These are some of the best, if not the best, history videos I've ever seen. All of them Dr Reeves are just terrific. Congratulations. Well done. and Thank you for posting

It is ironic that Origen was deemed heretical by the later church yet he was an apologist against the heresies of his day.

Wow you have great videos! Been watching them at bedtime all week. Big fan you're my favorite right now.

Dr. Reeves, thanks for the lecture. I was guided to your channel through the enduring light of the Silmarils, and ended up listening to this. Though I'm not a Christian, I find Church history fascinating, and your presentations are informative and enjoyable. Thanks, again.

@RyanReevesM

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Appreciate the kind words!

Alot of this is over my head but I really enjoy all the videos.

Working my way thru history and the Christian faith. Thank you very much for the very well done presentation. A lecture series that is certainly done properly.

Your videos are an excellent resource. Thank you.

It's a decent rule of thumb that if a group claims to know the day of the return of Christ they are probably a cult. That said, from reading the writings of the early church it seems, at least to me, that they also believed that they at least stood a fair chance of being alive to see Christ's return. For a sense of time scale, Christianity is older now than Judaism was at the time of Christ. The Mosaic law itself was only ~1300 years old at the time and modern Rabbinic Judaism didn't even exist yet. Even if you take the Orthodox Jewish position that Moses was the first Rabbi, Judaism was still younger then than Christianity is now. It would seem logically unlikely that they would expect his return to take so long. The messianic movement, in fact, only really caught on in the 1st or 2nd century BCE, almost directly in response to the Roman occupation of Palestine and Judea. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect him to return in time to end the Roman occupation. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do. They couldn't have had any idea that eventually the whole Empire would become Christian. I think the admonition that, "No man knows the day or the hour ..." was less a warning against cult figures trying to predict the Messiah's return (though there were other warnings about false Messiahs), but more a warning to be ever vigilant because they believed it was imminent.

Once again it's refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows what they're talkin about Keep em comin Ryan ! Thanx

Thank you for this wonderful resource!

It is also interesting to note that Tertullian became sympathetic of the Montanist movement

hey Ryan! i love your videos! truthfully, i am an atheist at the end of the day, but i am still fascinated with the study of religions. i am also an avid lover of history (particularly roman history), so your videos have provided me with hours of thought compelling entertainment! keep it up! p.s. you misused the word "vociferous" ;)

Wow. Goooood stuff.... thank you.

Justin Martyr's error was that he never compared Gen 5:1 with Gen 5:3. Adam alone was made in the image of YHVH; Seth was made in the image of Adam. Marcion's error was that of not recognizing Yahshua in the OT--as the one who walked with Adam in the garden, for instance (John 6:46).

thank you

Interesting to hear about some of the early apologists of the Catholic Church.

First of all thank you for your excellent church history videos! My question is about modalism. Why makes the orthodox vision about the trinity more sense than the modalistic view? Isn't GOD talking to HIMSELF in the orthodox view also? "Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence" says the Athansian Creed. If GOD is one in Essence isn't HE talking to HIMSELF, despite not confounding the Persons? The Trinity in my opinion is a total mystery and modalism is not going to solve that but it makes a simplistic effort to explain how something can be "three" and at the same time "one". I like the 'liquid water', 'ice water' and 'steam water' metaphor and use it often to show muslims how 'three' can be 'one' and at the same time 'three'.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

More that the Modalist view denies there is any real talking, when you dig into the real assumptions they made. It's not that the orthodox view thinks they've figured out the mystery, only that they found existing language in positions like Modalism inadequate.

@AsStatedBefore

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you for being so kind taking time to answer my question, you're probably a busy man. And yes when digging deeper into the matter you are right that the Modalist perspective doesn't represent the Biblical view accurate. May GOD bless you and your ministry......

Are seed televangilists considered montanists??

Really puzzled you chose Tertullian over Ireaneus.

I'm really enjoying this series. Can you read ancient hebrew and greek or do you use translations?

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Well I took them both in my seminary days and so have a long history of working in them, but 'reading' is always a word that you have to define! :) Short answer is I can work in them certainly but I am not a scholar in them like my colleagues at the seminary. My languages for research were more Latin, French, and German.

Sir, i am looking for some information on the Nestorians. I thought i would find it here. Maybe you could provide a link or another source where i can find a summary like you give on the heresies here? Thank you in advance. I find your videos very informative.

