watchman Nee. I want you to know about him. The Joyful Heart Daily Meditations has been my devotional for many, many years. He is at the top of my list of people that I want to see in Heaven. Not too far away from Paul, Peter and John. 💐 Have a Blessed Day.
Empirical rigour is pivotal. I also chase up the sources, skimming Wiki and digging....But it takes up time and I have to make a living, otherwise. Great value. Thanks again, Thomas.
Thanks. It was definitely a lot of work....and of course I do have a day job, so the wife isn't happy with all the time I'm spending on it 🫣
Please turn the music off! Cant follow what you are saying when the music is playing too
Watch the full video, this is amazing !!! Thank you so much Thomas !
Thanks, Thomas for exposing the false claims - May The Lord richly bless you and yours
More good content. However, I found the background music too intrusive on this occasion.
I totally agree on that.
Can you stop the music as we wish to hear you talk not listen to the music
Compare to Sophia Hagia and what Muslims did to original building with inscriptions. Same happened with the Dome building.
Amazing amazing efforts: to dig up such details from ancient dusty documents
Alexander J. Hislop's work, The Two Babylons was once taken seriously. Now only the traditional SDA churches use his book in public discussions while less traditional Adventists avoid bringing it up as "proof" because they understand that there is so much academically wrong after two centuries.
The way I see it, Deus is in for a ruff ride. If he gets knocked off his horse enough, the mere mention of his name could reduce him to Hislop's little brother. That would be a shame because he does point to many relevant sources.
Great video!!!! Thanks for sharing
A.J. DEUS HAS TO RESPOND!
You'd better leave background music out coz it is so annoyingly loud that it undermines the content of what you are aying.
In the cases where have double checked the work of Deus, I also got disappointed. For this reason I stopped spending time on what that guy is writing.
Music for intro and outro only !!
Wow. This is fantastic work.
Mel and Jay really need to take a look at this.
Thomas your channel is amazing
🇮🇱 best wishes from Jerusalem
Thank you for revealing truth.
I admire your research 🧐.
Thank you.
Thanks for this. It seems there is a lot of wishful thinking among certain elements of Islamic criticism
the music drowns out your narration
BTW I was surprised , and pleased, to see Robert Hoyland appearing with Aposatate Prophet in a discssion re early islam and related topics. Have you thought of asking him - RH not AP - for a discussion and consideration of topics?
Strong like ox!
Well, the inscriptions on the Omayad mosque were also changed (hidden under layers of cement) in the 21st century under the name of "restoration" & "renovation".
Much more digestable and synapse friendly. Post production is longer that 3 mins, for each snippet I know this would have taken better part of a morning from the raw footage. Honestly. I could not continue for more than 6 mins with the complete version -essentially raw footage. now bitesized, better BRoll and mood music makes a HUGE differencce. Congrats. Way to go...I often think we are in an age analogous to when the printing press was invented and 'books' proliferated. You tube, video editing and the digital revolution has enabled billions to connect and learn. The islamic reformation at last...?
Who can come after the Christ, but the Antichrist? It's islam+Communism. Europe will be Muslim: USA, Communist. The time of the Gentiles ( Rome ) is over before our own eyes. This Pope is the last one. Rome will fall like Constantinople, like Jerusalem.
The music is a bit too high, it's hard to hear your voice through it
The background music DOES NOT HELP.
