Видео

Nope! It’s technology flipping the video 😅

Good point! Similar problem with calling all the “denominations of Christianity” … “Christian” …. since they all view Jesus and his message differently

Sure! my email etc is listed on my website: saharjoakim.net

I enjoy how Kant explains math and his link to a priori judgements

In my other videos, I also show how a priori proofs for God are available to us.

@@saharjoakim all you youtubers are a one way street. what a waste of my time.

@@youarenotme01 I don’t understand your meaning. I meant to say that I agree, the concept of God can be proven with math

Thanks for the approach! I appreciate the support. Feel free to comment a philosophical idea or question!

​@saharjoakim Thank you. I like your approach and want to see your channel grow. It would be nice if it became very profitable and we could get longer format videos. An hour or more on Divine Command Theory for example would be great. I would love to see a video discussing the different ideas of objective and subjective with regards to morality. In chriatians, circles they often view objective morality as an absolute and subjective morality as personal opinion.

@@vladtheemailer3223 Thanks! I added "longer version of DCT" and "obj vs subj views in morality" to my queue of videos to make!

I see things the same way, hence why I think virtue ethics can be categorized as objective or subjective :)

Are you saying that Protestants are not Christian?

@@saharjoakim I do not say that. I am Protestant myself. I do think a lot of sloppy theology arose after the Reformation. I love Martin Luther, and I respect his tremendous courage to stand up to the corruption in the RCC, but even he had his flaws. The law/gospel dichotomy is one of those examples, among a few other things. I do believe Catholics and Orthodox are Christian as well, and am sad to see so much division within Christendom. I pray for reconciliation one day, but for now, I believe the Church has a lot of work to do

@@noahb4645 is it wrong to call Jesus part man and part God if he is fully man as well as fully God? You assume so. Also, is it wrong to call Jesus part God if he is fully man and therefore part God? Turns out, man is part God by way of the intellect and the will. Lastly: though I’m defending wheat I say in the video I’ll admit that I’m sharing ideas that some but not every Christian believes about Jesus (assuming there is a historical Jesus) whereas we should all admit it is possible that we are all today wrong about the information distributed to us through history.

@@saharjoakim “partially” and “fully” have two distinct definitions within English literature. Secondly, Apollinarism has not yet made an official comeback within Christianity (even within Christian based cults) so it really doesn’t exist anymore today as far as research shows. Thirdly, I’m not debating the historical validity of Christianity (although I certainly believe it’s true), I’m simply stating that, generally speaking, the Church has not separated the natures of Christ, and they also made it very clear that each person of the Trinity was fully divine. The Godhead was never cut up into thirds as if it was a piece of pie. It was always understood that the Father was fully God, the Son was fully God, and the Spirit was fully God. They were also not three gods, but one God. The Athanasian Creed is another historical document not written by Athanasius, but named after him, because of his stance against the rise of Arianism in the fourth century Edit: The Roman Catholic Church and eventually the Eastern Catholic Church, a few centuries later, adopted this creed as their own. It was a general Christian truth for an extremely long time

YHWH is a tetragrammaton of "Yodh He Waw He" which is a name for "God" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah".

@@saharjoakim Jehovah was the name of YHWH created out of superstition. The Jews created the term so they wouldn’t take God’s name in vain. Adonai was the word they would use for YHWH before vowels were added to the Hebraic language. When vowels were added to Hebrew, they would use the vowels for Adonai instead to replace the vowels for Yahweh. Because of that, YHWH became Yehovah, and the J came later on as language developed a little more. (Yah-Vay) is the correct pronunciation for Yahweh, but many people just say the “W” sound instead. That’s the origin