@RyanReevesM

6 жыл бұрын

Here is the video on it! kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqNozJexos-wfLA.html

I wonder if Origines citations of Celsus 'lost' works are that accurate...

Great video

@bodong729

7 жыл бұрын

twat

very good very informative

Thank you so much for these video sessions. I have been studying church history through a Catholic series from Ascension Press, Epic: Early Church History. I enjoy using your videos while I go through the timeline of history as well. It has been interesting to hear a non-Catholic (I'm assuming about you here, forgive me if I miss the mark) perspective and teaching on history rather than Catholic only. I'm curious...do you run across very biased and inaccurate textbooks out there in the academic world...and are they mostly biased FOR or AGAINST Catholicism? I'm not only speaking of college material but of High School level material. Peace and blessings to you.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Kerri B // Hey Kerri. Great question about bias. I find that most of the bias in textbooks (depending on the publisher) is based off limited information. It's easy to repeat slogans about the past simply because we tend to all describe it a certain way. For example, the way the early middle ages are called the 'Dark Ages' is biased towards a certain view of European culture or maybe the church rising to power. Most textbooks do not try to be anti-Catholic, but often the struggle is to try to summarize large numbers of people over centuries, and so bad teaching is the resullt. In my experience the books that are the most biased one way or another come from specific denominational publishing houses. So pro-Catholic bias will come from Catholic-focused publishers, or anti-Catholic bias will be there in books written perhaps by those who are Protestant or non-religious. This can have an effect on textbooks, but not usually. There are always good ones out there, at least! :)

@bartee807

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Interesting video, though calling Celsus a jerk, at the start, painted a negative impression of him before we heard what he had to say. He lived during the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who also opposed Christianity, but no one calls him a jerk.

You have made a wonderful series of church history. Do you ever discuss Arminianism or Wesley?

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Jon David Guest // Hey thanks. I appreciate the love. Yes I am currently making quite a number of videos on church history from Reformation to Modern. If you dig into my channel a bit more you'll find that playlist. They're not up yet, but they will be by, roughly, mid-summer.

@jondavidguest7890

9 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves Your class has several lectures concerning Calvin. Are the majority of your students from the reformed tradition? Can Methodist study there on their road to church service or ordination? I am 45 and a life-long Methodist who has only recently discovered theology and church history. Inerrancy and predestination have always been a problem for me. Your lectures have been a big help in learning about John Calvin and the historical contextof his arguments.

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Jon David Guest // Hey Jon. No we are multi-denominational at Gordon-Conwell. Something like 90 denominations. Billy Graham was one of our founders back in teh 60s so we have always had a broad base of students, and the quality of interaction is great, since everyone agrees on the essentials and yet still can have a friendly debate on the thornier issues. But we have 4 campuses and ~2300 students, so there's no single denomination or tradition. In the case of my videos on Calvin, it was because I was making a comparative class for our online curriculum called 'Luther and Calvin'. Normally I would not have dwelled so long on one person--and I did the same for Luther, too. I also started up the course on Church History: Reformation to Modern, so I had to do quicker surveys on some of those same pieces.

@jesusstudentbrett

7 жыл бұрын

Jon David Guest if you want read 2nd century writers on "fate" aka predestination check out Justin Martyr's First Apology and his 2nd. The church prior to Constantine was all Free will minded ...no one like Augustine.

@jondavidguest7890

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you Brett. I will check it out. Ryan, when are you going to post some more material? I check often.

your classes are divine.

judging from how people misinterpret people's opinions now a days it's hard to say anything about celsus without his own work to speak for him.

14:29 In all seriousness, is there a time when mocking your opponent wasn't a common tactic?

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Really not until the Victorian era made us all concerned to be nice and cordial. :)

I enjoyed your video. I look forward to viewing more. You seem to have a dry sense of humor and your audience may not follow some of your comments. Thanks

@scottleft3672

7 жыл бұрын

dry.?says the army guy...lol.

today in brazil we find hundreds of heresies - l have 7 years of theology course - l hide myself only in SOLA SCRIPTURE - THE BIBLE but like to know about everything - your videos are geat.

A better description of Marcionsim would appear to be "proto-Gnostic".

Mitas from Puerto Rico definitely sound like montanist.

