man thank you for this, I have been trying to find information on the councils but i can only find information on chalcedon. Does anyone know where i can read the councils?
Thank you Mr. Stabolidis for presenting the the Council of Nicaea clearly so that I can now firm my understanding about the Trinity. God bless you. Hendra.
@@Eagle1349 I guess it depends on what you mean. As far as God is concerned, there is only one church, which is not to be equated with any particular denomination. God knows those who are his. I expect that most who attended Nicaea are genuinely Christian and I believe I am too.
Here is an answer from Christopher: Good question Yaw. Yes the Fathers definitely quoted scripture in the debate and used it to formulate the creed. In fact, much of the Creed and the majority of the Church Liturgy they used (and the Orthodox Church still uses today) contains direct quotes from scripture. Some examples off the top of my head are: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26) and "being raised from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:4). They would have been intimately familiar with scripture, but interestingly, the earliest codified list of the 27 books of the New Testament (and in the same order we have today) was only articulated by Saint Athanasius in his Easter letter (367 AD) between the two councils that settled the creed. It is probable that this was more an articulation of what was already standard practice. History shows that the Church came before Scripture and the Fathers would have understood the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Which is why they articulated this one statement of faith based on scripture as well as the common tradition that was being taught at the time. Councils like this were called when they could see traditions being altered by groups like the Arians. If you're interested in miracles, an interesting Father to look into in regards to this council is Saint Spyridon. He was uneducated compared to the other Fathers, but when arguments broke out about the Trinity versus Arian teachings, he didn’t quote scripture. He took a brick in his hand, held it up in front of everyone and then it proceeded to break into the clay, fire and water showing that 3 elements could come from 1 thing. I hope that helps!
Thank you so much for taking your time to answer my question. I have been told that it was Eusebius who reported about this conference of Nicea and I believe you might have read the original copy. If you have read it did Eusebius mention those verses you gave an example in your narrative? Thank you.
@@yawampadu4449 That was a reply from Chris. He does not want to be active in social media because of his profession. I suggest you google your question or google "historical records of the council of Nicaea". This is an excerpt from a book. Nicene Parallels: Five Historical Records of the Council of Nicaea in Parallel This table contains five historical records of the Council of Nicaea(325C.E.), set out in parallel for the reader. The sources are cited and I have divided the material up into sections as indicated here below. This work is an appendix to a larger research this material is that only two of the authors for these sources, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, were present at the Council itself.Kind regards, C.G. Bateman Impetus to Council (p. 3) Calling the Council (p. 5) Council of Nicaea: Attendees and Aims (p. 6) Council Deliberations (p. 11) Consequum Nicaea (Consequences) (p. 30) Nicene Statement of Faith: Closing Words (p. 38) You can also download a pdf copy of Eusebius' Church history.
An easy way to find out is just to ask chatGPT. Eg ask what were the church councils? I got the following answer: The early church councils were gatherings of bishops and religious leaders from the Christian church to discuss and address theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical issues. These councils played a significant role in shaping the beliefs, practices, and organization of the Christian church. Some of the most important early church councils include: Council of Nicaea (325): The first ecumenical council convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to address the Arian controversy, specifically the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. The council produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Christ and condemned Arianism. Council of Constantinople (381): This council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and expanded upon its teachings, particularly regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It also affirmed the primacy of the see of Constantinople in the Eastern Christian Church. Council of Ephesus (431): Convened to address the Nestorian controversy, which centered on the nature of Christ as both fully human and fully divine. The council affirmed the title of Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary and condemned Nestorianism. Council of Chalcedon (451): Convened to address the Monophysite controversy, concerning the nature of Christ having one divine nature. The council affirmed the definition of Christ having two distinct natures, one divine and one human, in hypostatic union. Second Council of Constantinople (553): Focused on addressing controversies related to the teachings of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The council condemned certain writings and teachings as heretical. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681): Addressed the issue of Monothelitism, a heretical doctrine that denied Christ's possession of a human will along with his divine will. The council affirmed that Christ had two wills, human and divine. These are just a few of the early church councils that played a crucial role in defining Christian doctrine, combating heresy, and establishing the theological foundations of the Christian faith. Subsequent councils were held throughout history to address additional theological controversies and issues within the church. I then asked: Where do we get info on the council of nicaea? Here is the answer: Information about the Council of Nicaea can be found in a variety of historical sources, including: Primary sources: The primary sources for information about the Council of Nicaea are the Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the council, as well as documents and letters written by participants in the council, such as the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria. Church historians: Many early church historians, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen, wrote accounts of the Council of Nicaea and its proceedings. These accounts provide valuable insights into the historical context and decisions made at the council. Ecumenical councils: The decisions and canons of the Council of Nicaea were recorded and preserved in the Acts of the Council, which were later referenced in subsequent ecumenical councils and church documents. Modern scholarship: Historians and scholars have studied and analyzed the Council of Nicaea from various perspectives, providing interpretations and insights into the events leading up to the council, the debates and controversies that took place, and the lasting impact of its decisions on Christian theology and practice. Online resources: There are many online resources available that provide information about the Council of Nicaea, including scholarly articles, books, websites, and documentaries. These resources can offer a comprehensive overview of the historical context, key figures, and theological issues discussed at the council. By consulting a combination of these sources, one can gain a deeper understanding of the Council of Nicaea and its significance in shaping Christian doctrine and history. You can then query each of the suggested sources using chatGPT.
Asking chat gpt about anything is basically the same going to the devil himself and asking for a lesson. Great way to get lied to with absolutely no recourse. Only a colossal retard would suggest this.
There is evidence that Constantine set himself up to be the 'Son'. With some of the religious symbolism at the time on his statues and the arch. I don't think he was as much a convert as history portrays
Did Hagia Sofia was build as mousoleum to Constantine I!?!?! Justinianus who came after Constantine build " the Church" which was the first "monoteistic" religious building in the world and it was standing as a model to other churches (and mosques ). As I heard Jesus did not accept any buildings where people could gathering and pray to the god (Which god did Jesus believed in???) He was opposed to clerics who stood between the believing people and the god!
@DazeOfNoah how do you denounce facts that the story’s was stole and reinvent to fit a more modern civilization that doesn’t care about inner but on focus on fate …. ?
I wonder what was the characteristic of each mentor the council. Are we saying was he seat was occupied by an individual deemed honest, intelligent intellect? What qualifies them of that title? Is it fair to day that the Christian before this council would have been closer to Chris doctrine than those of today ?
I suggest you google your question or google "historical records of the council of Nicaea". This is an excerpt from a book. Nicene Parallels: Five Historical Records of the Council of Nicaea in Parallel This table contains five historical records of the Council of Nicaea(325C.E.), set out in parallel for the reader. The sources are cited and I have divided the material up into sections as indicated here below. This work is an appendix to a larger research this material is that only two of the authors for these sources, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, were present at the Council itself.Kind regards, C.G. Bateman Impetus to Council (p. 3) Calling the Council (p. 5) Council of Nicaea: Attendees and Aims (p. 6) Council Deliberations (p. 11) Consequum Nicaea (Consequences) (p. 30) Nicene Statement of Faith: Closing Words (p. 38) You can also download a pdf copy of Eusebius' Church history.
the formal prohibition at the great Church Council of Elyrus in A.D. 303, when it was declared that "the form of God, which is immaterial and invisible, shall not be limited by figure or shape." In 692, the council of Constantinople had similarly prohibited "to paint or represent Jesus as a lamb," as also "to bow the knee in praying, as it is the act of idolatry." But the council of Nicaea (787) brought this idolatry back, while that of Rome (883) excommunicated John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, for his showing himself a declared enemy of image worship. Ref,,,,The Secret Doctrine Vol 2 Page 279.
I have never heard of the "Church Council of Elyrus in A.D. 303". I thought that Nicaea was the 1st council. Do you have a link to this council? On the rest of your post, what point are you making?