Thanks for your message! Thank you for taking your version of the truth so seriously that you would take the time to try and correct me. I will defend what I've shared in the video largely to give you somethings to consider. However, I do not have a reason to think "my view" or "your view" has any claim to "the truth" of the matter. All of us today are arguing about what happened based on sources given to us through hear-say going back thousands of years- entangled with complex histories and politics. A few replies: You: "What sources did you use for your definition of the Trinity and Christ's Hypostatic Union? Because you got both of them incorrect. Basic Christian theology position is that Jesus is truly/fully God and man, not part, as that would imply a demigod.... This understanding is fundamental in Protestantism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is basic orthodoxy." Me: "Why think Protestantism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have it wrong?--you use your sources and others use different sources. In the end, no one alive now was alive in time time of Joshua and could ask for clarification, so we are all dependent on sources written 2000+years ago." You: "Regarding the name "Jesus," it is the English translation... Me: "but the English language have their words and concepts of Jesus/Isa/Joshua/Christ from the Greeks (who also have it second-hand), so "Jesus" as a name does come into English from the Greek. into how the Greeks ended up with the testimonies about Jesus in the first place." You: "Describing the Trinity as "three Gods that's literally one God" is inaccurate; the Trinity teaches that there is one God existing in three distinct persons." Me: "your version of the trinity teaches this, and, this version is splitting hairs to claim that a) Jesus is a distinct person from God the Father while b) Jesus is God while c) Jesus is God incarnate AND to say that anyone who claims Jesus is part-God is wrong (which is your criticism of my statement in the video)." You: "scholars who study Christianity's origins and history do not typically rely on Islamic sources because they were written 500 years after the events and are culturally, linguistically, and geographically distant from the New Testament." Me: First, there is no text about Jesus from the years Jesus was alive; so, scholars are looking at sources that came later. Second, Islamic sources are exactly how the stories of Jesus survived into the 1300s. Third, the Quran and the New Testament share a culture and geography (as well as a history). Look into the blood relationship of Mohammad and Jesus.