Thanks for this. Are you sure that Prisca and Maximilla were not married and had left their husbands?

you seem well educated on the subject, please allow me to pose a question that has been on my mind. Heavenly Father is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful. Christ Jesus is all knowing? Christ said he does not know the time of the end, but only the Father knows. How can they be both one person, omnipotent omniscient and all knowing?

On what basis do you claim that Justin Martyr left all of his ideas on philosophy behind? His writings reveal much on what he believed. He quotes on "a certain rational power" as that being the Son of God. See volume 1, page 227 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Hendrickson pub.). The teaching on God and his two equal powers came from Philo of Alexandria. Pope Benedict wrote in his book on the Fathers that Justin introduced the "New Philosophy" and free of charge, set up a school in Rome. His writings also disclose him as being anti-Semitic.

great video

Ryan Reeves! Your Historical Theology Kung FU RULEZ! It Rulez!

Is it true that Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen actually did not believe in the Trinity but in Logos Subordinationist Unitarian theology?

G'day Ryan. Would the United Pentecostal Church's version of the trinity be Modalism? i.e. Jesus only movement.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Probably, though I am unsure what they teach exactly. Sometimes an emphasis can be made that makes one sound like Modalism, when in fact it's not self-consciously trying to deny Nicaea.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

peipappy1 Overwhelming most Pentacostal are not like the UPC.

Book of Matthew starts with Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph to solomon, David, and Abraham before (who Elohim promised to make his dynasty kings) . So how do evangelicals reconcile that with a 'virgin birth' ?

_Jesus born of a Roman solider?_ Now I see where *Monty Python* got that notion for *Life of Brian*. Bloody genius.

@aristotle358

7 жыл бұрын

His name was "Naughtius Maximus" :-)

@bassplayer8815

7 жыл бұрын

Biggus Dickus

@aristotle358

7 жыл бұрын

No. Naughtius Maximus..

@Saint_nobody

7 жыл бұрын

What's the difference? And now more over did said centurion ever have another son back in Rome? Would've he been by chance been named Lucius? Purely hypothetical scenario here. Something I mean to better express to those serious Christian friends we all know.

@ Ryan Reeves...how can one receive an answer from you?

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Hey there. Sorry. So many comments etc I can't always keep up! Shoot me an email if you have a question. Love to answer if I can. :)

I disagree with all your opinions but I enjoy your videos.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

It happens. But you can't disagree with ALL of my opinions?? :)

Would the late prophetic idea of "The Rapture" be Montanist? Also (and i do realize this is me being argumentative) wouldn't Paul have stated similar as he believed he was mouth piece...How has he come to be valid and others not? This has been a concern of mine about my faith.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Elisabeth Bunnell Noell Question. Are you thinking that the idea of the rapture did not have its origins in the first century?

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

It simply did not.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Elisabeth Bunnell Noell So what was Paul taking about in Thessalonians? 'The dead in Christ shall rise first and we who remain will be caught up with them...' those who had dies and we who are alive will go up to meet Jesus in the clouds. That sounds like the rapture to me. And further more, Thessalonians was wriiten in the first century by Paul.

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

There was no distinction that it was actual. The ideal of any actual rapture as understood today (most especially as separate from or occurring prior to a tribulation) was simply not part of accepted Christian theology until around the 19th Century.

literally like the greatest theologian that ever existed that explained everything Apostle Paul people have forgotten Christology.

"see into the intimate life of the Creator of everything" incredible that you think this is even possible.

It is pronounced Kelsus.All Greek names starting with "C" are always pronounced with a "K".

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Yes but I'm not a Greek speaker.

@nickburningham5143

7 жыл бұрын

Not a very impressive response, if I may say so. I'm scarcely a speaker of French, for example, but I try to pronounce French names more or less correctly.

Do you still keep the Sabbath as Christ did and all his apostles also did after His death.?

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+keyWestKid99 // That's not the issue of this post, but I'll take the bait. The historical record is clear that Christians from the beginning met on the Lord's Day, or Sunday. But they also met most other days for prayer and the eucharist. But it was not a later date that someone foisted 'Sunday' on everyone as the only day for worship. This was done from the beginning. Continuing the conspiracy theory that every Christian throughout history is living a lie is neither academically credible nor pastorally helpful.

