The greatest of men are often the most slandered. Origen was a great church father. Pray for Origen. 🙏🏼

@traviswortham2565

3 жыл бұрын

He’s dead, so why would you pray for him?

@OriginalSinner

3 жыл бұрын

@Read Father Seraphim Rose They falsely attributed heresies to him.

@nolanl3343

Жыл бұрын

@Travis Wortham Christians pray FOR dead people, not TO dead people. When a fellow Christian dies we pray for their salvation.

@ronaldeglewski3073

11 ай бұрын

@@traviswortham2565 Souls do not die , Saints do not die .they are with Jesus adoring him , how many times do Catholic's have to explain to you Protestants , you all do not care to learn the truth its in the bible .

@ronaldeglewski3073

11 ай бұрын

@@elizabethp4064 You were taught lies , and know nothing about the Catholic Church and how Christ started his Church threw Peter , read about the early father's St. Ignatius wrote , were ever Jesus is there is the Catholic Church , Ignatius and the younger Polycarp were taught by St. John died at 95 years old the last Apostle

Universal reconciliation was the most popular view within the early church. He’s not the only one, in fact there are NUMEROUS historical writings found written by earlier church fathers of them all agreeing on universal reconciliation. Even st Augustine wrote about how the view that everyone will be reconciled was held by the majority of Christians. Eternal torment became popular through the Roman church. Out of the first 6 major theologian schools within the first 6 centuries AD 4 out of the 6 taught universal reconciliation, 1 taught annihilation and the other eternal torment.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I do not know what Augustine believed about universal reconciliation, but he lived more than 100 years after Origen. I don't know what other Post-Nicene writers believed about universal reconciliation. What I do know is that the early church (Pre-Nicene Christians) did not believe in universal reconciliation but rejected it (except Origen is the only one). If you know of another writer from the Pre-Nicene period who believed in universal reconciliation, I would be interested in seeing what they wrote about it. God bless!

@carlosfurones0117

5 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church St. Basil the Great, Diodore of Tarsus, Theophilus of Antioch, Iraneaus of Lyons, Gregory of Nazianzeu, Bishop of Constantinople, St. Macrina the Blessed, St. Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsesuita, Didymus the Blind, Eusebius of Caesarea, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, Clement of Alexandria.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@carlosfurones0117 Thank you for sharing. The only ones I am familiar with are the ones who lived before the Council of Nicaea: Theophilis and Irenaeus. I am unfamiliar with any writing from them that promoted universal reconciliation. What did they say about it?

@holzmann-

4 жыл бұрын

@@carlosfurones0117 As far as I am concerned, most Christians back then also rejected the immortality of the soul

@holzmann-

4 жыл бұрын

@@carlosfurones0117 Did those really accept Universal Salvation? If yes, they were in grave error. I have studied Ireanous however and he taught no such thing

This was really useful thank you for uploarding a video like this keep up the good work

This channel is the answer to my prayers!

Well done! I really like this piece because the video-maker not only provides information, but also clearly and finely demonstrates his own opinion!

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! When it comes to this kind of information, it is good to be has objective and honest as possible. That includes anytime I inject some of my own conclusions. This was my goal. Thanks for noticing! Sadly, I didn't always do this. I spoke way out-of-turn at the end of the video on the Didache. May God bless you!

Thank you for this video. I went through the Faith Bible Institute, which is very much a KJV only school, and we were definitely taught a very negative view of Origen. I'm glad to finally see the other side of the story.

Thank you for this teaching, it really helps me. Russ from Oregon

crazy how Augustine who was a Gnostic, taught heavily Gnostic influence doctrine, who didn't even speak, read or understand greek/hebrew he admitted he just loved debating. has extremely heavy influence on the modern church ideology when Origen who has little to none, when Origen understood the scripture in Greek and hebrew 100x more intimately.

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. You are exactly right. God bless you!

@hokalos

2 жыл бұрын

Huh? Which of Augustine’s doctrine is heavily gnostic?

@stevenmike1878

2 жыл бұрын

@@hokalos there is a lot if you go thru it. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X4aayK-CntC0c7Q.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/k3eKk7J-mrTYkaQ.html he never spoke or read Greek or Hebrew. and has admitted he just like to debate for the sake of debating and played rhetorical games around his philosophy, that contradicted 300 years of consistent church teachings and doctrine.

@hokalos

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenmike1878 I’ll have a look at those videos when I have time. For the time being, would you mind summarising which points of his are particularly gnostic? Also, his love of debate and sophistic argumentation was prior to his conversion to Christianity as he himself admitted in the Confessions. In the Retractations, Augustine repented of his over-philosophising and even recanted his admiration for Plato and Plotinus.

@stevenmike1878

2 жыл бұрын

@@hokalos Augustine (354-430) to develop the first systematic defense of religious persecution in the history of western civilization. Augustine called his approach “righteous persecution” because it justified persecution for the righteous cause of saving people from the eternal torments of hell. he created multiple courts to prosecute pelagius. he used underhanded tactics and preemptive means to rig the court cases. 3 of the cases pelaguis was still proven to be genuine orthodox and even the pope innocent agreed he was orthodox. Augustine then set up a court in his own town and set up a court where pelaguis was not able to attend to defend himself. later Augustine petitioned the emperor of rome thru swaying the emperor and thru eventual political pressure got his way, and all the Christians who did not agree with his theology faced harsh and deadly persecution.

Since Origen tied his idea of Universal reconciliation to repentance he may have seen in what some refer to as judgment day as a final time to repent similar to the repentant thief on the cross

Excellent!

Where men have failed in rewarding Origen's fruits, I'm sure God will accommodate abundantly as He sees fit.

@grandmasterlucien

3 жыл бұрын

@Athanasius Contra Marxism You can read someones writings from an analytical perspective, you don't have to agree with statements they make.

Thank you for your video, and for your responses to comments. I hope we are all humbling ourselves and benefiting. Years ago I saw many shelves of books by Origen. I was at Speer library in Princeton. I took a little dip. Origen's writing was too dense for me then. Maybe I would understand him better now.

I love a good Origen story.

This video whets my appetite to read more of Origen. I think you did a balanced discussion of his merits and flaws. I’ve begun reading two books about the early church fathers, one by Mike Aquilina, and one by Boniface Ramsey. By the way, which Bible translation do you like best? God bless you, brother!

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! There are quite a few good translations out there. And there are quite a few of very bad "translations" too. If you're looking for a good translation, it depends on what you're looking for. I use one for literal accuracy, one for public reading, and a handful of different ones when I need to compare translations. My personal favorite (which I think has a good balance of all those things) is the translation I use on this channel: HCSB (today called the CSB). God bless you!

@michaelalbertjr.3230

3 жыл бұрын

The YLT

If Origen is in heaven now, he wouldn't really care what people thinks of him or if whether he has a feast day or not.

I am a supporter of the KJV and actually I agree with you about Origen here. Most KJV enthusiasts do not o enough research. Thank you for this video, and GOD bless.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+ENiGMA Thanks for sharing that. :) God bless you too!

@enigma9306

8 жыл бұрын

May I ask by the way, what your opinion on the correct Scripture and translations thereof, is?

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+ENiGMA I'm not sure what you mean by correct Scripture. But I do have opinions on correct translations. Thanks for asking. I'll just mention some of my favorites and why I think they are good. American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV). This is the most accurate and literal translation of the whole Bible. Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV). This is a great literal version by Jay P. Green. New International Version (NIV). This is the best translation overall. It's a great balance of accuracy and readability. Good News Bible (GNB or GNT). This is the most easiest to read and, as far as I have tested it, extremely accurate. New Living Translation (NLT). This translation is surprising accurate for a paraphrased translation. I really like how it bring out the power of the Scriptures. It's not useful for study, but it is great for public readings. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). This is my personal favorite. Its vocabulary is very accurate and it reads the best for me. There is no perfect transaction of the Scriptures. I wish there was, but I have found flaws in all of them. The ones above are my favorites. There are some out there that that should be avoided. For example... The Message (MSG). I have to mention this one. This is a paraphrase from the mind (not Scriptures) of Eugene Patterson. This is the worst "translation" I have ever seen. It's an abomination. I don't understand how it has become so popular.

@enigma9306

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your answer. My apologies. By correct scripture I intended to inquire about your views on which texts; Byzantine, Alexandrian, Sianaticus etc. Or for the old testament, the Biblia Hebraica or the Septuagint. And as part of a side question, relating to correct scripture, do you believe that the Deuterocaon/Apocrypha should be in the Bible? (Personally I think certain writings like 1 and 2 Clement should be read but should not be in the Bible. I do not however think texts such as Judith should be read, do to its clear historical inaccuracies and contradictions). I can see that you prefer texts translated from the Nestle-Aland such as the NSAB or the ESV, from the Vaticanus and Vulgate texts for the new testament. I personally prefer the Byzantine, but have read and studied most of these other bibles you have listed. May I ask why you prefer these over those translated from the King James, my personal favourite? :) I hope to learn from and if I may share what I know so if I am worthy hat you may suffer learning from me. :)

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+ENiGMA Thanks for clarifying. When it comes to the New Testament texts, I don't have a favorite. When it comes to the amount of content, I prefer the Byzantine, just because it has additional phrases that are not in other manuscripts. I would rather error on having "too much" Scripture than removing Scripture. When it comes to the NT, I prefer to use the early Christians above a certain text. I like to see what they had to say about each verse. Since they are so ancient, more ancient than any text we have today, I believe they are the best witness as to which text-type is best. But instead of generally saying which text-type is best, I think this should be done verse-by-verse. When it comes to the OT, the Septuagint is best hands down. There isn't much of a contest there. Starting in February, I will release a four-video series on the Septuagint. About the Deuterocanon and Apocrypha, I think each of those books should be weighed individually. For example, I believe Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1Macc should be included, but I do not believe Judith should be. For the NT, I don't think they are inspired Scripture prese, but I would love to see 1 Clement and maybe 2 Clement included. Yes, I like the Byzantine also. The most recent translation from the Byzantine is the NKJV, right? To me, even the NKJV is a bit hard to read. The sentence structures are weird to me. I wish someone would make a more recent translation from the Byzantine. Sure, I don't mind sharing why I prefer those over the KJV. But be warned: I have strong criticisms of the KJV. (1) I don't like the KJV because it is so archaic. The English of the KJV is too far-gone for 95% of people today. For example, I had to memorize Matt 7:21 in the KJV one time. After reading it for what seemed like 100 times, I never ever understood what it was saying. Of course, I knew what it was TRYING to say because I'm familiar with that verse in other translations. (2) The KJV has some mythology in it. I do not believe the KJV translators believed in pagan mythology, but I am curious why they translated a couple Hebrew words as "unicorn" and "satyr." As for the unicorn, I have researched that. Jerome's Vulgate translated it accurately: rhonocerus. Why the KJV chose unicorn, I do not know. (3) The KJV has other mistranslations. I don't fully fault the translators for these, but I do believe they could have put more time and effort into some of these mistranslations. For example, the NT makes a clear distinction between Hell and Hades. In the KJV, they translate both Greek words as Hell. This is a mistranslation. There are many more mistranslations like this. When the ASV came out in 1901, it corrected nearly ALL of those mistranslations. If I had a choice between the KJV and the ASV, I believe the KJV does not have a single advantage over the ASV, which is better in every way. Sorry, I told you I had strong criticisms of the KJV. I certainly mean no offense to those who love it! I believe the KJV was a great and amazing translation centuries ago. It has brought countless people to faith in God. I will give the KJV due honor, but ever since the ASV, and certainly since the translation boom of the 70s and 80s, I believe the KJV has served its godly purpose and has become obsolete. I still use the KJV in my studies when I am looking at how a variety of translations translate verses.