​@@saharjoakimI appreciate your response, even though we disagree and I believe you misunderstood some things I said, I'm happy that you took the time to respond. First off, I'm not claiming to define what true Christianity is. My position reflects the general historical and Orthodox view of the religion within religious scholarship and tradition. My comment about your video is not "Jesus is God"; rather, it is "Christianity claims Jesus is God." Similarly, I don't believe Muhammad received the Quran through an angel with the words of Allah. However, it would be accurate to say that this is what Muslims generally believe. It's not about my beliefs; it's about what the religion in question primarily holds to. and my position is that you did not accurately represent Christianity within the religion itself, (not my personal beliefs of Christianity). You also misunderstood me; I'm not saying Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox have it wrong, nor am I proposing an alternative view as the correct interpretation. I was simply stating that my description aligns with what those sects believe, whereas your description did not. That is you did not provide the correct description or definition of the Trinity and Jesus' divinity as defined by Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodoxy within their Creeds, councils, and confessions. nor was I claiming the traditional position is consistent with the historical Jesus, I was pointing out inaccuracies in your description of Christianity's understanding of Jesus. When you mention "my source," "your source," is a red herring, it's clear that this is not how scholarly discourse, including how you obtained your PhD, operates. You choose sources based on their status as primary, secondary, or independent, recognizing that some sources hold more weight than others. one proof is Your point that no text was written at the time of Jesus. this is only significant if certain sources hold more value over others objectively to understand in this case historical and traditional Christianity. But If you are a relativist who believes we have no grasp of objective truth, and essentially your a postmodernist, that what we doing here is just power struggle, then also your PhD becomes a power move and your RUclips channel a tool for social dominance. However, I doubt you actually believe this, as it contradicts your comments. Typically, only those who say "your truth, my truth, your version, my version, your source, my source" think in such terms. but if you actually believe this then anyone's view on Christianity is equally right and wrong in any context. and debating anything about Sources is a moot point. but I'm sure you don't believe this so stating your source my source, seems inconsistent. Your statement was that "Jesus" is the name in Greek. The English name "Jesus" was transmitted and translated over time from Aramaic to Greek (to Latin I think) then to English, which we have today. and the letter or sound of "J" wasn't there in the original in Aramaic or Greek. If you had said that, you would have been correct, but that's not what you said. Again, you err when you assume I'm arguing for "my version." Perhaps this confusion arises because in your video, you presented your version rather than attempting to educate on Christianity. For instance, Bart Ehrman, a popular biblical scholar, can differentiate between his interpretation or version of what he believes is true about Christianity and what actually occurred in history, versus what Christians historically believe. but he makes it clear if he's talking about his personal opinions or the scholarly consensus for the traditional Christian position, which is what I believe you were trying to present as well the scholarly consensus and the traditional Christian position, but it seems you fell into personal opinion. Imagine if I said in Islam that Muhammad was demon-possessed and merely believed he saw an angel, inventing the Quran for political and personal gain. This statement would be incorrect because I prefaced it with "in Islam," implying I'm providing the general Muslim belief on the topic. It would be acceptable for me to state what I believe happened, but inaccurate to present it as what Muslims believe. Similarly, you are attempting an academic and educational video on what Christianity teaches, not your interpretation of Christianity. Therefore, accuracy matters. Additionally, I never claimed there were texts written about Jesus during his lifetime. However, the current scholarly consensus is that the majority, if not all, of the New Testament was written before 90-100 AD, within the first or second generation after Jesus. Again, this reflects the scholarly view, which I presumed you aimed to educate people on. Most scholars in this field do not rely on sources 600 years after the events (Muslim sources) to define what Christianity was 600 years prior. It would be acceptable for you to state that you do not believe in the primary sources because they are religious interpretations, but you must first accurately state what the claim is and what Christianity historically believes about the Trinity and Jesus' divinity. you did not do that. Muslim sources are not primary sources; the New Testament is. I challenge you to provide any scholarly resource supporting the claim that "Islamic sources accurately preserve stories of Jesus until the 1300s." If you wish to clarify that there are stories within the Quran that are also found in gnostic Gospels not included in the Christian Canon, sure. but we also have the Gnostic Gospels which are the primary source i e at best Islam doesn't preserve anything but is consistent with certain gnostic text. But if you're claiming unique stories of Jesus solely found in Muslim sources are at all connected to the historical Jesus that would be a huge claim that I don't believe any scholar within the field would accept. maybe an outlier, I mean there is the rare scholar who deny Jesus ever existed or even Muhammad ever existed. You say "Look into the blood relationship of Mohammad and Jesus."this is a pretty vague statement, source to what to look for would have been beneficial. but it's common knowledge, the majority within Judaism and Christianity accept that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael, so do I. but come to think of it, I don't know if there's historical proof of this within the scholarship, or it's just only a tradition within religions. Moreover, this is irrelevant to our discussion. If bloodline holds any significance, then you should consider the New Testament writers, who were Jews like Jesus and, more importantly, lived at the time and closer to Jesus' location. You know that Paul, a contemporary of Jesus who did not meet him before his crucifixion, is a far more reliable source on Christian beliefs than Muhammad, who lived 500-600 years later in a completely different country, was illiterate, and had no direct contact with primary sources apart from the canonized Bible, which Paul helped to write. If you dispute this, you are aware it contradicts the general consensus of biblical scholarship. but it could be because you are Muslim by religion or have Muslim biases I guess which is fine if that's your personal view but again not be beneficial for a video about what Christians believe. So again Christianity, within its major sects and the creeds and councils of the last 2,000 years, does not define Jesus as being partially divine, or part God part man, a belief that has actually been condemned in Christian councils. What you said was not accurate to this in your video. it seems based on your other videos you have access to actual scholars and other educators in their fields. so I'm sure you could talk to actual biblical scholars or actual scholars of Christianity and see if they would agree with your video description of the trinity or Jesus divinity was accurate.