@keyWestKid99

8 жыл бұрын

I Do. I also keep the Passover, Days of unleavened bread, Pentecost, Day of atonement, and Feast of tabernacle. The ten commandments . That is the biggest reason people don't want to keep commandments be cause "keep the Sabbath is the 4th commandment. The Sabbath IS the 7th day.

@mInorProphet1

7 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Reeves love the response.

@truethinker221

7 жыл бұрын

Do you stone to death those who gather fire wood on the Sabbath ?

@tessw9744

7 жыл бұрын

+truethinker lol....that's the trouble with returning to the law, isn't it? It makes them offenders, because those who preach law never fully keep it.

Did you address the heresy of denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist (Gnostics etc)?

@AveChristusRex

7 жыл бұрын

Catholics, so-called Orthodox, and the Church Fathers, the Bible. That's about it.

According to your definition, how would Arianisn be so serious (Biblically) to justify the extreme reaction?

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

bummer beavis Seeing that satan knew the Godhead personally, it makes sense that satan would make a counterfeit trinity an 'anti-trinity if you like and in the same way that there will be an Anti-Christ. Does this mean satan invented Christ? No, but we need to remeber that satan wants to replace God and see we should not be surprised to see some form of trinity from satan to usurp the true Trinity or Godhead.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Who was God speaking to when He said 'Let Us make man in Our image'?

@johnmacrae2006

7 жыл бұрын

+bummer beavis Didn't Paul get along with Peter?

@johnmacrae2006

7 жыл бұрын

+bummer beavis I think you're reaching with a scrap of information. Paul's teachings are consonant with the scriptures.

@johnmacrae2006

7 жыл бұрын

+bummer beavis There were no masons circa 40 AD. He was a member of the Pharisee sect who interpreted Scripture literally rather than allegorically, as masons tend to.

God is a version of Microsoft Windows with three system processes. Sometimes the processes interact. Ending any one process makes the system crash. On a scale of 0 to Sabellius, how Modalistic is that?

@MrCantStopTheRobot

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe God is C++. If I were more of a computer scientist, I would jest like, "But if Windows is all-powerful and all-good, why does It allow Malware to exist?" or of all our software being made in Windows' image, etc. But I won't.

ryan, you are making a lot of claims about what god is and how god works. how do you know these things?

Justin Martyr should have seen it coming, like Lou Gehrig. I found the definition of heresy illuminating. Using that definition, (the attempt to explain), it is apparent why Christianity was hostile to science for centuries. How's the old saying go, "The Bible may tell you how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go." I loved that you used the "Buddy Christ" from "Dogma". But, you literally take two seconds to refute Marcion's claim that the OT god was a vindictive & savage image. You merely say it is "entirely false", & then move on. Looking at the KJV, at least, the god seems to fit the description. The raped & dismembered concubine of the Levite in Judges 19, Jepthah's daugher, Lot's wife & daughters, worldwide floods, the tenth plague, transforming Nebuchadnezzar (sp?) into a beast, the torture of Job on a dare with Satan, endorsing genocide of entire cities & tribes, suggesting a woman marry her rapist as long as he tips her father some silver & leaving the only two gullible humans on the planet right beside the tree of Doom & a talking snake all come to mind. This is to say nothing of the endorsement of animal sacrifice as a means of repentance & the times when the god seems unable to forgive. For example, did Moses & the others have to wander for a generation only to die on the edge of Canaan? Not if the god was able to forgive. An abusive parent can talk about how much they love a child & how many things they let slide. However, this doesn't excuse them for later torturing the child in an effort to make them see their need to reform their patterns of thinking & their choices. After all, most rabbis & Talmud scholars point out these stories from the OT are stories, not histories. So why not tell stories about a god who doesn't say it's fine to beat your slaves as long as they can walk again within a few days, or a god who doesn't demand an ox has to be stoned to death if it gores the property of another person? Also, could you explain why god was talking to himself during the Gethsemane scene? And if he went off alone to pray, who was lurking in the bushes recording his words? Then again, the same can be said for the story about the woman taken in adultery. Talk about puppet shows & gumming up logical consistency.

y

Pepuza, of course... 😂😂😂😂

You make sure to point out the biblical mandate for charismata in order to defend charistmatics against the case of the Montanists, but for the superiority of Virginity over marriage which the Montanists also held you only offer mockery.... Very strange. The superiority of Virginity over marriage is also present in Sacred Scripture.......

i agree 100% with old Celsus!