I enjoy learning about the early church, thanks for your videos. Shame there isn't much love between Christ's body in these comments.

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately.

Origen very well coheres with The Spirit Of Truth, and with Scripture. When the video stated that Origen has been associated with the Alexandrian translations, that did not make sense to me because those are corrupted translations. When it was stated that he actually agreed most often with the Byzantine, I saw once again that The Spirit Of Truth does never lead me astray. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ are all made alive, but every in their own order." We know that we become eternal and transcend time, so we do pre-exist ourselves. The threefold interpretation is something I've never noticed, yet I have always adhered to (since being born of Spirit). Much love.

@DDFergy1

4 жыл бұрын

How do we know that we become Eternal and Transcend Time?

@DDFergy1

4 жыл бұрын

We are given Eternal Life as a gift. But what is Eternal Life? Is it a Quality or a Quantity of Life? Or do you assume it is both?

@DDFergy1

4 жыл бұрын

Does the gift of Eternal Life turn us into God? When Glorified are we to be present at Creation and the End? Why are we so finite now if we are a "later" Glorified Being? Are we to council God about His plans?

Hello! I was wondering what book/writing you quoted from about "the followers etc.". It said Vol 9 but not the name of the book. I want to read the book so could you please name it to me :D God Bless

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

I'm sorry that is confusing. "ANF" is the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Here is a direct link to the chapter where Origen wrote this (in volume 9). www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.vii.xv.html Here is a collection of resources that may be helpful. There is a link to the Table of Contents of each volume of the ANF. docs.google.com/document/d/12m6iuPdIFPpq0Bf89D1l8IH2kCObidmbTAKpQKTO_dM/edit?usp=sharing God bless!

I've wondered myself if the Devil could be forgiven.

I have not read any books or commentaries from Origen. I agree with you fully about him. I think perhaps disinformation influenced my knowledge of his life works.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. If you are curious to check out Origen's writings, I highly recommend his commentaries. He wrote commentaries on Matthew, John, and Romans. Here is a location where you can read his commentaries on Matthew and John for free. Scroll down to the end. God bless! www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.toc.html

It's not currupt it's taking advantage of the lack of adjatives and verbs in Hebrew. Greek has less issue but still leaves room to translate and interpret authority and higher archy.

In the 8th book chapter 17 of contra celsum, does it indicate that the altar was no where found in the ante nicene Era and post nicene fathers are the one who made one?

@PostApostolicChurch

21 сағат бұрын

Thank you for commenting. Here is a link to that chapter from Origen. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xvii.html Here is a summary of what Origen is saying. 1) Celsus points out that Christians do not make altars, statues, nor temples in their religion. Therefore, Christians must be a forbidden and secret society. 2) Origen responds that, in Christianity, each person is an altar to God. And it is the prayers of Christians that are the incense/aroma that arises from their altar (which is themselves). 3) Origen compares and contrasts the statues and paintings that skills artists make with the altar and statue of the actual Christian, which is made by the Word of God. Origen also points out that there are skilled and unskilled artists and painters in his day. 4) Origen ends with the example of Jesus, saying that there is no more perfect alter/statue built by God than His Son Jesus. To answer your question, there were TONS of altars and statues and temples during the Ante-Nicene era. But all of these were built by non-Christians in their idolatry. In Christianity, they built no altars nor statues. Instead, Christians themselves are the altars/statues of God, built by God. Regarding Post-Nicene fathers, I am less familiar with that era. But I believe it was during this time that Post-Nicene Christians began the practice of making icons ...which the Pre-Nicene Christians would have completely rejected!

We believers have been lead astray a long time. Some of us want the truth, but we must be careful we don't go more astray. I've become interested in Origen because he thought our souls existed prior to our current life. I've been thinking this 20 yrs or so, yet I don't know what it means. I don't think Satan nor his devils can be saved. Let us tread softly and slowly as we examine men like Origen.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

As you have been thinking about the pre-existance of souls, I'm curious what the significance is. I mean, if souls pre-exist before being in the womb, what problems does that present? (If any?) And if souls did pre-exist, what benefits would that have to the way we think about Christianity? God bless!

@ASymbolicSymbol

5 жыл бұрын

To me, even as someone who admires Origen, the trouble I have with his pre-existence of souls theory is more philosophical then biblical I'll admit. Because contrary to popular belief, Origen did not just propose the idea on sheer platonic thought alone, though I can see where it would have influenced it, but rather did have a few pieces of scripture that seem to support the idea such as Jeremiah 1:5. My issue with it is in many ways the same issue I have with Calvinism's view of predestination. Mainly on the justice of being born into our current lives based on the actions of our alleged pre-existence lives that we have no memory or control of. It is even one thing if we did have the memories of this existence and then had the knowledge to choose to learn from them or continue in sin. However, to make the state of life we are born into being based on these previous past life actions just seems pernicious. Not to mention that even though Origen very specifically rejects the transmigration of souls (i.e reincarnation) It is quite an easy adjustment to make pre-existence fit into it, which no doubt led many Christian to be leery of promoting the idea. In an ironic way, Origen's theory of pre-existence could be considered the proto-Calvinism that planted the seed to be later water by Augustine and then grown to fruition centuries later by John Calvin. And again even as someone who admires his writing, thought and influence he had on theology...well of the many things I might disagree with later Christian's rejecting from him, this is one area I think they were in the right and Origen in the wrong. Least that's the way I personally see it.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

I greatly appreciate your comment, ASymbolicSymbol. I really, really love what you said! I also cannot find fault in the pre-existence of souls when it comes to Scripture. But yes, philosophically, there are problems. I don't think Origen's pre-existence belief had any affect on Augustine. Augustine's strange (pre-Calvinism) beliefs comes from his previous life as a Gnostic. Unfortunately, Augustine brought a few Gnostic beliefs into Christianity, most of which are still celebrated by Catholicism.

@christfollower5713

4 жыл бұрын

Souls existed before we be born ? If you think of that it totally makes no sense lol , we never existed or became conscious unless we were born , Philosophical errors .

I give apostolic talks at Nugget of Truth.

I am not sure if this is right,I have it as the Textus Receptus as the oldest,not the newer.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

The Textus Receptus originated in 1516 with Erasmus when he compiled manuscripts of the Bible. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus The Codex Sinaiticus' actual manuscripts date back to the mid-300s AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus The Codex Vaticanus' actual manuscripts date back to the early-300s AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus This is why the Alexandrian family of Biblical manuscripts is older.

@againstthepope2362

7 жыл бұрын

''The Textus Receptus originated in 1516 with Erasmus when he compiled manuscripts of the Bible.'' this is correct BUT, its source were copies of Mss that can be traced as far as 120 AD. And Beza revision of Erasmus Greek text all the way back to the 6th century ( that's in the 500s). That's 1100 years of preservation texts. Who's not to say that Beza in the 6th century wasn't copied from the original.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing that good info, tracing the copying of manuscripts back.

You forgot to mention his radical subordinationism, which later came to influence Arius of Alexandria, as Jerome wrote.

Origen “If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens”- Origen (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Excellent Video :). As a Protestant, and someone who grew up in a KJV household. I grow sick of us bashing Catholic church writers or Pre-Nicean writers due to our superiority complex. Tho I may disagree with these writers on certain things, I think there is great value and insight to be learned from there. Far too often it seems like we’re throwing out the baby with the bath water Cheers : )

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. You have a great perspective on this. It is my hope that people will be blessed by this information. God bless you.

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

One you STOP attacking the Church, you are almost certainly soon to be DRAWN TO it....

@bensilliman7325

4 жыл бұрын

Not all criticism is bashing. Take a look at Origen's deviations from scripture and you will appreciate the skepticism. That is not to say that he did not get some things right, just that he might not be a preferred authority for Biblical Christians.

@sjappiyah4071

4 жыл бұрын

Glenn Lanham I personally don’t “ attack the church” , as a Protestant i just personally have some disagreements with my catholic brothers from the Roman Catholic sect. Disagreements such as, not believing the Pope is fallible, disagreeing on concepts such as indulgences, etc.. However once again, I can appreciate great channels like “ Post-Apostolic Church” for producing high quality videos like these so I can learn. God Bless

@sjappiyah4071

4 жыл бұрын

Ben Silliman I never said all Criticism is bashing... I said in my circles of Protestant Christians there are many Ignorant individuals you think any aspect of Catholic Christianity or Pre-Nicene Christianity is demonic heresy. Of course I have my disagreements with some origen’s writings and other catholic or pre-Nicene philosophers writings but you gotta take the good with the bad, and try to learn. Regardless, God Bless brother

What is The Post-Apostolic Church ? Does it reject the New Testament and particularly St Paul ? Does is sustain a revival of the doctrinal enrichments brought by the patristics ? is it inspired by one of the deviations of the Reform movements ? In this case which one ? I would be glad to read a profession of faith by this Post-Apostolic Church

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. Post-Apostolic Church is the name of this KZread channel. It's nothing more than that. The purpose of this channel is to share the history and faith of the Pre-Nicene Christians. God bless you!

It is sad and yet very interesting that so many controversies developed both before and after the Nicene Counsel. How do you feel about this? Does it hinder your faith in Jesus?

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

About Arianism, Trinity, and the nature of Jesus, those were highly debated in those early centuries. As you know, there are so many controversies that are debated today! Back then, it was no different. For example, there is a work called "Treatise on Re-Baptism" by an unknown author. He took a position different from Tertullian. It is really amazing to see the other side and read very good arguments about the subject of re-baptism. When early Christians debated controversies, so many of them were hard-lined on what they believed. In my opinion, they were often too hard-lined. When it comes to Arianism, Trinity, and the nature of Jesus, I'm not going to call people heretics if they believe different than me. I have my beliefs, but I'm not going to cause division over things that have little effect on things that pertain to life and godliness (2Pet 1:3). So no, my faith is not troubled by these things. I love studying theology, but I'm not IN love with it. I'm IN LOVE with Jesus Christ. I feel that everything about Him--His PERSON--is a more important life-changer than us trying to understand the mysteries of God. I hope that make sense. But when it comes to the incarnation, I don't think that was much of a controversy. What is said in the Nicene Creed was universality believed. Among Christians, there was practically no deviation from it.

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

It simply makes me grateful for the Heroes like Athanasius who defended Orthodox belief...