​​@@saharjoakimTwo final points: as a philosopher, to dismiss something as "splitting hairs" is baffling. You understand that interpretations of Plato vary among different Platonic schools, as do interpretations of Aristotle, and even interpretations of Thomas Aquinas' interpretations of Aristotle, and then Thomists interpretation of that. Numerous philosophical schools exist based on these interpretations and the minutiae of what was meant when they were written or said. Philosophy thrives on nuance and "splitting hairs." I'm sure you were meticulous in your thesis writing with alot of footnotes to earn your PhD. so "splitting hairs" shouldn't be an issue for you. If one seeks truth or knowledge in any field, precision is essential. This is especially true if you aim to present a position that is not your own. Therefore, having an issue with "splitting hairs" seems misplaced, particularly since every religion and most philosophies engage in this practice. You may have studied analytical philosophy, known for its precision, which goes beyond mere splitting hairs, but splitting single hairs to achieve accuracy in definitions and terms. "splitting hairs" is what the Nicene Creed (creed you mentioned) was all about. Both sides agreed on Jesus' divinity and also his titles; but the dispute was whether Jesus shared the SAME essence (Homoousios) or a SIMILAR essence (Homoiousios) with God the Father. and that is a very precise hair to split so much so that it was one Greek word that led to the distinction. and continues to all major sect to this day. This illustrates the importance of precise distinctions in Christianity, akin to the significance of who would lead the Muslim community after Muhammad, which led to the Sunni-Shia split. but even that said asking for a video to define the Trinity accurately is not spitting hairs it's just asking for a correct definition that can be found in a lot of Christian and scholarly sources. you could of even went to Britannica to get a correct and simple definition. Lastly, your statement, "Thank you for taking your version of the truth so seriously," is projecting and laden with assumptions. You imply we are discussing versions of truth, suggesting a the claim that objective truth is inaccessible, an argument you did not make but rather assumed. This is begging the question. I do not hold to your view or claim of "your version of truth" You also assert, "However, I do not assume 'my view' or 'your view' holds any claim to 'the truth' of the matter." Yet, you provide no evidence for this assertion. but if true, what was the point of your video, if you're not at least trying to communicate the truth of the matter of a certain subject. More importantly, your statement above is very inconsistent. If your view and my view hold no claim to the truth, how can you assert that your statement on that has any claim to the truth? You're asserting a subjective claim of objectivity on our subjectivities. Yet trapped in subjectivity; thus you cannot make such a claim because it is contradictory. This dilemma resembles claims such as "there is no objective truth" or "we lack access to objective truth." If any of these statements were objectively true, they would contradict themselves. but if they are subjective claims to objectivity, they are inconsistent and absurd. While you may be using colloquial, general use language, as a philosopher, you should strive for consistency and being precise especially when you're making claims about truth and what we can cannot know. But in any case based on your position you can't claim that my position is mere subjectivity. if that is your view then you cannot actually make an objective analysis of where I'm coming from. for all you know I have objected truth and you don't. based on your unability to access the truth you don't know what is possible and ultimately don't know what is probable. And ultimately, if you believe this, what is the point of communicating if we're not trying to get to the truth? If we're just trying to share our feelings and subjective beliefs, there's no reason to debate or prove anything. Trying to even prove your position of subjectivity would be pointless. One should just merely assert their view, and if someone accepts it, great; if not, move on. Hopefully you could take what I said with some light-hearted humor, and hopefully you consider my points on your errors of the video. Feel free to reply if you wish, but I'm sure you know social media comments are rarely productive so I'll leave what I said at that and you can have the final word. Thanks for reading my rant.

Thank you for your reply, I realize it may be silly to try to continue a conversation about such complex topics over comments on a video on RUclips. Nevertheless, I'll continue engaging because of your grand effort... First: your assumption is correct: I am not a relativist who believes we have no grasp of objective truth; also, I am not a postmodernist. In a World Religions course, I count the New Testament as a primary source. However, as a scholar, I count the the New Testament as a secondary source. (As you explain, because it was written within the first or second generation AFTER the events). "Christianity claims Jesus is God." ...True, in general. But boy oh boy are there many denominations of Christianity that take this sentence as meaning very different things; so, on one hand it's not completely true as not ALL Christians hold this claim. (Based on the idea that anyone who believes in Jesus is a Christian. But what does it mean to "believe in Jesus". With some definitions, even Muslims are Christians because they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles and is one of God's messengers.) But, Christians and Muslims would not want to be groups together (yet their faiths tell them via Abraham that they are brothers and sisters). So complex. Sometimes I wonder why anyone would have the nerve to say anything about religion unless they knew their only audience would be within their own echo chamber-rendering those lectures pointless. Again, thanks for caring so much that you took the time to reply so thoughtfully. I see my job as spreading philosophical information for people to consider, but you are a person on the internet thinking for themselves. Bravo.

insightful! I'll reply with something about logic and something about religion. The law of non-contradiction, who believes in it? A logician, maybe. Something like "every proposition must be true or false and not both or either" (sometimes called the law of excluded middle). ... However: there are contradictions in real life (such as in people's minds) as well as paradoxes in reality. In religion, there are "the mysteries of faith" (or else how can "GOD" be omnipotent or omnipresent). In religion, humans don't have all knowledge and there are truths in a higher realm that seem to us (with our limited human understanding) as contradictory...

Giordano Bruno.