I thought that the centurion who got Mary pregnant was called "Naughtius Maximus" :-)

Though the lecture was interesting, it was annoying how the lecturer kept on injecting his personal religious beliefs into it. Just tell us what the debates were; we can think for ourselves.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

I would argue, but well you're a dragon...

The bible has within it allegorically stories that represent human conscience "Adam was ONE with God. As the story continues, we learn that God placed Adam in a deep sleep (the realm of forgetfulness and consciousness fracture) and Eve was created. In this new state of being, Adam represents the waking conscious of mankind and Eve represents the subconscious. When the conscious and subconscious are no longer in unity, the state of Paradise (inner joy and peace) can no longer be maintained because the ego will take control. Thus the fall! As the story goes, Eve is tempted by the serpent or Satan (ego), and because the ego took over the driver’s seat of man’s soul, Paradise lost becomes man’s reality. This is also spiritual death. And spiritual death = separation from God. Adam represents man’s waking conscious and ego, and Eve represents the subconscious. Remember, the battle is between the ears! It’s all about the mind." Spirit of the Scripture web site. All thought is Antichrist. Jesus himself teaches us to "practice the single eye" and to "Take No Thought" AND "The Kingdom of God is within You !!

Sabaellianism explains the Trinity is an heresy yet when others do it is not ? Why ? Three Gods or Modalism or Arianism and so called Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are all attempts to explain a mystery and by your definition of heresy , are all heresies.

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

ABSOLUTELY GREAT POST!!!

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Paul W Starting with Genesis, "Let Us create man in Our image" is the beginning of that mystery which is revealed over time and made very clear in John 1:1 and so on.

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

could you explain?

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Paul W You don't say!? News FLASH brother......no one understands the Trinity - that is why it is considered a mystery even within it's own camp!

Tell me of the Apostle's Doctrine whereby a soul may never taste death. It's found in the Fellowship of the Five Wise Virgins, all others die in their sins. Want to know?

Mr. Reeves, around 32:22 you say that “we” baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But you don't mention why “we” do this. You are silent on (or dismissive of) the fact that it was Jesus-and no one else-who used these three terms, commanding his disciples explicitly to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then you you say “...there's some division, but IS it a division?” Well...it is YOU-and no one else-who is suggesting that a “division” is implied by Christ's words. Then at 33:19 you say “The problem with that, and this is where the Church lands, is that when you try to square that with the actual Biblical story, it makes no sense at all.” I have two questions about this statement of yours: (1) What is the “actual Biblical story” you refer to, that (as you seem to infer) contradicts Christ's actual words? (2) When you say “this is where the Church lands,” exactly which branch of the Church are you referring to? Perchance, are you referring to the branch that changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday so as to distance itself from the Jews and align with the pagan Roman holiday, and that invented simony and indulgences? Then you imply that the events of Gethsemane, the Crucifixion and Christ's baptism ... somehow argue AGAINST separate manifestations of God ... when precisely the opposite is true. You claim that it is the Modalists who say that, in these events, “God is talking to himself,” when the precisely opposite is true. If there are NOT separate manifestations, then-and only then-is God “talking to himself.” Indeed, Gethsemane, the Crucifixion, Christ's baptism, along with Christ's crystal-clear commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit-are four central Biblical events that bear witness to separate manifestations of God.

@OurHumbleLife

7 жыл бұрын

The name of Jesus is Y'shua, The name of GOD is YHWH. Jesus Christ is truly God's Son, sent BY God.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

OurHumbleLife The expressed image of God, God in the flesh. ☺

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

very well put!

@OurHumbleLife

7 жыл бұрын

1969cmp God has no flesh. Jesus told us that God is SPIRIT. If God came in flesh, then WHO is His Son, whom He SENT?

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

OurHumbleLife One of the members of The Godhead 😉

2:28 the Lord doesn't measure as we do with wealth and status Jesus was not a sorcerer that's straight wack Every birth is a miracle, the virgin birth is a miracle of miracles

please, please.. watch darkmatter2525's take on the old-testament stories, and you may just get an idea of where marcion may have gotten the idea that the old-testament god is evil. I particularly like his take on the tale of Lot, and sodom and gomorrah. funny as hell, and oh so relevant. To me, the heresies are ironic - all of them have their own internal logic more consistent to what we have now, and what survived seems to be a hodge-podge of myths, circular logic, and emotion all connected together by appeals to authority.