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

Heresy to this day continues to raise it's ugly head, I just had an argument with a "oneness Pentecostal", who is basically just a Sabellian heretic in the 21st century...

so what is the prexisting of souls? that doesnt soung right by title.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting and asking. The pre-existance of souls means that a person's soul existed before they were conceived in the womb. There may be different views on it, but the common belief might be that God created all souls at the same time He created the universe. The souls have been in a place, waiting for a time when they will be joined to a physical body in the womb. As mentioned in this video, this belief is different from reincarnation. In reincarnation, souls are "recycled" and always have been attached to a body. I hope that makes sense. God bless!

Can someone please explain to me why in the bible Jesus preaches that the kingdom of God would be coming to earth along with the son of man in their lifetime but it didn't happen.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I think you are referring to Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27. It is appropriate that you commented on Origen's video. Origen wrote about this.... The death Jesus speaks about is not physical death but spiritual death. Take Peter, James, and John for example. These godly men ate the Bread of Life, Christ, and do not experience spiritual death. These men followed Jesus so closely and obediently, "they saw the manifestation and the glory and the kingdom and the excellency of the Word of God in virtue of which He excels every word." Do not think that Matthew says that the apostles will taste death AFTER they see the coming of the Son of Man. "Until" doesn't always mean that after an event, the opposite will occur (that they will taste death). I believe Origen is saying that, when Jesus rose from the dead and all power and authority was given to Him, the apostles saw Jesus, the Son of Man, come into His kingdom. As Jesus said to the apostles right before He ascended, "I will be with you always, even until the end of the age." So in short, Jesus has already come into His kingdom and He reigns now. And anyone today who believes in Jesus as the Son of God will see the Son of Man in His kingdom. God bless!

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

this is referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the "tearing of the veil" which BEGAN the Kingdom of God...

What are your sources?

@PostApostolicChurch

20 күн бұрын

My source for this channel is the Ante-Nicene Fathers. For this video, I also looked at the writings of Eusebius, Jerome, and perhaps more. God bless you!

This is excellent! Do you know if the earlier church fathers supported Calvinism?

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Eventually, I will make videos on what the early Christians believed about this or that doctrine. It may be a long time, but stay tuned! When it comes to being born with sin, individual predestination, and once saved always saved (which are three of the major points of Calvinism), the early Christians rejected all of these. I'll make a video about it eventually, but until then, I recommend these these videos. Eternal Security - kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZqeY16-xoL3dlZc.html Predestination - kzread.info/dash/bejne/lYyWusOdldeXYM4.html

@localguide1611

9 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church I have watched all your videos. I just want to say thank you for posting them all and replying to me on Calvinism. Those are the 3 main points that is being pushed by strong Calvinist movements in Australia. Debates on Calvinism using the Bible itself doesn't seem to lead any where so I thought maybe the Early Church father's especially the Apostolic Church Fathers might give heavy evidence for the truth? I will definitely check out the links you mentioned and wait for your videos on doctrine. God bless you.

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

john lee It may be years before I get to those videos, so don't wait for me to share them. The two videos I shared are ways to get answers right now. God bless you too!

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

Ummm..Calvin lived 1200+ years AFTER the early Fathers....so NO

@gerardstuurman8522

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Is the teaching that we are born in sin a heresy?

These Apostles history is great that we know so much about its lineage. I don't agree with praying to them or Elevating saint hood for doing what they did. I pray for those who have went astray from proper church practice.

Origen also taught that The Bible was meant to be taken as extremely significant metaphor and not taken as literal fact.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting! Yes, Origen certainly stressed that interpretation of Scripture. But he did spend time talking about the historical facts about it also. For example, I'm thankful to Origen in explaining the true historical reading of John 1:28. It is not "Bethany" but "Bethabara." And he gave a lot of reasons why that is correct reading of the town. In short, Origen did talk about the literal facts, but he spent most of his time talking about the spiritual (metaphorical) readings of Scripture. Thanks for stopping by and sharing! God bless.

@JamesJones-mt9co

4 жыл бұрын

Please Source please cite historical facts that origin did not believe in teaching a practical application to the scriptures that he did not believe in taking the Bible literally

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch I agree, this sola scriptura idea belittles God

@kidflersh7807

Жыл бұрын

@@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15 who said anything about sola scriptura?

6:30, did Origin corrupt the Scriptures?

Couple questions sir! lol Origen and Jerome rationalized the predestination of the chosen (who were chosen before the foundation of the world in christ jesus to be fellow heirs) with a divine foreknowledge of the Father knowing the heirs of the inheritance, and who would hear his name? It seems that predestination as doctrine in the early universal (catholic) church does not exist, combated by certain trues of gnostism, that evidently were inspired by the apostle of the heretics (Paul, no disrespect to Paul, i believe Jerome called him such reffering to also what the Apostle Peter was reffering to when he said in his letters can be difficult to understand and some ignorant and unstable people use these as an occasion to distort the message of the gospel). I just want to know the background of "predestaintion" related doctrines in the early church? Secondly, how do you compare textual traditions MS. VS. LXX (Gottingen critical edition much more extensive then Septuginta Ralfs edition) its very tidious dealing with variants and understanding the date of the variants and the reasoning (or textual traditions that explain the presence of such interpolations or divergences or authentic readings)? I understand that early church fathers quotations can help understand what type of mansuscripts they had, but also, do you have a video on the hexapla and the column that origen corrected, and wheter or not that supersceeeded the previous LXX and is that most likely the text we have now? Also lol (last one) view of Jubilees and Enoch amongst early christians, and who/where are some early fathers i can read there views on these books, (i really adore the alexandrian school of thought, carrying down from my bestfriend Philo lol)

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting! When it comes to what the Pre-Nicene Christians believed about predestination, that will come in a later video. As a spoiler: predestination was a belief unique to the Gnostics. The universal church did not accept predestination until the time of Augustine, who was the first Christian who promoted predestination. As for the Masoretic and Septuagint, check out this channel's series of videos. kzread.info/head/PLKXGJjRU-bTV8i7pQ700Z4Jkw0WN1djiO Unfortunately, the Hexapla is lost to history. However, the Septuagint has been around over 400 years longer than the Hexapla. And we have many ancient fragments of the Septuagint. It appears that the early Christians knew of Jubilees and Enoch. However, none of them believed those books were inspired nor Scripture. The early Christian writer that might have something to say about those books is Clement of Alexandria. I would start searching his writings.

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Enoch, just like the early church writings, should be accepted. See John 20:30

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch As for election, Jesus said many are called, few are chosen, which may talk about apostles and prophets. Paul may have been one of them, along with several of the church fathers. I am glad to see your humility and openness, that is how it is supposed to work.

Origen also criticized the literal interpretation of Genesis regarding the “how and when” of creation.

@PostApostolicChurch

20 күн бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I am very familiar with Origen's interpretations being more spiritual-focused than literal-focused. Origen was so intelligent and insightful, he is my favorite early Christian writer. But, I'm not familiar with what Origen said about the "how and when" of creation. When you say that, do you know what Origen taught about that? God bless you!

there are actually thousands of differences between minority texts and majority. In fact there are thousands of differences between even the few manuscripts of the Alexandrian themselves.

@jesusstudentbrett

5 жыл бұрын

"Minority" text is not even a classification in Textual Criticism.

@kathyhenderson2114

5 жыл бұрын

Yes...and that's why just the few Alexandrian manuscripts there is are corrupt because they dont agree with each other. The majority text, the Textus Receptus all 5,000 texts agree perfectly!

I never blamed Origen for the corruptions in Alexandrian texts, but they were corrupted. Also, Origen moved from Alexandria to Palestine, which would mark his switch from the Alexandrian family to the Byzantine family of texts. It was necessity rather than choice.

1:42, Origin's evangelistic style.

Stumbled across your site and think I'm really going to enjoy studying through it. Personally I've always been fascinated by Origin. I'm a Episcopalian myself and do hold to a view of Universal Salvation for all mankind through Christ. Well....I suppose its more accurate to say I hold to a type of HOPEFUL universalism, since I think to be Dogmatic about being utterly assured of it would require me to have knowledge that only God alone would hold. But as a song on heaven I once heard put it great that "I hope heaven waits for everyone in the end." Not sure if you be interested but theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/ is a pretty nice blog by a Evangelical who hold to the position. Anyways, hope your day is going great mate.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+ASymbolicSymbol Thanks for commenting! I'm glad you found my channel. I like what you said and am glad to see that only God knows whether or not Universal Reconciliation is true. God bless!

@Hebrew42Day

5 жыл бұрын

Nowhere in scripture is an idea of universal redemption taught or supported. Why the fervency to "take the Gospel to all the world"? Why did Jesus _twice_ warn the road to redemption is *narrow* and that few will make it? This is also why Christ compared the last days, to the days of Noah, when the Lord saved *EIGHT* people.

@MelanCholy2001

5 жыл бұрын

@@Hebrew42Day Yes I agree (even though I'm not as secure about my personal salvation as many seem to be, and know I may be enjoying God's Church only in this lifetime, if I am careless with the Faith, so it would be most "natural" for such as myself to bang the "universal salvation" drums but also deluded and heretical). Bottom line is, such a thing as "universal salvation" not only would make God's Word _untrue_ throughout the Bible, but would NEGATE Christ's perfect fulfillment of the Law, and His Church! I've seen these "universalists" and how they _pray for Satan_ when we're expressly led to pray for the "brethren"/Saints, and those people had better hope they'd never been Baptised and Catechised and that they will find the ONLY way out of that vile, rank offense against all things HOLY before their end times come. They believe they're being "holy", but ignoring the Church on Earth now who are scattered, many without priests and isolated, and of course even suffering for the Sacred Name of +Jesus.

@holzmann-

4 жыл бұрын

@@MelanCholy2001 amen

@holzmann-

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch I am extremely sure that it is not, since Origen and Clement of Alexandria were the only ones to teach it, and Luke 13:23-30 inded states that few will be saved

pre-existance of souls is very Biblical. You can't understand the the Apocalypse of St John without this doctrine.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting. What you say is interesting. How is it that we cannot understand the Apocalypse without the belief of the pre-existance of souls? Thank you in advance for explaining what you mean. God bless!

@HardinHooligans

5 жыл бұрын

False

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch I agree.

its how we believe or think the trinity that causes us to differ from preeniceen or orthodox christian views. its doesnt seem a big deal on surface, but it could make a difference on our view of Jesus. ill stick the bible verse on this one.."If i be lifted up i will draw all men."it cant be bad to draw men to JEsus.. cause we already know how evil man can be and has zero hope with our Lord Jesus...anyways He should be the focus of our studies if we want to understand more from early teachers.BUt we wont understand anything without the blessed HOlyspirit in our lives.God bless u if u can believe what i am saying..

what about Origen being Unitarian? and What about the pre-nicean chruch father, supporting and believing in the trinity

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for asking! I have some answers. It appears that the idea that Origen was unitarian (the belief that there is one God in one Person) is another piece of false information about him. Unitarianism did exist during the Pre-Nicene period, and it was called Monarchianism. All right-believing Christians rejected the belief, including Origen. He wrote.... "[Some say in confusion] that the Son did not differ in number from the Father, but that both were one, not only in point of substance but in point of subject, and that the Father and the Son were said to be different in some of their aspects but not in their persons. Against such views we must in the first place produce the leading texts [of Scripture] which prove the Son to be another [person] than the Father, and that the Son must of necessity be the son of a Father, and the Father, the father of a Son." ANF, vol 9, page 402. (Full context: www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.vi.xxi.html) Also, Origen used the term Trinity throughout his writings. One time calling God the Adorable Trinity (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.v.xvii.html). I hope this helps. God bless!