I've been studying The Secret Doctrine by Helena Petrova Blavatsky a mystic of Russian Jewish decent, and in the second volume titled Anthropogenesis or the evolution of the human species, she suggests that modern science is at present materialistic. So I am trying to trace the source of this disconnection with the spiritual side of man. I believe that the real issue and result of the council of Nicaea was that the church became an idolatrous cult and instituted the adoration of images, which anthropomorphized "the form of God which is as said before, immaterial and invisible, and shall not be limited by figure or shape." This I believe was the beginnings of materialism in the west, which has now contaminated the east. For instance, with the advent of the industrial revolution, it was thought that the machine would become the servant of man, but the opposite has happened; man has become a slave to the machine, ie when the tank is empty the machine will go no further until filled again with the fossil fuels which is said to be causing climate change and global warming.(this needs more elaboration but at another time) After Nicaea all students of the occult schools were forced underground, and the Inquisition made it punishable of heresy. This of course was in the aims of the clergy to control the lives of ordinary subjects, with a bit of hell fire and brimstone threats thrown in for measure. HPB refers to Jesus as the wise Galilean Adept -- whose message was distorted out of recognition (as was his own personality), and made to fit in with one of the most cruel as the most pernicious of all theological dogmas.. The SD can be found in PDF form online.
@@IDNeon357 Oh yea! clarify please. (I know what a twat is.) but why are you saying this? are you just being trollish, then I'm not interested. If you are trying to enlighten me, then I am. As I am always in search of truth no matter where it comes from.
@@hiltonroberts8742 I realize your comments are quite old but: Did you find what youw were looking for? Have you encountered writings of Rudolf Steiner? I recall him describing this phenomena of man becoming less spiritual, though I don't know if his work would actually help you find clarity.
I highly encourage the facilitator to continue to do further research. Maybe start with reading "The Pillory" about the Borgia family as it pertains to the early pictures of Jesus the Christ/Yahshua the Messiah
What realised surprised me when studying the church fathers and arguments for the divinity of Christ, how little they referred to the TeNaCh but rather used philosophical reasonings. For example I don’t see any good arguments explaining how Jesus could be the literal son of God via a virgin birth when the promised messiah in the Jewish bible is a son of David. If Jesus is the son of David then he must have had a human father since tribal affiliation is only passed on from father to son. It also can’t be passed on via adoption. For example a benjamite being adopted into a Levite family will never be allowed into the priesthood because even though his adoptive father is a Levite, his birth father is a benjamite. These kind of questions I would have expected to be discussed at the council of Nicaea. It is obvious that by that time the church already was in apostasy or they just compromised to pacify a likely hostile environment at the court of Constantine.
I am surprised you expected to make sense. These are iron age people trying to convince jews that jesus was the real deal. It was as much political as it was unscientific. It's not supposed to make sense. If you have faith you don't need sense.
Having grown up a JW they do believe the Son is a creature, the highest of all created things so essentially Arian. But they do use the same Bible, although a problematic translation, which does have all the theophanies and Christ’s explicit statements that he is God although not the Father and accused of blasphemy for it, the part in Revelation where Christ says “I’m the first and last alpha omega. I was dead and then alive”. St Paul’s interchanging of Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ so it really is a cult like mentality of purposefully ignoring these scriptural examples of the Trinity and believing their governing body over the Bible. Orthodox myself now so always try to get them to research this topic when I can. Thanks for the video.
The New World Translation differs significantly for John 1:1. The Greek is Εν αρχη ην ο Λογος, και ο Λογος ην προς τον Θεον, και Θεος ην ο Λογος. ' . They get excited because there is no article prior the last Θεος, and so they translate it as 'a God'. However, there is no article for Εν αρχη as well. So, to be consistent they should translate this as 'in a beginning'. also 'Θεος ην ο Λογος' is what is called a predicate nominative construction. The verb to be uses the nominative case for both the subject and the predicate, so which is which? The subject includes the article and it is dropped for the predicate, So including the article for the predicate is incorrect grammar. Thus the conventional translation is correct.