It is funny to hear that what is or is not heresy is essentially democratically decided by a consensus of fallible humans on what the "plain reading" of scripture is. So much for god not being the author of confusion.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Hanky Dubs Because the confusion comes from a lack of knowledge and or is external and contrary to the text.

@bodong729

7 жыл бұрын

bumface

@henrywood1356

7 жыл бұрын

I see here responses that target my admitted ignorance of Koine and Aramaic. Your god could have avoided being an author of confusion if he had avoided such obscure languages and such primitive peoples and chosen a more sophisticated people with which to communicate. Like the Chinese, who were far more technologically sophisticated and literate and whose civilization was more or less contiguous for thousands of years, predating the supposed exodus. If his message was so dang important, then why not make things more clear in the first place? Couldn't he have inspired King James to commission a more accurate bible? If the intent was to give us humans one clear message, then why spawn hundreds of sects of Protestantism alone? Why is he always relying on these human intermediaries mumbling ancient languages and contradicting each other, unless his intent is to confuse and deceive? How do you know that you are worshiping the good god and not the evil one?

@fisharmor

7 жыл бұрын

The "plain reading" of Scripture is a protestant concept. It didn't exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. The decisions you're talking about were not democratic. There has never been a Church Council where they cast votes and said "Well, 51% of us think Arius is a heretic, so I guess let's defrock him". The nature of the Councils is that the determinations made therein were unanimous. Non-protestants believe that it was the Holy Spirit continuing to act on Earth, through the Church, that led to the coherence and unanimity of doctrine early on. So God is not an author of confusion: He was an author of consistency. I find that there is more actual evidence of this than there is of a conspiracy to shut out dissenters, by the way.

@henrywood1356

7 жыл бұрын

Your first sentence is an admission that your god is an author of confusion. How could he have led the protestants astray, but left it to you to correct them on the concept of "plain reading?" Surely your god could reveal these facts to the benighted protestants in the same way he revealed his existence to them. Consensus is a democratic process. If you exclude large numbers of believers from the faith by excluding their books from the Canon, then it is not so difficult to establish consensus for a certain period of time. It is actually not so impressive that your god was only able to maintain this consensus for the blink of an eye in historical terms. And that's before we even get into the fact that your god evidently told the Hindus that he was lots of gods with lots of arms. Your god's plan looks like a comedy of errors to me.

Historically, there are 42,000 sects of CHRISTIANITY.

@AveChristusRex

7 жыл бұрын

Protestantism*

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Robert Galletta Give it enough time, their will be 42,000 variations of materialic evolution 😉

@AveChristusRex

7 жыл бұрын

+cobainzlady There is only one Catholic Church, East and West under the one Pope. Anything else is non-Catholic by definition. If a sect is Catholic, it believes what the Church teaches. if it doesn't, well. Not Catholic.

Already like that Celsius guy.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Kharmazov ....because....

@cambodiaremyzero

7 жыл бұрын

me,too ;)

@frankstrawnation

7 жыл бұрын

... reasons.

@2manyIce

7 жыл бұрын

Why? Do you like thermometers? Please at least try to read if you are hard of hearing.

funny how no one ever saw Jesus and wrote down I saw Jesus today..

Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings. 1 God. It's that simple. It's the only logical and rational thing which the scripture bear out.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and therefore no part of the whole can be equal to the whole, if God is one, then each part of that one can not be God by itself. That said, I have serious issues with the trinitarian paradigm. Trinitarianism is the heresy...

@elisabethbun

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed! i do NOT believe it removes the absolute importance of the passages he mentions nor does it simply explain the mystery of the Trinity. As to Jesus addressing God, how is the "True Trinitarian" idea not polytheistic?!