@danieltellez2276

9 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church thanks for all this information, being honest with you, I used to believe; Origen, Corrupted the scriptures, (it seems Wikipedia should not be our only source of information, hehehe) but now, I understand the issues about this topic, thank you a lot.... and hey ,do you know if these wrings of the early church fathers are avaliable in spanish?

@PostApostolicChurch

9 жыл бұрын

Daniel Alberto Tellez Ruiz That is great. Thanks for sharing! Unfortunately, the early Christian writings--as far as I know--is not in Spanish. But I did find this website (librosespanol.org/librosde/philip-schaff/cnmPcP/). I don't know Spanish, so I cannot say if this is it or not. In English, the early Christian writings are called the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which means "before Nicaea fathers."

@againstthepope2362

7 жыл бұрын

there are other sources other than Wikipedia that shows this dude was a heretic. www.scionofzion.com/vaticanus_sinaiticus.htm....Origen was a heretic and Gnostic and along with Clement of Alexandria helped to corrupt the manuscripts giving us the false versions of today. Here are some of Adamantius Origen's beliefs. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher plus he castrated himself based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh. 1) He believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force. 2) He believed in Soul Sleep 3) He was a very strong proponent of Baptismal regeneration 4) He believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals. 5) He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory 6) He believed in transubstantiation 7) He believed in the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul. 8) He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened. 9) The Scriptures were not literal. He was the father of allegory. 10) Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named "Adam." 11) Based upon Matthew 19, a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself. 12) He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it. 13) Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. (It was Frederick Dennison Maurice in the 19th century who defined eternal life as coming to a knowledge of God. This is the essence of Gnosticism.) 14) He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers. No Wikipedia here.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting. Sadly, sharing someone else's opinions about Origen. Origen actually explicitly said that he did not believe in some of the things listed. I humbly ask that you read Origen's writings before deciding to oppose him. Sharing someone else's opinions isn't a good way to examine someone (John 7:47-51). Blessings and so forth.

I'm very confused! I was told that Origen was a Christian but he also practiced mysticism, and he was also into the occult, that he doctored many of the Jewish and Greek manuscripts because he disagreed with them. Wescott and Hort are also followers of Origen. All the new translation of the Bible are from Wescott and Hort other than the KJV. So Origen was not a real Christian. Is this true?

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. Most of the folks who hate Origen and spread lies about him are folks who believe that the KJV is the only useable Bible translation. This misinformation has caused a lot of problems for folks who are interested in who Origen really was. I will address the things you brought up... -Origen was a Christian. As stated in the video, when he died, he was in good standing with the church. -Origen did not practice mysticism. There is zero evidence for this. -Origen was not in the occult. There is zero evidence for this. -Origen did not doctor Jewish and Greek manuscripts. Origen analyzed them. Origen, the only Christian at the time who knew Hebrew, analyzed the various translations he found. For example, I encourage you to check out the Hexapla (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla). Origen compiled the Hexapla in order to analyze differences in the Biblical manuscripts. Origen changed nothing in the Scriptures. -Wescott and Hort were not "followers of Origen" because those men lived in the 1800s. But like Origen, Wescott and Hort were men who analyzed Biblical manuscripts. It is through their work that many new translations were made in the 1900s. Of course, the folks who believe the KJV is the only useable translation chose to spread lies about Wescott and Hort also. If you would like to discuss these things more deeply, I would be honored to talk more about them. God bless you!

@NilsWeber-mb5hg

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch I do not believe only the KJV is useable. But the Textus Receptus must be the foundation.

seek after the praise of men?

We lost his hexpala.

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

You are correct. With all the research I have done for this channel, that fact has made me the most sad. :'( I believe that if archeologists discovered Origen's Hexapla, the significance would be just as great as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

@gamerjj777

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch ya. He is the father of text criticism.

i believe that Origen is the first to really go astray by being the first teaching infant baptism and other more catholic doctrines.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Watching the video and for commenting. I'm not familiar with Origen teaching infant baptism. In fact, I don't know of any Pre-Nicene Christian writer to teach infant baptism. Are you sure he did? God bless you and God bless your service in Him!

@ClarkAboudaz

6 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church yes Origen did teach infant baptism and the first too from what I've seen. A few people in the comment section have mentioned it from what I've seen as well.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

I cannot find any reference to infant baptism in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. When I searched for infant baptism in the early writings, the only websites I found were by Roman Catholics. And their referrences to "early Christian writings on infant baptism" are from sources that are not easily accessible. This is a red flag to me because Roman Catholics have supported many Pre-Nicene Christian quotations that are not genuine. In other words, their collection of writings from the early Christians tend to be different from everyone else's. And this has consistently concerned me. In summary, it appears that any support of infant baptism doesn't come from the Pre-Nicene Christians but from Roman Catholics.

@ClarkAboudaz

6 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church let me look into it some more. How do you tell if it is genuine or not?

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for asking. First, I check the Ante-Nicene Fathers. At the time of its publication, it contained all known quotations. Next, I Google it to see where the source of the quotation comes from. If I can find the quotation in other places (because most ancient quotations are freely shared on the Internet). Along with that, I see if "Homilies of Origen" or something like that is a real work that has been discovered recently. On the flip side, if I ONLY find the quotation on the websites of one particular Christian group (such only Catholic or only Pentecostal websites), then it is very, very doubtful. Also, if I cannot investigate the source of the quotation and read it for myself, it is also very, very doubtful.

Along with Clement from ROME he seems to be one of the most accurate church fathers

@Saverbeeeel2349

3 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't consider him ( Origen) a church father since he had some, well, " controversial" teachings ( he said even Satan could achieve redemption, and heaven). I would consider him as an Eclesiastical writer, he has tons if good stuff specially in Contra Celsum, but he is also a bit weirdo. But I totally agree con Clement, he was dope

@michaelalbertjr.3230

3 жыл бұрын

@@Saverbeeeel2349 He was a strong gnostic, anyone who denies the reality of eternal damnation is not to be trusted

@kidflersh7807

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelalbertjr.3230 do you even know what gnosticism is? origen was know for writing against gnosticism, and made his commentary on John for that purpose. (mainly against the valentinians) eternal damnation was believed by some gnostics.

8 minutes in, and the argument goes from "no corruption," to "he did disagree," and so forth.

4:01, Origin was the first true Christian theologian.

sometimes the KJV agree with the Aramaic and not Byzantine. See Mat. 28. 1.

You are wrong. Origen taught that souls pre-existed birth, and that they went into specific levels of happiness or sorrow in life, based on their past merits, and that it was a continuum--which is reincarnation. These teachings are in his book, "On First Principles." Origen's teachings were a continuation of the teachings from his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, and from Clement's predecessor at the school, Pantaenus, who in turn learned it from the disciples (I think I read that he learned it from Mark), who had learned it from Jesus. The Nag Hammadi texts that were found in Egypt in 1945, are considered to be legitimate, and contain the "Gospel of Thomas," wherein Jesus speaks of the achievement of nirvana--which happens when one purifies him/herself to the point that living in the flesh, with its onerous tests, is no longer necessary. He says that people who still have spiritual cleansing to do are again "cast into the flesh." He adds that those who have slacked off in spiritual attainment are born in a state of forgetfulness, but those who have worked towards spiritual purification are born with the gift of past life memories, as a helpful guide toward unlocking the reasons for life's difficulties--always, of course, with the application of the principle of love. The teaching of nirvana is echoed in the Bible's book of Revelations: "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it." The verse refers to one who has overcome the flesh and need never reincarnate again. Jesus taught this; you can read it as the basis of all of his teachings. It was also taught in the Mystery Schools--from the one in Carmel to the school of Pythagoras in Asia Minor. Israel was right across the border from Egypt. Egypt was the spiritual epi-center of the Hellenistic world that Jesus was a part of. Even Abraham studied in Egypt--and Moses was raised in Egypt. If you truly understand the essence of human existence, you will comprehend the tests that we go through, and the constant upward progress that we make, as we continue to self-purify. If you remember your past lives, you can see where you fell, and the reasons for the sorrows in your current life. Hence--onward & upward! Emperor Justinian's 15 Anathemas Against Origen in 553 AD were created explicitly to strike reincarnation from the Christian record. Hence, Origen = Reincarnation. Please don't sidestep the truth, in order to save face with the masses.

My priest taught that Origen was not canonized because he castrated himself.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

That might be the reason. But I do not see why castration would be that big of a deal when it comes to canonization.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. What does your priest think about Matthew 5:29-30 and how that might relate to Origen?

@michaelalbertjr.3230

3 жыл бұрын

Priests are not biblical. Jesus is the priest.

4:30 was Origin a heretic?

@somerandomchannel8723

11 ай бұрын

Yes, he was anathematized in the 5th Ecumenical Council, and the 6th and 7th reaffirmed the anathema.

@McIntyreBible

11 ай бұрын

@@somerandomchannel8723 thanks for that!

@somerandomchannel8723

11 ай бұрын

@@McIntyreBible Oh yeah, let me give you the canons that anathematize his teachings, so that you may not fall for them either: The Anathemas Against Origen 1 If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. 2 If anyone shall say that the creation (τὴυ παραγωγὴν) of all reasonable things includes only intelligences (νόας) without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtle, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema. 3 If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema. 4 If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and have become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,. 5 If anyone shall say that a psychic (ψυχικὴν) condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or from those above and below: let him be anathema. 6 If anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit has become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image (ιδέαν) to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence (Ν οῦς δημιρυργός) which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being: let him be anathema. 7 If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the various falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through various classes, had different bodies and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, has clothed himself in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and has become man for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema. 8 If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word, but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement (κενώσαντα), as they call it, of the intelligence (νοῦς); if anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united (συνημμένον) to God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converso that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos: let him be anathema. 9 If anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Logos made man by taking an animated body with a ψυχὴ῾ λογικὴ and νοερὰ, that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the Ν οῦς which has done this, that Ν οῦς of which they say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ properly so called, and that he has become so by the knowledge of the Monad: let him be anathema. 10 If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema. 11 If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial ψύσις, and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit νοῦς): let him be anathema. 12 If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the Ν οῦς which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema. 13 If anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the Ν οῦς] is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [the Ν οῦς], as also they were in the feigned pre-existence of all things: let him be anathema. 14 If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema. 15 If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (νοῶν) shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema. The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen 1 Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out (ἀπψυγείσας) and they had therefore become souls (ψυχάς) and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema. 2 If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema. 3 If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and that afterwards there was united with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema. 4 If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema. 5 If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema. 6 If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the waters that are above heavens, have souls, and are reasonable beings, let him be anathema. 7 If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time will be crucified for demons as he was for men, let him be anathema. 8 If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited, and that he created as much as he was able to compass, let him be anathema. 9 If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

even jesus himself were called a heretic . origen books are hidden in the monasteries im sure they have all the secrets, but if you pray and fast and repent and live for christ , ll the secrets will come to you . and yes there is a reincarnation , rebirth. look how many birthdays you have , everything we do is a sign of something

Thank you. But for technical believers, a hereric is simply a person who does not believe the Church teachings.