Great stuff Thomas, you really are destroying Deus's work, and I can barely keep up lol
So many ‘religious scholars’ try to refute Islam by creating laughable theories… when Islam confirms the one God, all the prophets, the judgement day and the kingdom come that forms the core of Christianity and Judaism… such a paradox..😏
As blunt as it gets on AJ Deus
@Thomas Alexander hey there and I really enjoy your videos and want you to keep up the good work. I wanted to ask in reference to your video titled, 'The Origins of Islam - 3.2 The Christian Context: Syrian Christianity in the Koran' around the 4min to 5min mark you mentioned about the harsh and strict laws on Women in the quran coming from Christian Enratites or Christian Anchorites tradition. As you can see I don't think I got the spelling right lool but anyways I would lyk to explore this topic more so I was wondering is there any sources you can point me too or any sources I can post to read on this topic as well as the specific Christians that were encouraging these practices such as Surah 4:34. Again keep up the good work and you can call me Raph 😃
Hi Ralph, I’d have to look at my notes and documents again, but one great place to start is always Adolf von Harnack’s book “The History of Dogma” which is freely available online (e.g. on the Internet Archive). It is the most comprehensive overview over early forms of Christianity that I’m aware of.
@@TAlexander thank you for replying back to my message and please if you do have time if its possible could you find me the info in your notes and pass it on. I downloaded the History of Dogma but it's not allowing me to search the specific section on Women. I wanted to ask do you remember the section within History of Dogma where it is
Thomas, I hope you won't mind me asking, but why are you interested in the Dome of the Rock? I've just started following you.
In general, I think understanding the Dome of the Rock is critically important for understanding early/proto-Islam. It is the oldest monumental building in Islam and has many peculiarities.
In particular, I was driven to do the recent videos due to AJ Deus' paper wherein he made lots of claims about the Dome of the Rock that would be ground breaking if true. However, upon digging a bit, I found that they're not true at all. So I had to set the record straight. This is now all about credibility. Had I remained silent only because AJ is critical of the standard Islamic narrative (just like I am), then I would open myself up to being dismissed out of hand. People could rightfully argue that I am biased.
At the end of the day, AJ Deus is doing a disservice to all of us. His easily refuted claims may fall back on me and others.
Coming back to the beginning of my reply, next up, I will try to present my counter-narrative to AJ Deus wherein I will lay out what I believe the Dome of the Rock was initially to the Arabs who built it and how its meaning changed over time. I hope that its importance will then become obvious. The Dome itself is strong evidence that at the beginning, we're not dealing with Islam as we now know it, but with a heretical Christian group who denied the divinity of Jesus.
@@TAlexander Thank you for taking the time to answer me. It is very obvious that you are a very intelligent person. You have the mind of a cross between a detective and a lawyer! I would never want to be in a debate with you!
Back to my mentioning the Roman Catholic angle, as I said, I certainly do not agree with all of Dr. Walter Veith's ideas, but I think his points about the similarities between Islam and Roman Catholicism are interesting. Mike Gendron also talks about this, but from a " purer" Catholic angle, being that he was deeply involved with Roman Catholicism before he understood the True Gospel of CHRIST, and learned about the out right heresies. If I remember right, this came about because the Roman Catholics saw the effectiveness of Bible Studies in Protestantism, and so began to start their own programs. He became a leader, and it was because he had to actually Read the Scriptures that he had his " awakening " like Martin Luther did. He now has a ministry to Catholics.
These are the similarities:
An unbiblical reverence for Mary - similar to pagan goddess worship
Works oriented religion
Rote Prayers
Prayer Beads
Pilgrimages
Male Superiority/Priesthood - Imam
Specific Clothes
Pagan Symbolism, especially the Crescent Moon
Thinking of someone equal to CHRIST as an intercessor
Extra Biblical texts
I'm sure you know all about this. I do understand the relevance of the heretical " christian " sects, especially the deniers of the Divinity of CHRIST. It seems that Islam is some kind of hybrid of just about every religion or ideology in that region. Sometimes I picture different people writing the Quran. As they finish their work they set it on a table. Finally all the work is completed. Then a strong gust of wind blows the whole stack all over the place. One of the " authors " gathers all the pages and just puts them together, in no particular order, and the Quran is created!
What does your symbol mean? Are you from Germany?
Please forgive any mistakes . I am tired. I am also a very bad speller ( is that how you spell it? Ha!)