@StephenWebb1980

7 жыл бұрын

@peipapp1 - It's important to realize that it IS Logic, a very important part of the word theoLOGICal (θεολογικός). Don't confuse rationality and reason with theology. It's important to also note that I draw a distinction between theological principles and what you call theology. @1969cmp - It appears as though the owner of this video/page has disabled my ability to post new comments. So I will modify those I have already posted to reply. Anyhow. Your argument implies that neither the father, son, nor holy spirit are God (because you correctly point out that neither the shell, yolk, nor the white are an egg). I would agree that there is One God, and that none of the so-called "parts" or "persons" of God are God or as great as the whole. I think I'll use your analogy to prove my point. You've strengthened my own faith and understanding this day even though I know this is not what you meant at all. Thanks 8)

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Elisabeth Bunnell Noell Does egg yolk, egg white and egg shell make three eggs? Detractors of the trinity such as JW's and Muslims will come from the 'the trinity is polytheism' angle. But the trinity is not 'three gods', it is three persons making up The Godhead for which Jesus was a member of the trinity and became the expressed image of God in bodily form.

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Stephen Webb You are absolutely correct!

@theUglyManowar

7 жыл бұрын

Kind of hard to exclude philosophy from a theological survey of Christianity when OVER a third of the presented "teachings" are a minefield of rich philosophically laced parables.

It's impossible to understand Marcion's hatred of Yahweh? Really? Yahweh claims that he invented evil. Yahweh ordered the slaughter of the worshipers of the Golden Calf, which began religious warfare. Yahweh declared war on all the Jewish pagans, the worshipers of Asherah, the Queen of Heaven. Yahweh is nothing but a tribal god turned into a celestial sadist.

@gawaineross4656

7 жыл бұрын

The slaughter of the worshipers of the Golden Calf predates the Roman persecution of the Druids. In addition, the monotheists didn't stop then, the entire OT chronicles the persecution of the pagan Jewish polytheists (the worshipers of Asherah and the Queen of Heaven being very prominent). Roman (we should say the Army's) persecution of the Druids had a justification, that the Druids practiced human sacrifice. Roman persecution was always political. (Christians were persecuted because they were atheists and cannibals, allegedly.) If people did slaughter each other over religion before Moses appeared, I haven't found it, and I am pretty familiar with ancient history.

@scottleft3672

7 жыл бұрын

someone has to.

@vragenstaatvrij777

7 жыл бұрын

The druid priests were already persecuted by Julius Caesar.

@1969cmp

7 жыл бұрын

Gawaine Ross Pharoah's attempt the slaughter the Hebrew people after they were set free. Yes, there was an economic element but he was also tick off at the God of Moses for cornering him. So in effect this had every element of being a religious war against YHWH. Earlier we have the slaughter of the Hebrew babies. Besides being an attempt to ethnically cleanse (partially) the Hebrews people, the Hebrews were different because they were the people of The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

@hisxmark

7 жыл бұрын

+Gawaine Ross "Roman (we should say the Army's) persecution of the Druids had a justification, that the Druids practiced human sacrifice." The Romans also practiced human sacrifice, burying slave or PoW's in the foundations of public buildings.

It really requires a suspension of disbelief to swallow this 3 "persons" of god thing. It's a wily idea, utter nonsense to a clear thinker these days, when people aren't tainted by fear of punishment by an angry god and confident enough to call BS. A father who impregnated a virgin and had a son, but the son was already pre-existent with the father. Might as well tack on a Holy Spirit, because you have to have one of those too. And the son dies and comes back to life - cos we all don't want to die.

The BIBLE says some fools will think themselves wise ! Read the BIBLE ! See if you are the fool or wise ! An Angle told Mary how JESUS would be conceived ! READ before you comment ! You sound like a fool ! Per JESUS !