@Eclectifying

3 жыл бұрын

It's a relative term. To any group you don't agree with, you're a heretic.

8:45 This is not true, his feast day is on April 27th in the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, the Reformed Tradition, and the Evangelical Church in Germany.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 ай бұрын

Thank you for commenting. When I searched for a feast day for Origen, I found no results. Where do those Christian groups say that April 27 is Origen's feast day? God bless you!

Origen held the Arian belief. Basically, the Arian Theology is Yeshua was not Divine. The Vatican text is an incomplete copy of Eusebius' approximately 50 Ecumenical Bibles that were commission by Constantine. The incomplete copy known as the Vatican text was completed in the 15th century just in time for the reformation. The Sinai text was created in a Greek monastery by Constantine Simonides and his uncle as a gift to the Russian czar. It was never completed and when it was found by Tischendorf at St. Catherine's monastery in a waste bin, Tischedorf took it, made "corrections" to it and brought it to the Vatican (approx.1848). The Antioch writings, and received text have thousands of agreeing copies, as opposed to 2.

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting and saying what your definition of Arian theology is. You'll find in Origen's writings that he most certainly believed that Jesus is Divine. Sometime later this year (or next year), I will share a series of videos about how ALL the early Christians believed that Jesus was Divine/Deity/God. Origen is one of them. I'm not as skeptical about the Vatican and Sinaiticus texts as you are. From my research, they are genuine. You mentioned the Antioch/Received text. This is also very genuine, but because it has so many more thousands of copies of manuscripts, this text has many more variations. It's good to be aware of the different variations within the Received Text's manuscripts. Thanks for commenting and God bless you!

@mikeyoung6347

6 жыл бұрын

Nothing stated prior is of my own. learning the definition of arian and anti arian theology would be paramount to your understanding, as well as the actual history of the Vatican and Sinai texts. Everything from Alexandria is not trusted

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

About Origen and Arianism. Arianism believed that the Son was created by the Father. Origen opposed this basic belief of Arianism. Origen wrote, "The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit--not as if He had no previous existence." (I can supply a link to this writing of Origen upon request.) No Arian could say that the Son was uncreated... they believed the Son was created. God bless!

He was a genius, much closer to the beginnings of the religion and culture than you, with a “super parallel” edition of Scripture, and you disagree with him?

@PostApostolicChurch

6 ай бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I love what you said about Origen. He was certainly a genius! If I agree with Origen on 99% of what he wrote, is it a big thing to disagree with him on 1%? God bless you!

@jasonb4321

6 ай бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch 👍 It’s a shame they destroyed most of his work. Have a great Christmas season!

they wont canonize him his faith was in Jesus not the church...

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Interesting. I wonder if that is the reason why Origen isn't canonized. Possibly. God bless!

@chefrasercooks3922

7 жыл бұрын

yes it is actually..He's a saint in my eyes having following the commandments of the Christ Jesus...Ever notice when we have true insight into the prophetic we are sent into the wilderness? God Bless...

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, I have seen and experienced that. Very sad when that happens.

@glennlanham6309

5 жыл бұрын

the Church is the BODY of Christ...can't separate them...

Prominent Trinitarian scholars and historians have pointed out that Origen was a Semi-Arian who denied that Jesus is of the same substance of the Father. Origen’s wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23, “… I WONDER AT THE STUPIDITY OF THE GENERAL RUN OF CHRISTIANS (the Christian majority) IN THIS MATTER. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity … THEY PROCEED DIFFERENTLY AND ASK, WHAT IS THE SON OF GOD WHEN CALLED THE WORD? THE PASSAGE THEY EMPLOY IS THAT IN THE PSALMS, ‘MY HEART HAS PRODUCED A GOOD WORD;’ AND THEY IMAGINE THE SON TO BE THE UTTERANCE OF THE FATHER DEPOSITED, as it were, in syllables … THEY DO NOT ALLOW HIM … ANY INDEPENDENT HYPOSTASIS (substance of Being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN (Origen's view). For NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND (among “the general run of Christians”) HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER (Origen’s view) … God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN.” ” Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23 Thus Origen contrasted his theological teaching from “the general run of Christians (the Modalists)” by asserting that the Son is of a different essence from the Father because he has "an essence of his own." About one hundred years later the Nicene Creed confessed that the Son is of the same substance of the Father so Origen would have been categorized as an Arian about 100 years later. Trinitarian scholars themselves admit that Origen was writing against the Modalists who were "the general run of Christians" affirming that the substance of being of the Son was the same substance of being (hypostasis) of the Father while the Semi-Arians such as Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were denying Christ’s true deity. Origen wrote that the Modalists were among the multitudes of believers who called Jesus the Most High God while the Semi-Arian tendencies of Origen denied Christ’s full deity. Origen clearly rejected the deity of Christ because he wrote that Jesus is not the Most High God Himself. Origen wrote in Contra Celsus 8:14, “Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, ‘The Father who sent Me is greater than I.’” Contra Celsus 8:14 Prominent Trinitarian scholars and historians have noted that although Origen Arianized, he was the first to write about a timeless eternal son who had no beginning. Therefore some Trinitarians reluctantly acknowledge that Origen was the founding father of an eternal timeless son before the Trinity doctrine fully developed. According to Johannes Quasten, Origin's doctrine of the eternality of the Son was "a remarkable advance in the development of theology and had a far reaching influence on ecclesiastical teaching (Patrology Vol. 2, Page 78)." Although Origen was the first to clearly teach that the Son always existed as a Son throughout eternity past, he taught "that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him (Contra Celsus 8:15 - Patrology Vol. 2, Page 79)." Although the doctrine of Eternal Sonship was first taught by Origen in the third century (Patrology Vol. 2, Quaten, Pg. 79.), Origen vacillated in his teaching about an eternal son and a created son.Under the title, "Christ as Creature," Pelikan wrote, "In Origen's doctrine of the Logos, however, there were two sets of ideas ... In one sense, the logic of Origen's anti-Sabellian exegesis led to the insistence that the Logos was distinct from the Father, but eternal, so that none could 'dare lay down a beginning for the Son' (Origen, Principiis. 4 4:1) ... But at the same time Origen interpreted the passages of derivation and distinction in such a way as to make the Logos A CREATURE and SUBORDINATE to God, 'the firstborn of all creation, a thing CREATED, wisdom (Origen Princ. 4 4:1). And in support of this latter interpretation his chief proof was Proverbs 8:22-31." The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol. 1, Pg. 191 - Pelikan Unlike his predecessors, Origen of Alexandria advanced the development of Trinitarian theology by developing the idea that the Son never had a beginning. Yet Origin continued to teach like the rest of the semi-Arians of that time that the Son is a subordinate god who is under the Most High God (the Father). Therefore Origen’s pupils became both Semi-Trinitarian and Semi-Arian.For More info about the Theology of Origen type in "The Theology of Origen of Alexandria" here on KZread (my video) or visit our website at ApostolicChristianFaith .com

Hello brother. I do not see Origen as trustworthy since he believed in the heresy of Universal Salvation

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Would Origen's belief about Universal Salvation discredit him for everything he said? I ask that because I disagree with Origen on Universal Salvation, yet Origen is my personal favorite early Christian writer. What do you think?

@holzmann-

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Well, I see it as dangerous teaching. My favorite one would be Clement of Rome.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@holzmann- Very cool. Clement is also one of my favorite works. Were you aware that in 1Clement, he talks about the existence of the Phoenix?

You cannot fully appreciate the Apocalypse of St. John unless you understand that men were among the host of heaven. See PS. 82. Eccl. 17. Scripture of Enoch...

There is no soft g in Greek!--gen is like get, not just!

Didn’t he teach ontological subordination in the trinity 😳

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. It is a popular myth that Origen taught that. But he did not. Origen's views on the Trinity were the same as the rest of the Church in his day. The main differences where Origen went beyond the teachings of the church are listed in this video. Outside of those things, Origen taught the same thing as the rest of the Church. God bless you!

@Pope.juicee

3 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch you should make a video on the trinity before 325 AD.

@PostApostolicChurch

3 жыл бұрын

@@Pope.juicee Absolutely. Here is a link to this channel's playlist on the Nature of God. God bless! kzread.info/dash/bejne/pKB5tLetlLGpo7A.html

very good teaching. I do agree with you about the error of eternal souls that Origen taught. but I disagree on the universal reconciliation as not being biblical. you do not have one scripture to disprove it. I have many scriptures to prove universal reconciliation which YES, it is universal salvation. you seem to know history quite well and is why it kind of confuses me that you seem to reject universal salvation was a dominant doctrine at that time. even until Augustine.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I have a few thoughts. I would really appreciate if you could discuss them with me. 1) The Scriptures I have that disprove universal reconciliation are the Scriptures that show that Hell is a place of eternal/everlasting fire. If people are going to experience eternal/everlasting fire, then that implies that there will be no chance of reconciliation for them. Would you like to discuss those Scriptures? 2) What Scriptures do you have that prove universal reconciliation? I would love to see them. 3) I don't know as much about the Post-Nicene Christians, such as Augustine, but I know that Origen was the ONLY Christian to write (and believe?) about universal reconciliation during the Pre-Nicene period. Secondly, about Origen, he didn't believe in universal reconciliation because of any Scripture (I think he even admits to that). Origen believed in it because of his view of the nature of God. He viewed God to be SO LOVING that God might even allow the devil himself to eventually repent. (Interestingly, Origen did have Scriptures to back up his belief about the pre-existence of souls.) God bless you!

@josephtravers777

4 жыл бұрын

I believe many of Origen's writings were mere speculations that were taken out of context. Considering the time it was written, there was very little dogma established by the church fathers. Origen never taught against those fathers or established doctrine. Theologians still speculate to this day about the same things Origen presented in his time. He was a saint.