What you list there as commonalities are really superficial similarities, nothing that points to any deeper connection. In many cases, these are practices taken from the common ancestor Judaism, in other cases it's simply practices that have evolved independently in many religions and traditions, including many protestant traditions, presumably because they simply work on a practical level.
Now I have to say that I don't feel comfortable going much deeper than that for the simple reason that I don't see myself as a missionary or anything of the sort. I do not want to tell people what to believe or what the true and correct faith is. And that includes Muslims by the way. I try to stay away from that and instead focus on what people used to believe and how these believes evolved. Having said that, I feel like you are misrepresenting Catholicism. For example, there is no Mary-worship in Catholicism. She is revered, but that's also true in most forms of Protestantism that I'm aware of. After all, all Christians believe that God chose Mary as the mother of Christ, presumably for a good reason which is worthy of reverence. What is true is that Catholics ask saints (and Mary above all) to pray on their behalf. But while that may sound strange to some, it's quite different from any kind of worship.
The biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants comes down to the so called five "solas", or rather, it's mainly the first two: "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" or in English "by scripture alone" and "by faith alone". This was an innovation by Martin Luther after he looked for a way out of the practice of indulgences. He saw the effect the sale of indulgences had on the simple people and wanted to get rid of indulgences. Understandably so. So he looked at the justification the church had for selling them in the first place. He could have made a nuanced argument that you have to take the situation of people into account, that some of the sales practices were immoral, etc. But he didn't do that, instead he wanted a foundational rejection. The way the church argued was of course that you needed to do good works to be justified. But for example, as a small worker on a farm, you couldn't afford to go around doing good works, you were busy all day ensuring the survival of your family. So instead, you could give money to the church who would use it to spread the good news which will save more souls and is hence the best kind of work one could do.
While the argument is not without its problems, it is at least internally consistent. So Martin Luther took the axe to its premise and he concluded that works cannot be a factor. Hence the second "sola"....by faith alone. But now he had a different problem. The Catholic church has a long tradition of teachings, going back to the original Apostles, so they would say: "Who is this monk that he thinks he can change the teachings of the Apostles? How can he claim that justification is by faith alone when clearly the traditions of the Apostles tell us otherwise?" The answer was the first "sola"...by scripture alone. Martin Luther threw out the old traditions and teachings. He rejected the idea of Apostolic succession - an argument that comes straight from Islam BTW, they also claim that the original teachings were falsified by the Christians. Apparently, Martin Luther didn't mind the obvious contradiction between the first two "solas". Not only is the Bible rather explicit that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), it is also implicitly stating that same across the Gospels where Jesus often states things that need to be done, that are necessary to achieve salvation, e.g. in Matt 5:43-45, but it's really everywhere. Or in Revelation 3:1-5.
But what's more, it's not like the Bible fell down from heaven (this is not Islam after all). Scripture IS a manifestation of tradition. The texts which are included were included because they were in line with the traditions and teachings of the church which the church argued were the traditions and teachings of the Apostles themselves. "Sola scriptura" is therefore an impossibility. There is no scripture without tradition. In many ways this mirrors the old argument between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about whether or not the Oral Torah should be a factor. Then again, it's also different in many ways, so better not dwell on it....
Either way, instead of relying on a long standing tradition when interpreting scripture, it was now down to the subjective individual. Martin Luther opened a can of worms here which he eventually came to regret when others took him at his word and started to interpret scripture in their subjective ways, ways which Martin Luther didn't agree with, leading for example to the so called Peasants' War, something Martin Luther later argued vehemently against. But the peasants simply did what he told them to do: They read the Bible and interpreted it without tradition or church teachings, including Luther's teachings. This subjective approach also lead to the terror regime of John Calvin in Geneva or that of the Anabaptists in Münster and the splintering of Christianity, particularly that of Protestantism itself. There are now tens of thousands of Protestant churches, each with their own teachings and their own interpretations of scripture. As such, it is also a similar state of affairs as in the Islamic world which never had something like a centralised church which safeguarded tradition and where every Imam does bring in his subjective position.