We have no further to look than Paul's own words. Sorry, but it's TRUE. QUOTE: Paul's Contradictions of Jesus Here is a list of the major contradictions by Paul of things Jesus taught. List of 25 Contradictions Expounded Below • Jesus Says Not To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols, But Paul Says It Is Ok • Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No • Paul Says The Pharisees Followed The Law Rigorously, But Jesus Says They Were Lax About The Law • Jesus Says Salvation Initiates And Continues By Repentance From Sin and Obedience Besides Faith; Paul Says This is Heresy • Jesus Tells Apostles To Teach His Commands Given Prior to His Ascension While In The Flesh, But Paul Says Not To Do So • Paul Says Elders Are Entitled To Pay for 'Preaching & Teaching,' But Jesus Says No • Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth • Paul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power • Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Paul Says There Are Many Pastors and Teachers • Paul Says God Is The God of the Dead, But Jesus Says God Is Not The God of the Dead • Paul Says God Does Not Live in Temples Made of Human Hands, But Jesus Says He Does • Jesus says Nations Of The World Are Under Satan, But Paul Says Their Rulers Are Agents of God • Jesus Teaches Rapture is Of Evil Ones First, But Paul Teaches The Opposite • Jesus Says A Call Is Revocable, But Paul Says It Is Irrevocable • Jesus Says Some Are Righteous, But Paul Says It Is Impossible • Paul Excludes Eating With Sinners But Christ's Example We Are To Follow, and the Lost Sheep Parable, Is Contrary • Paul Teaches We Are Eternally Secure, But Jesus Teaches Insecurity to a Sinning Believer • Paul Teaches In Original Sin But Jesus Contradicts • Jesus' Command About Calling Anyone Fool Is Violated by Paul • Paul Denies Obedience Grants Any Righteousness Unto Life, But Jesus Says It Does • Jesus Sends The Apostles to Baptize, But Paul Says Jesus Did Not Send Him to Baptize • Jesus Says the Merciful Receive Mercy, But Paul Says Only Those God Chooses Arbitrarily Will Receive Mercy • Paul Says Salvation Does Not Depend Upon Exertion, But Jesus Says It Does • Paul Says He Could Be Justified of The Sin that Never Could be Justified under the Law given Moses (Blasphemy), but Jesus says to the contrary that it is The Unpardonable Sin. • Paul Says Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but Jesus in Flesh ascended to heaven, and promises to resurrect our bodies to heaven / New Jerusalem, giving us the same physical resurrection that Jesus had. END QUOTE www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html Here's just one example, using Bible verses, of why that quoted statement is truthful. On whom God has mercy: Paul says: Rom.9 [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. [18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. Jesus says: Matt.5 [7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

It is hard to argue for the virginity of Mary. The prophecies simply say that a young maiden will bear a child. Mark and John say nothing about a virgin's birth. Since we don't know when the gospels were written, we can't say that the early church made up the story of the virgin birth, or not. Mark is supposed to be the first written gospel and does not say anything about Mary. The Christian Jews were the first Christians and did not say anything about virgin birth. You make bold statements based on the gospels which are not historical documents. So please stop with the virgin birth which is not that important to Christianity.

@ianalan4367

8 жыл бұрын

+rico1357 - I would say it is of utmost importance to Christian theology. It supports the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38- this is a prophesy fulfilled from Isaiah 7:14Peace to all!

@rico1357

8 жыл бұрын

Frankly, I don't understand how people can accept the four gospels,mark, luke, mahtew and john as true gospels but not any other of the so called gnostic gospels. There is no proof that the four gospels were written by actual witnesses who saw and herd Jesus while alive. The four gospels are not any more factual than any other gospel.

@ianalan4367

8 жыл бұрын

rico1357 - I hear ya! To some extent it is a matter of faith. I mean we don't have conclusive proof for accepting any of the Bible do we? It is a divine evidence and conviction I think. I accept Christianity as founded from the beginning. Those theologians that gave us Christianity as we know it deemed certain books of the Bible as divinely inspired and other writings such as the Gnostics heresy. There are certain Gnostic doctrines that most certainly are in conflict with the early Church. Speaking only for myself of course.

@tiggergolah

8 жыл бұрын

+rico1357 The death of any man who is not fully God could not save us from our sins. The virgin birth was necessary so that the child would be physically God's Son, as well as spiritually. Any man born into sin with a sinful nature, could not die for everyone else. As to your rejection of the inspiration of accepted canon, neither I nor anyone else can prove to you in the manner you want. Jesus said the rich man's brother had the law and the prophets, and that was warning enough. Keep in mind that regardless of what you think of them, God will hold you accountable for what is written in them. My responsibility to you is fulfilled.

@charlesvonhabsburg3107

7 жыл бұрын

+rico1357 someone who accepts the canonical gospels cannot accept the Gnostic gospels and be consistent. Many of them deny the humanity of Christ. And that is just one of the heresies you find in them. They are not inspired and come about at least a century after Jesus died and some of them are from as late as the fourth century. Whereas three of the four canonical gospels are dated to the middle of the first century and the gospel of John is dated from the last decade of the 1st century. There was a reliable and well-established tradition as to who wrote the four gospels and there is no reason to doubt the validity of the authorship of the gospels. There is no way possible that the gospel of judas was written by judas or that the gospel of Thomas was written by thomas.