@MACLOVIO357-SOSA

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurchit is not a secret that the words, hell....forever....eternal.... are not in our bibles. these words are horrible translations from the original Hebrew and Greek language which were first translated into Latin and after English. is also not a secret that that doctrine of hell did not make its way into Christianity till the 5th century after JESUS. here is what we are told from the brazen church...... "For instance, many Christians insist that if you question hell, you are rejecting what has always been agreed upon by the Church, -----yet the doctrine of eternal torment was not a widely held view for the first five centuries after Christ, particularly in the early Eastern Church, the Church of the early apostles and Church fathers such as Paul, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, ORIGEN, and others" www.brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/ …. I have done an extensive study 8 years and counting in respect to this blasphemous doctrine. …..now as far as what scripture do I have to prove universal reconciliation here is one that to me is very clear...…. Colossians 1:19 For all the fullness was pleased to dwell in him; 20 and through him "to reconcile all things to himself, by him, whether things on the earth, and "things in the heavens" having made peace through the blood of his cross." …..so when Origen said that even satan would repent he was on to something because the reconciliation of "things in the heavens" certainly include satan . Paul also wrote.....1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe...… 'ALL men "especially" those that believe.' especially in no way mean exclusively. ...and we are also told this...… Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired you in the night. Yes, with my spirit within me will I seek you earnestly -----" for when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness." …..what were we just told? that when GOD'S judgement [the white throne judgment] are on the earth ONLY then those who did not die in CHRIST will learn righteousness. GOD'S judgment serve a purpose. Christianity hell doctrine does not serve a purpose. the folks after judgment certainly will be cast into the lake of fire which is also the second death but what happens in that lake of fire? people are saved. here it is...….. 1 Corinthians 3:15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss BUT he himself WILL be saved, YET SO AS BY FIRE.... who knew FIRE saved? the lake of fire has nothing to do with literal fire is all spiritual and is what we are told about the book of revelation from the beginning. John said "I WAS IN THE SPIRIT ON THE LORDS DAY" ....GOD is a consuming fire for sure but is a fire that saves us from ourselves. because from within us is where all the bad things come from. the spiritual fire is what burns up all the junk in us and make us perfectly clean "transparent as a sea of glass" ........

@MACLOVIO357-SOSA

4 жыл бұрын

@@josephtravers777 I do not understand. I have read many writing of Origen and I will say that not only are his writings extremely profound but they are also 90% of what the apostles taught. the only exception was the pre existence of souls. but as for the "reconciliation of all things" .... "the lake of fire" and "salvation" he knew the scriptures. see what many people do not understand as I did not either for a long time is that there is a HUGE difference between JESUS paying for our sins and salvation. JESUS paid for our sins yes. that is what JESUS "finished" but those sins JESUS PAID for these sins still have to be destroyed in us. they still exist. and as long as there is sin there is death. salvation means saving us from our selves. because within us there are giants that need to be destroyed burned up annihilated etc..... those giants are our anger, pride, lusts. greed, hate etc... they are the Egyptians [Egypt spiritually represent sin] but it will come a time when we will be told this...... Exodus 14:13 And Moses said to the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will show to you to-day: for the Egyptians you see this day you will see them NO MORE.

@josephtravers777

4 жыл бұрын

@@MACLOVIO357-SOSA Doctrine and speculation are two different matters. Some things can be held firm by continuity, others not so much. The paradoxes are there and are a Divine Mystery. This is the case for speculation. As far as Universal reconciliation; 1 Cor. 15:22, Col. 1:19-20, 1 Tim. 4:10 & 2 Pet. 3:9 pose this speculation.

Brother, I have no ill will, but Origen was perhaps my least favorite church fathers. He denied hell and also is heavily responsible for the critical text, which lead to omitting several words from the Bible.

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. If those are your problems with Origen, then you will be pleased to know that both of those beliefs about Origen are myths. Origen believed in the existence of hell. And Origen had no connection to the critical text. God bless you!

"Origen was the first true Christian Theologian?" What books are you reading and citing? Can you provide your sources? The information that most scholars give is quite the opposite. He is considered the greatest heretic that the Catholic Church produced. He eventually taught "Universalism" and other extreme doctrines. He cut off his private part in order to fulfill what he thought was Christ's command. He was ex-communicated also. You just need to do more research. Again, what are your sources?

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+approvedofGod What scholars are you reading? I have read things from Origen, his contemporaries, and those who came after him like Eusebius. He was HIGHLY regarded by the church. What sources am I using? The most ancient ones--the writings of the early Christians themselves. The belief that Origen was ex-communicated is very popular misinformation. Where did you learn this?

@approvedofGod

8 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church, are you Episcopalian?

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+approvedofGod No.

@approvedofGod

8 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church You did not give me your sources. I am serious. You question me on everything, yet you do not provide your true sources. That is why I will quote the Fathers from now on. Let's see you do the same. Go back to your videos and cite your sources for the poor people that believe you.

@PostApostolicChurch

8 жыл бұрын

+approvedofGod I cannot give you any sources about Origen not being ex-communicated because it's hard to provide that when it didn't happen. Here is Jerome's biography on Origen. No mention of Origen being a heretic. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.lvi.html Eusebius dedicates an entire volume to Origen and the people and events surrounding him. No mention of Origen being a heretic or removed the church. In fact, Eusebius said that many bishops supported Origen. Here is chapter 27 in that volume. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xxvii.html Here is Eusebius talking about Origen's death. He praises Origen's character because Origen died a martyr for Jesus Christ, being in good standing with the church. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xxxix.html

Didn't Origen believe Jesus is a second eternal God?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 ай бұрын

Thank you for asking. "A second"? Absolutely not! Origen believed there is one God in three Persons. Origen's belief about Jesus was the same as the other early Christian writers after the apostles. That Father, Son, and Spirit are all eternal, uncreated, and share the same divine nature.

@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV

4 ай бұрын

​@@PostApostolicChurch "They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. (Commentary on John II.2) And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him. [...] The true God [the Father], then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods (Commentary on John II.2) And although we may call Him a second god, let men know that by the term second god we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things. (Contra Celsum 5.39)"

@PostApostolicChurch

4 ай бұрын

@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV Thanks for the quotations! I looked up Origen's commentary on John (book II, paragraph 2). After reading it in context, I can see what Origen means. Here is a link to that paragraph. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09/anf09.xv.iii.ii.ii.html Your quote about "They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods..." is Origen talking about people who have misconceptions about God. Origen certainly says that proclaiming two Gods is WRONG. In the same sentence, Origen says that people who proclaim two Gods "drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked." The next quote is about Jesus being an "exalted rank than the other gods" and "those who are formed after Him are gods." After reading Origen in context, he is discussing John 1:1. In John's context, the apostle John says, "All things were created through Him [Jesus]." When I read what Origen is saying, when he talks about "other gods," Origen is talking about created beings (humans). When Origen calls created being gods, I believe he has the same thing in mind when Jesus said, "Isn't it written in your scripture: I said, 'You are gods'?" (John 10:34-36) In Origen's book II paragraph 2, he is talking about the difference between Father God (who Scripture calls "the God"), the Son of God (who fully shares in Father God's divine nature), and gods (created beings who are given the gift of logic and reasoning; humans). Origen ends paragraph 2 saying, "The true God is "The God", and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." I see that Origen is teaching the same things as the rest of the church: Father God and the Son of God are different persons/beings, but they have the same divine/deity nature. About the quote from Origen's Against Celcus (book 5, paragraph 39), Origen uses the term "second God." Notice what Origen says that, while Christians might use the phrase "second God," they do not mean there are two Gods. Origen says that he only says that point out that the Son of God has ALL the virtues and reason. The Son has all the same virtues and reason that He received from Father God. And the Son's virtue and reason is far above all created things. Again, Origen clarifies that he might say "second God," but he does not mean there are two Gods. He is trying to point out the role of the Son in being the source of all reason, wisdom, and righteousness... though the Son received all those things from the ultimate source: Father God. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.v.xxxix.html There is a lot of information here. I hope my explanation make sense.

I first have to say that I have a very limited knowledge, however you did not mention about the conflict he had with the Trinity which was the reason his views were heretical. The Trinity implies that Jesus is God, whereas the Arian view was that Jesus was subordinate to God and not equal because Jesus was a creation of God. The Trinity could be viewed as a contradiction to the 1st commandment, depending on how you look at it. Jesus himself never claimed to be God and said the opposite in John.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. What was Origen's conflict with the Trinity? From what I have read from him, he held the same views as the rest of the Church about the Trinity. The Arian views were introduced about 150 years after Origen. Will you explain what you mean by Jesus never claiming to be God? In the gospels, there are a number of time when Jesus explained that He is God. Also, what statement in John are you referring to where Jesus claimed the opposite? God bless!

@rhfryer

5 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch : One of my observations is people seem to take from scripture what they believe based on their experiences because words are essentially not real things and are much like shadows of something real. Words are just trying to point to something. Plus there is more than one point of view in the Bible, since Jesus never wrote anything which makes you wonder, since other such figures did not as well. When Jesus said ""You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.'" (John 14:28). Of course, I hear other interpretations but what he is saying here is consistent with the 1st commandment to not have other Gods before me, as well as consistent with monotheism. The belief is that Jesus is subordinate to God and a creation of God. Though I have little knowledge of Origen but I came across a youtube site explaining “In the introduction to Origen of Alexandria. Looklex Encycopedia informs us that Origen was influenced by Platonic philosophy and Gnostism. Under Criticism and Influence, Looklex says: “where it was saying “his controversial ideas were the preexistence of the Soul, a universal salvation and a trinity as a hierarchy where Jesus inferior to God (corresponding with Arianism), defining the resurrection of the body as mainly spiritual and having removed the original concept of Hell.” I have to say that ‘A trinity as a hierarchy” is different from a trinity as a coequal which later put him in disfavor with the Nicene Creed of a coequal Trinity. It appears he saw the logos as a separate being as well. I got all this information from this youtube site and did not read the actual Looklex Encycopedia which I will do. I took an interest in Origen since I have always found Plato’s dialog interesting, particularly Phaedo at Socrates death. Apparently a lot of Origen’s works was destroyed. kzread.info/dash/bejne/e6uJttaEXZzVXaQ.html

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@rhfryer Thank you for replying. I can see how things can be confusing when one is receiving information from two places that disagree with each other. I'm referring to the information presented here versus the information presented on the channel with the link you shared. So the question is who is correct? And which channel is incorrectly representing Origen? I could explain how wrong that other channel is, but I believe there is a greater proof that that. The greatest proof on who is misrepresenting Origen's true beliefs is Origen himself. I'll say it this way: I believe that the other channel has not read Origen's writings for themselves. I have had some conversation with them, and I have found that they are not familiar with the works that Origen actually wrote. Again, which channel is misrepresenting Origen's true beliefs? Only Origen's own writings, letting him speak for himself, will be the proof. You are correct in saying that there are some who believe that Jesus is subordinate to God and created by God. This is called Arianism. Origen was not Arian. In fact, the first person who was Arian was Arius. When it came to the Nicene Creed, Origen would have fully agreed with it. After all, before the Nicene Creed was the Apostles' Creed, which Origen agreed with. In Origen's writings, he wrote against the philosophies of his day, including Gnosticism, Platoism, and views of the Trinity that were against what the whole church believed. If you are curious what the entire Pre-Nicene Church believed about the nature of God, I invite you to watch this playlist. In regard to the other channel you shared, that channel disagrees with all the Pre-Nicene Christian writers, regarding the nature of God. That channel denies the Nicene Creed and the belief in the Trinity. They believe in something called Modalism, also called Monarchianism. That view of God was considered heresy both before and after the Council of Nicaea. kzread.info/head/PLKXGJjRU-bTXeBBZSNZH8VHyJVR6dACc- I will not tell you what to believe. I can share with you what God's church believed after the times of the apostles. God bless you!