Now, after all of that, let me get back to the beginning: I'm merely summarising history here, and inadequately so. And I don't even feel comfortable doing so because it can easily be taken as me preaching. I'm not saying what you or anybody else should believe or what the true faith is. I'm not a preacher, I think everybody has to figure this out for themselves. All I'm trying to do is to provide historical context. I think at the end of the day, we shouldn't succumb to infighting. The differences between Catholics and Protestants are really rather small, particularly compared to all the other forms of Christianity that used to exist. For example, going back to James 2:24 mentioned above: The Protestant interpretation is that works demonstrate that one is already justified by faith whereas Catholics believe that works keep the faith alive. The difference here is really miniscule. Both believe that works and faith go hand in hand. Does it really matter that much which mechanism lies at the bottom of it? I mean, it's certainly a topic worth debating, but it shouldn't divide us.
And yes, I am from Germany. My mother comes from an average Catholic family, my father from a Pietistic Lutheran family (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism ), so I did grow up with insights into both traditions as they exist today.
@@cindyweatherly4501 hmm, so much ignorance in your reply… guess you are one of those ‘pic ‘n mix’ Protestants who just follow the part in the Bible you agree with.. I.e very little..😏
@@TAlexander Thomas, thank you very, very much for the effort and time that you put into answering my questions. I was familiar with some of your points, especially about the traditions verses " by scripture alone " debate. You have an admirable tolerance for nuance. For some reason I'm always wanting to get " to the bottom of things ", and wanting to see things as " black and white" as possible. For instance when I'm asked about what traditions I except as Biblical I always say what I read in Paul's letters, and the other books of the New Testament. I'm not a scholar, but I don't understand why one has to go beyond what is written? And I don't know exactly when the New Testament was canonized, but obviously the people, lead by GOD, the HOLY SPIRIT, determined what the correct theology and church government was. What came first - the canonization of the New Testament or the Church as an Institution? What I always want to do is have a " cut off line" - Before Roman Catholicism or the Orthodox Church, and certainly before Protestantism. Is that impossible?
Just a few more thoughts about Mary, and then I'll not speak of the topic again. I don't remember if I said that in Roman Catholicism Mary is worshipped, but if I did that's not what I mean. I mean that I see an unbiblical focus on Mary, and maybe that began because of the common practice of goddess worship. It's sort of a " carry over." There is also the teaching about Mary being enthroned near GOD, and that she did not die but rather was taken up, like Enoch. If these are not true teachings of the Church I apologize.
I think I've already mentioned the shock I felt when I found out about Calvinism and that such a heresy could even exist in the Church. I mean it's about Soteriology! A man named Dr. Ken Wilson, hand surgeon, theologian and scholar on Augustine ( he got his PhD at Oxford) wrote: The Augustinian Foundation of Calvinism. Dr. Leighton Flowers has a program on TH-cam: Soteriology 101, that's very interesting.
Regarding " works" I am just now reviewing that subject in my studies. Just this morning I wrote: " If you love Me you will keep my commandments" ( John 14:15) CHRIST said this in the upperroom, the evening before his crucifixion. And John said, " We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commands" ( 1 John 2:3)
So I understand " works " as primarily related to relationship rather than salvation. We are saved by faith in the finished work of CHRIST, but that Faith to be True Faith must have outward expressions of obedience. " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." ( James 2:26) I am So relieved that I do not have to determine whether or not a person's faith is true or not! I don't know where he or she is on their journey with CHRIST.
Thomas one of my spiritual mentors is Watchman Nee. I want you to know about him. The Joyful Heart Daily Meditations has been my devotional for many, many years. He is at the top of my list of people that I want to see in Heaven. Not too far away from Paul, Peter and John. 💐 Have a Blessed Day.
Do you have to show the speaker speaking?
Sorry if my face irritates you 🫣
The annoying background music makes it incredible difficult to understand what you're saying
💐🙏👍❤️