The New Testament and Greek Thought (A History of Western Thought 21)

[@reformedpilgrim]

Thank you for taking the time to make these videos. I've been looking at the cultural and historical context of the New Testament, trying to get a handle on who the audience was. I've been reading Vergil and Ovid, and still have Horace, Livy, Cicero, Caesar, and Seneca on my "to read" list, as well as others from the Greco-Roman culture. This video helps provide a bit of philosophical background to that same period. Thanks!

[@scoutdarpy4465]

This is definitely one of the better videos for this series. Always enjoy taking little tid bits from them that I may have not known or thought about before.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@zoomer9686 What does this have to do with this comment or this video?

[@scoutdarpy4465]

@@DrJordanBCooper Idk, haha. Maybe in some world it's related. But one thing to add is that the way you structured this video was very nice. Taking general concepts, specifying them, and then breaking them down individually - yes, that is a very efficient way to go about things. And something about this video you did that superbly well. I think having the concepts written on screen gave a more reflective sorta engagement, in that I personally retain things most by reading them. Anyways, don't wanna go on for too long. But, yes, a very effective video, this one.

[@KevikkGamess]

Great video. Really enjoy this series.

[@ContemplativeSoul]

One topic I'd like to learn more on is how Hebrews viewed function. I know people who are deep into ANE and more historical critical studies, but I sense they are interpreting how Hebrews wrote about function through a modern lens that completely dismisses the ontological. I appreciate how many of your videos brings things back to the ontological so I don't know if this is something you'd like to cover in the future. I would definitely appreciate the topic

[@ContemplativeSoul]

A specific example I can think of is man being created in God's image. To get around science that narrows the chasm between man and animal, there are some modern proponents that stress likeness as a command to us, with potentiality based on our possible obedience is what gives us an innate value of being imagers/ potential imagers of God. They seem to completely sidestep any existence of a metaphysical or us having souls that differ from animals.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

I think few intellectual developments these days are more important than the return of virtue ethics

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

Thanks for this really useful information.

[@andrewashe1089]

Do you have any book recommendations that further discuss this topic?

[@poststructuralisthero8152]

9:57 about "Where does evil come from?" Dr Cooper says: "Evil is not something that is caused by an external force." It is "performing one's own desires". Quoting from James' "epistle of straw" for authority seems strange though, for a Lutheran argument. Jesus and Luther both speak of the devil's work in this world, clearly not in a symbolic manner. The devil's influence causing men to "choose" evil I would chalk up to an external force. Not to mesh this question up with the question of free will, but surely Dr. Cooper('s lutheran theology) does not deny the existence of the devil? i.e. What am I missing?

[@thenickshack287]

I think the point being made is the idea that we are not forced to commit evil actions because of an outside force against our will, but we willing do that which is evil and cannot but desire and do that which is evil. So we have freewill, but we can only will that which is evil. No, this doesn't deny the devils existence or influence on the world, but I believe he was speaking in a specific and not general sense. We do affirm the devils influence on us and our actions, but we are ultimately the ones who make the decision. Hope this helps clarify :) PS. Lutherans do not reject James, historically we have just made the distinction between the Homologoumena and the Antilegomena, referencing the books in the new testament that were initially disputed in the early church.

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

Thank you! Now you are right over the target. Now we must drive the ORIGINAL SOURCES back into K-12 American education. Across 50 states. Across 3.143 counties. Doing THAT is within our powers.

[@SugoiEnglish1]

Good video. In my view, the Early Fathers moved away from the Hebraic background that was inherent in the original letters and copies they used. This led to some dubious interpretations of the ECF. For example, they moved away from the parousia expectation and fulfillment (70 CE) and this negatively impacted their soteriology and eschatology.

[@hillcatrogers9086]

The blending of Christianity with Greek theology is not the product of the rural Hamlet of Galilee - primitive Palestine - but the larger urban centers of Hellenist culture. Hebraic anthropology is not Greek substance dualism of body and soul but nephesh that defines a person as body animated by God's breath or air; a person does not have a soul, but they are a soul - living nephesh. For instance, once a person dies consciousness sleeps too, and humanity rests in the dust till resurrection. Jesus was from a rural Hamlet and knew nothing of Greek philosophy, like the writer of John's gospel. He never espoused the theological sophistication of the Christian creeds presented in this video.