@chaldeanur8108

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurchHello! I find it a bit strange that you say no one before Arius had his theology... this seems to be a bit simplistic to me, since Arius certainly didn't spring from a vacuum, he had clear predecessors. Particularly, it is to be noted that his teacher, and the teacher of the most prominent Arian bishops was Lucian of Antioch, and they even referred to each other as "fellow Lucianists." Indeed, Arius was a theological conservative who sought to preserve the subordinationism that he inherited from the Alexandrian school of theology. There is agreement amongst scholars that subordinationism was present in every ante-Nicene church father. To say they believed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed seems to be an anachronism. Justin Martyr not only believed the Son had a temporal beginning, but he even called the Word a "second god." In this he finds agreement with Tertullian. Now, out of all the church fathers, I find Origen to be the least likely to accept the Nicene creed. Why? Because he explicitly rejected the idea that the Son could be of the same substance as the Father. This seemed to him too close to Gnosticism. He most strongly asserted that the Father is beyond the concept of "substance" (ousia) itself in his Commentary on John. He should not be judged as a heretic since subordinationism was the common view in the ante-Nicene period.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@chaldeanur8108 Great point about Lucian of Antioch. From the historical evidence, Arius was the first official believer in his doctrine. But he may have gotten his ideas from Lucian. This seems similar to Evolution, a belief we say comes from Charles Darwin, but Darwin pulled his throughts together from earlier men. Back to Arianism, I cannot find any evidence to that belief before Arius and Lucian (who were contemproaries). So while Arius may not have been the first, the doctrine was brand new. Subordinationism did NOT exist in the Pre-Nicene Church until Arius. Subordinationism teaches that Jesus and the Spirit are lesser gods or that their divine nature is inferior to that of Father God. This was considered heresy by all Christian writers in the Pre-Nicene Church. Justin didn't believe in it. Tertullian didn't believe in it. They rejected subordinationism. What you say about Origen is not true. Origen's view of the Divinity was exactly the same as the rest of the Pre-Nicene Church. If Justin, Tertullian, or Origen believed in subordinationism, will you share their writings where they confirm that belief? Thank you!

Origen was sympathetic with the Gnostics

I think people need to buy a copy of the Dead Sea Scroll Bible. This will show the Textus Receptus as older than any Alexandria documents. The only thing I see by using the RSV and the NRSV is the Lord for the Hebrew YHWH,and the Lord God for YHWH elohim. Tough this book does not include any new testament text. You have to go back to the old testament,which were found in these caves.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

I don't understand what the Dead Sea Scrolls have to do with the Textus Receptus. Did you know that the Dead Seas Scrolls are ONLY the Old Testament? Did you know that the Textus Receptus is ONLY the New Testament? They are not related to each other. Blessings.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. In 195 AD, Clement of Alexandria wrote that "Jehovah" is how you pronounce YHWH in Latin. Of course, the way we English speakers say "Jehovah" might be different from the way Latin speakers said it. Blessings.

You shouldn't agree with Origen's third premise. It still isn't really correct and the first two premises are bad enough to make it difficult to imagine that the more abstract premise would be right.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting! If we disagree with someone on something, that does not automatically mean that we would disagree with them on something else. And so I'm curious... why should we disagree with Origen that there are historical, moral, and spiritual ways to interpret the Scriptures?

@heavymuseum

7 жыл бұрын

I will tell you my reason, but let me first tell you that I am a real Christian and I am not really trying to argue. I know that may possibly turn some people off. I have watched most of your videos and I think they are very informative. The reason to disagree with Origen is because scripture isn't written to be separated like that. It is first and foremost a Narrative. Many things may be deduced or inferred, like when Paul compares himself with an ox from the Old Testament Law of Moses. Paul is saying he wants to be payed for his work and he uses a verse which doesn't explicitly refer to human work, but rather oxes. I think he is using the Bible responsibly and creatively and he is also setting an example of how other people might reason from the Old Testament. Paul's comparision is only one example, but we would have to guess there are many examples a person would be able to reason from, as long as they are similar to the way which Paul reasons. It is my personal belief that even modern Christians are supposed to be able to reason from The Old and New Testament in the same way Paul does. But it isn't meaningful to separate all Scripture into three categories of meaning. The reason Origen did this, whether he realized it or not, was because of the Socratic tradition which is now called Scholasticism. I think Origen isn't Scholastic, the Orthodox Christian's are more Scholastic than Origen is, but I'm trying to make the point that Origen is still on the wrong side of reasoning from scripture. I will use an example from the Old Testament. Daniel and Socrates were alive around the same time. If you read the Book of Daniel you might be able to tell that Daniel doesn't reason the same way the Philosophers did. Why? It is because he came from a Middle Eastern tradition. Daniel would have wanted Socrates killed, not because he thought he was too smart, but probably the opposite. Daniel most likely would not have even know who Socrates was. Daniel still uses dreams and city building and eschatology to communicate. In my opinion Origen's statement is too general to be relevant to the Middle Eastern Tradition from which the Old and New Testament are written. The Old and New Testament are written as a continuation of the Narrative of the Patriarchs. They are always concerned with The Host of Heaven, wealth, righteousness and so on.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks so much for not trying to argue. I really appreciate that and I'm glad that you explained your reasons. I appreciate it! Thanks for explaining so well! I see what you mean about the Socratic Method. I see it being one of the main methods of learning things in our cultures today. But I do not see how the Socratic Method is bad or even opposed to the methods the Scriptures use to teach. For example, take a look at Malachi, if there is any book of Scripture that comes close to the Socratic Method, I believe Malachi certainly uses the Socratic Method to get its points across. So I could not say that Daniel would have wanted Socrates killed because he used a different learning style. I'll share another example. Having recently studied the books from the Persian Empire's period, Nehemiah was the most unique. He didn't use the Middle Eastern tradition (as you called it) as Daniel did. Nehemiah was very much an historian and a numbers guy (not to mention that he was incredibly fearless). But Nehemiah's methods of teaching are SO DIFFERENT than Haggai, Zechariah, and Esther. And each of those books are very different from each other. So when I see Origen explaining how one can interpret the Scriptures from three different angles, I think it is a great suggestion. I think he understood these things from the writings of Paul and the book of Hebrews, which go back and forth between ways to interpret the Old Testament. And I'm not sure, but I wouldn't think that Origen is saying that his three ways are the only ways. Perhaps he was thinking about categories of interpretation. I'll add my own categories of Biblical interpretation: there could be a literal interpretation (what does it actually address?), a spiritual interpretation (what eternal meaning could be applied?), and/or a practical interpretation (how does it change or help people's lives?). Thanks again for commenting and sharing! I really love what you said! Blessings and so forth, brother.

@heavymuseum

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for indulging me. I will challenge you about the Minor Prophets exposure to the Socratic method. I doubt whether any of the Major and Minor Prophets would have ever left the southern and/or northern kingdoms in their lifetime. I guess that's why I think any thing they would have written (what we read today) would have been inspired by the texts and communication styles they had been exposed to. I'll ask you a final question (which I know my answer) to see if I may emphasize the difference between the reasoning from Scriptures and contrasted with the Socratic method. The final question is; Do you believe John's vision of the great earthquake in Revelation 6, 12-16 is more a result of the Tradition of the Flood or rather a general possible judgement of god's punishment? I guess I will tell you what I believe. I believe Revelation 6, 12-16 is exclusively inspired by John's belief in the flood, not rather a general judgement which is possible from God. It is much more convenient to connect the reasoning in Revelation 6 (and possibly other verses but I haven't thought about them yet) with the Flood narrative. I guess what I'm saying is that someone who believes it is permissible to reason in the way Socrates (and the other philosophers reasoned) seems more likely to read the verses as general judgement which may or may not happen, but someone who reads Revelation as a "Jewish" Scripture would be forced to read the book as a continuing part of all the previous Scriptures. I actually believe the earthquake is meant to be simply understood as the final settling of the earth from the flood narrative, but I think the reader is supposed to understand that. It isn't supposed to be hard to understand. A person who reasons by way of the Socratic method would say, "You have to prove that." but if you never had a chance to meet Socrates in the first place, then you don't have to answer the question indeed the reasoning is from your own culture's perspective of history, not Socrates's. Most people have a little Socrates floating around in their heads, but he only asks questions, he never shares Flood Narratives.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for challenging me on the Minor Prophets and the Socratic method. Let me give you a challenge: read the 3.5 chapters of Malachi and let me know if Malachi and God are not using the Socratic method to get their message across. Please, let me know what you think. -- You asked: Do you believe John's vision of the great earthquake in Revelation 6, 12-16 is more a result of the Tradition of the Flood or rather a general possible judgement of god's punishment? I’ll answer that before I read your belief. I’m not sure what you mean by the “Tradition” of the Flood, but I believe it is most likely that this is a vision of God’s final judgment. Thanks for sharing your belief. Now, just because I’m not Jewish does not mean that the account of the Flood is not well known to me. Really, the only phrase here that makes me think of the Flood is the last phrase of verse 14. From verse 12 until there, the language used is a frequent language from the Major Prophets about the coming destruction of great nations/empires. So I believe the passage of more about the fall of a strong nation than it is about the Flood. Then you have verses 15-17. The focus of those verses is the fear some people will have because of God’s wrath. And when with the wrath of God (the One on the throne) and of Christ (the Lamb) happen? John spoke of this often in his gospel about the Resurrection of the Dead, the Second Coming, and Judgment Day. Since that is the focus of the sixth seal (Rev 6:12-16), then this vision is more about God’s final judgment than about the fall of a strong nation (which, in turn, is more likely than the Flood). That is my belief. Feel free to help me understand something if I have missed it. You said, “I actually believe the earthquake is meant to be simply understood as the final settling of the earth from the flood narrative, but I think the reader is supposed to understand that.” If by “final setting,” you mean Judgment Day, then I fully agree with you. :) -- From what I read about the Socratic Method, I don’t think the request, “You have to prove that,” fits with the Socratic Method. Instead, the Socratic Method would ask questions and want to start more dialog to understand more; and if the person doesn’t believe, they want to learn more in order to find some fault in what the other person is saying. Instead, “You have to prove that,” fits better with the Scientific Method which demands physical, observable, and repeatable evidence for every fact. Of course, this shows that the Scientific Method cannot be the only method of interpretation of the Scriptures-just as you are saying. Do you mean to say that the Scientific Method must be rejected? If so, I fully agree with you. You’re probably right: Socrates probably asked questions continually without stopping. Perhaps he was never interested in the answers. And if that is the problem with the Socratic Method, then I fully agree with you… and Origen would also. Like all the early Christian writers, Origen believed that Truth (no matter what form it takes) can be obtainable through God’s revelations-whether in this life or in the next. You write very well and I’m enjoying this discussion toward truth and God’s will. Blessings and so forth!

Pretty sure Origen taught reincarnation

Didnt Origen write about Transexuals? think the book was called "On the Origen of She-he's" ... !!!

@PostApostolicChurch

6 жыл бұрын

I see what you did there. ;) That's funny! I will try to remember that one, haha. :D

@AnnhilateTheNihilist

6 жыл бұрын

Ha. Cool. I have no idea why that came to me. I guess the whole Origen thing!!!

I could not disagree more. Origen was so over come by Greek philosophy regarding the Body, soul, mind and and spirit that he took these to be facts and substituted them for Christian Doctrine. How could you have missed it? He uses greek ideas throughout. Here! try this! truth1.org/soul-early-write.htm#ORIGEN Origen should have been burned at the stake. he was a Greek worshiper masquerading as a Christian. that anyone fell for him back then, demonstrate just how far gone Christianity was by that time.

@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15

3 жыл бұрын

"Origen should have been burned at the stake" Yeah, that is the spirit of Martin Luther.

With all due respect, Origen is a heretic. He believes that the Holy Spirit was created by the Word, and that the Son is not the Most High God, but rather a lesser God. He does believe that the Son has his own essence different from the Father.

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. You brought up some heretical teachings. But, Origen did not believe those things you brought up. If Origen believed those things, will you show me where Origen wrote about them? God bless you!

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch No, brother, Origen, this is his faith. You may revise the NewAdvent God bless you

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch 'Grant that there may be some individual among the multitudes of bel, Kers who ar not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, The 8:30 17:39 who sent Me is greater than I." Contra Celsus 8:14 HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER (Orisen's view). _God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE (homoisious) OF HIS OWN. Orsons Commentary on the Gospel of John Book, Chapter 23 6. How the Word is the Maker of All Things, and Even the Holy Spirit Was Made Through Him Orsons Commentary on the Gospel of John Book, Chapter 2

@NilsWeber-mb5hg

Жыл бұрын

@@tariqhaddad7298 He had strong influences in gnosticism

@tariqhaddad7298

Жыл бұрын

@@NilsWeber-mb5hg Origen is one of the founders of Arian thought

Origin may be a genius, but many of his ideas were simply heretical by any measure. Christianity shows itself as a religion that developed over time rather than being the truth from the beginning. It seems to follow that route with Augustine, Martin Luther, etc. I'm a former christian. I renounced the faith for this and many other reasons. I didn't hear you mention his self castration (but could have simply missed it). I know some would say this didn't happen, but it seems to stay true to the course of all the other church fathers. It's scary to be holding a book that is the "truth", but required so many years to nail down what was believed. I went to church for the truth, not something that seems to evolve over the years. I enjoyed your presentation and it was very informative, but it seems like these guys all were the same as we are. They just had more danger in the graphic parts than many would say we do (ie taking Christ castration advice literally) or any of the other beliefs he had that aren't currently accepted. The absolute truth is not something that evolves and changes, but that's the only truth most christians have. It would be different if the bible didn't have such horrible character development and was a more stimulating read, but that book reads horribly. It's why biblical literacy is so low.

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. Can you tell me why you say that Origen's ideas were "simply heretical by any measure?" They weren't declared as heretical during his lifetime. It wasn't until much later that someone, who had dislike for Origen, tried to find fault in him as a heretic. From my study of history, the Christian religion has been in the truth since the beginning. I've seen in the most complex or controversial doctrines, in the first couple centuries, Christians were in agreement and understanding on those things. You say that Christianity evolved over time. Instead, from what I have seen, Christian doctrine has "devolved" over time. Divisions and changes in doctrine happened centuries after Christianity started. In other words, Jesus and the apostles starting something and established it very, very well. But over time, more humans got involved and started to change things. I'm sorry that you have noticed the problems in Christianity. I see them too and it is horrible to deal with. But I see evidence that it wasn't that way in the beginning. I believe the solution for Christians is to get back into the original ways of Christ and the apostles. This is one of the reasons I have this channel. I see how churches (after the apostles) have passed on Christianity, and it is a beautiful thing! I don't see the development of Christianity. I see an already-developed Christianity become devolved over time. God bless you!

@johnloftin2461

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Origen castrated himself taking Christ literally. This was while he was Christian the best I can tell. His words were genius if the bible is true (it's not and he was clearly very unstable.) Martin Luther was similar, but his crazy involved seriously hurting himself in pennance (dragging himself by the knees up and down stairs). Don't forget his hatred of the jews Augustine might be the most troubling. Augustine beleived the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be literal truth. We apparantly can walk to the side of heaven and see the sinners suffering and it will make our glory better. There is small room for argument in favor of this found in Rom 9, but this is absolutely monstrous. I haven't pushed much further on finding crazy errors with church fathers, but am confident the issues would abound. And it makes sense if you look at the bible in a progressive changing way, but you probably know how that goes. I think it's cool if you are trying to prove the bible and am fine with it. Predestination was my religious achiles heel, What is yours? Is there an issue that makes or breaks the gospel for you? What would you have to lose to break you? It's a serious question to me.

@johnloftin2461

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch and I just realized I didn't answer something. If church views haven't changed over time, compare us to what is believed now to what the Apostles are believed to have taught. Keep it all New Testament for simplicity. The church has massively changed since the time of Christ. The belief in orthodoxy is horribly loose until the Council of Nicea. I'm sure even then it wasn't as widespread as we want to beleive in church. And don't forget the early throws of Catholicism. They loved smiting people and we don't anymore. I think there are many problems in church history that don't get enough credit.

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

@@johnloftin2461 From your comments, I get the impression that you desire to look at the horrible things that people have done, supposedly in the name of Christ. If you desire to find and focus on the bad things, then please let me warn you that you will miss all the good things in Christianity, such as goodness, truth, salvation, and so many other things. You asked about makes or breaks the gospel for me. But first, you mentioned that yours is predestination. I agree with you: predestination would be an absolutely terrible aspect to Christianity. However, predestination was never part of Christianity. The doctrine of predestination was made popular by John Calvin, and since his time, predestination has given Christianity and God Himself a bad name. Thankfully, predestination is not part of Christianity. As for me, the thing that makes the gospel are the teachings of Jesus. I'm specifically thinking of the Sermon on the Mount and all of Jesus' parables. To me, these teachings could not have come from a mere man. I see those teachings as so amazing and morally incredible that they is beyond human production. And the thing that would break the gospel for me would be if Jesus' resurrection never happened. The entire gospel and everything would be false if Jesus never rose from the dead. But because all evidence points to the resurrection being true, I continue to believe the gospel. Thank you for having this conversation with me. God bless you!

@johnloftin2461

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch i wish you'd told me what I didn't already know. Now you can cast off Calvin (he was kinda an ass) but scripture read from Romans 9 in any translation puts predestiniation right back in the game. Your history lesson is one of many interpretations. I would contend that there's no such thing as a loving god who predestineds people to eternal torment in a plan made from eternity past. Both free will and election are found in scripture. There just contradictions proving what a lie the holy book is.

Origen put together the first cannon of the old testament using the hexapla method from fragments of koine Greek ,Aramaic,Hebrew. The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into koine Greek were only Genesis to Deuteronomy no one has that original copy. Origen user unknown scriptures . The orthodox Jewish Tanakh matches the Dead sea scrolls . No old testament comes Close. Origin like all other church father s they were non Trinitarians and also rabid antisemite s.

All gentiles!!!!1

Origen was a black Africa church father he was not white facts.

the eventual salvation of all is scripture, and the trinity denies the death of Christ. God cannot be born or die. 1 Timothy 4;10 "God is the saviour of ALL men, especially of believers." I could give more scriptures, but everyone gets one. the truth is not in the mainstream or the religious establishment, Jesus, the 12 disciples, and the apostle Paul were all considered heretics by the religious people of their day. those in christianity today are the modern day Pharisees. there's nothing new under the sun.

@PostApostolicChurch

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting! 1Tim 4:10 is not talking about the eventual salvation of all. You see, God is the Savior of all men, but that doesn't mean that all men will be saved. For example, John the Baptist said about Jesus, "Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). But Jesus didn't take away all the world's sins because anyone who does not believe in Jesus will still die in their sins (John 8:24). Salvation and forgiveness is given to all, but most people will reject it and thus not receive it. About the eventual salvation of all, if the Scriptures teach this, then why do the Scriptures say that people will go to everlasting/eternal fire? Blessings and so forth.

@dissidentsaint1413

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church you make God and Jesus look like failures and that satan defeats both of them in winning people, I use to think like you, until I threw the traditions of men away, modern pharisees. God doesn't Lose.

@dissidentsaint1413

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church... also its funny how you blindly put your theology on such a simple and clear verse. hmmmm.

@dissidentsaint1413

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church also everlastings and eternal are mistranslations, they mean eon, or age. the words forever and ever are a redundancy, might as well say infinity and infinity, Jonah 2;2 Jonah2;6 hell and forever are used, but we all know Jonah gets out in 3 days. let that sink in dude

@dissidentsaint1413

7 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church I don't mean to sound harsh or mean, Im just annoyed that people commit false witness against God who is love. eternal torment, really? sounds more like a doctrine of demons to be honest. XD

All right I'm going to lay out the entire history of the Catholic Mass based on actual history Alexandria Egypt is where the Catholics got their Bible from it was inspired by alexandrian texts that were heavily edited buy a philosopher by the name of origin origin was a gnostic and did not believe in the resurrection of the Dead origin being a gnostic is important because the gnostics follow the ancient Babylonian mysteries of luciferianism. There was a man by the name of Albert Pike who wrote morals and Dogma Albert Pike was a 33rd degree Mason after writing morals and Dogma he admits in his book that Mason's follow the luciferian doctrine of Freemason Knights of Columbus are gnostics. Most people today think that the Catholic Church hates masonry but in reality the Catholic church is a gnostic organization their book comes from Egypt and was inspired by Gnostic teachings. They ignore friends dance the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and substitute Mary as the mediator between God and man. Which is a heresy because there's only one mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus. They make it about what you do thinking that living a good life will save your soul when in reality according to Romans 3 Galatians 3 Ephesians 3 Paul was given a new gospel according to the dispensation of the grace of God that was revealed unto him. This new Gospel According to Ephesians 3 was not known in other ages it was a secret that was hidden in God the Catholics deny this gospel and make it about what you do ignoring the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and trying to put that sacrifice of themselves above that of Jesus Christ. Which is a heresy every Catholic Mass the Catholics hold up a wafer the wafer is a symbol of the sun god the monstrance that they said the wafer inside of has a crescent-shaped moon at the bottom that is the symbol of the Moon Goddess when the two come together they create Osiris which in ancient Mesopotamia is called Lucifer this is an ancient luciferian right that was done in ancient Babylon. It's actually end up seeing thing. That is satanic and Evil according to the Apostle Paul the church is each individual person who trust the gospel a church is not a building. But what they're doing is there inverting scripture they will say things like Jesus spoke Aramaic because the texts that the Catholics have are from Egypt they were originally written in Aramaic but Aramaic is the language of the Dead but Hebrew is the language of life the issue with most Catholics is they don't understand what Christ did and they don't understand the state of the juice today in or what their own beliefs actually are the reality of the situation is they are the Church of the Nicolaitans the woman that they have in there building. Is holding a cop the woman who's holding the cop is spoken in the Book of Revelation as the horror of Babylon again you can't make this up. The issue with most so-called Christians today who are Catholic is they've never actually read the Bible there following a traditional system a system of Gnostic philosophy it has no basis in real life. It is a satanic evil belief system which on the surface looks Christian but if you get to the heart of the matter the doctrine of their cult it falls apart

shame he had such heretical ideas.