@@KevinRogers-cp4tyHello sir. I am a Jehovahs Witness. Also Greek who was orthodox but changed after much research and study of Gods word. I am now an older woman and despite the debates about scriptures and verses I believe there is one God and one Savior.
@@ConnieBoolieris I can understand people having problems with the trinity. It took 300 years to get to Nicaea, so there were plenty of Christians prior to that who had a range of ideas. We probably all have some incorrect beliefs. My main problem with 'sects' is that they tend to claim that they alone are the one true church and disqualify everyone else. I accept you. Can you accept me?
@@ConnieBoolieris The doctrine of the trinity is tricky and it does not surprise me that some have problems with it. The church proceeded for 300 years before it was formalised. If you believe what you read in the NT then you are probably fine. The problem with unorthodox groups is that they believe they are the one true church and disqualifiy others. None of us have got it all right, and God is kind.
The definition of church you say is Christian, yes, true it is., but it began with the Emperor of Rome when His empire joined pagan philosophies and some of the believers of the WAYS teachings. And yes, Universalism again that is Catholicism, which all stems from the beginnings of the joining of the Roman Empire with pagan beliefs and some believers of the WAY’s teachings taught by The Only Begotten Son of God The Father YAH. And then written in letters/ epistles by the Hebrew disciples . The believers of the WAY Who believed in Joshua( English version) of Yahushua the Messiah, NOT “CHRIST “ again that is also Catholic , Christ = anointed with oil, but Messiah was anointed with the holy spirit of the Father at His baptism. “They were first called Christians in Antioch,”as stated in the book of ACTS , but previous to that they were called Nazarenes and believers of the WAY . It only mentions the word Christian 3 times, but believers of the WAY and Nazarenes many times in the book of Acts. So you see the emperor inserted himself within the True assembly, not “ Church “ the Universal Church/Catholic Church which took over the written word which was originally written in Hebrew , because the disciples spoke Hebrew as is stated, in the book of ACTS 26: Paul told the authorities that he was on the road to Damascus, a voice in the Hebrew tongue said to him Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? As the old saying goes , “ All roads lead to Rome.” which leads everyone to worship this JC, except for the narrow Road who worship our Heavenly Father YAHUHA and believe in His Only Begotten Son Who’s written Name has His Father’s Name in it Yahushua!! “ I have come in my Father’s NAME and you do not receive me, if ANOTHER comes in His OWN NAME him you would receive” John 5:43, ” Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the spirit of God CALLS Jesus/ Yahushua a CURSE and no one can Say Jesus/ Yahushua is LORD except by the Holy Spirit” 1 Corinthians 12:3, So I ask you, how are these people in Hollywood and presidents etc. praising Jesus and at other times cursing him. Check some videos out online about that and you’ll see this is true . if you don’t already know, just put it in the browser. Blessings ❤🙏
Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me. That was God talking to Paul not Paul speaking in Hebrew. This proves nothing . You should read what Paul said about the letter of the word.
I was disappointed that the quartodeciman controversy was not covered. Polycrates, pope victor, Apostle John, Polycarp. The apostles held to passover as commanded by Jesus. Easter is time set by man.
Personally, I am not fussed about celebrations or their dates. In the NT we are not commanded to celebrate Easter, Christmas or any other festival, or their dates. We should be mindful of the incarnation and the Easter events all year round. I had never heard of the term 'Quartodeciman controversy,' so thanks for educationg me. I looked it up on chatGPT, given below. The Quartodeciman controversy was a religious dispute in the early Christian church regarding the date of Easter. The controversy revolved around whether Easter should be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar, or on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover. Those who advocated for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan were known as Quartodecimans, while those who argued for the Sunday observance were known as the Sunday observers. The controversy arose in the 2nd century and continued for several centuries, with different regions of the Christian world adopting different practices. Eventually, the Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where it was decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. This formula, known as the Computus, is still used to calculate the date of Easter in most Christian traditions today. How were Polycrates, pope victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp relevant to The Quartodeciman controversy? Polycrates, Pope Victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp were all significant figures in the Quartodeciman controversy. Polycrates was a bishop of Ephesus and a prominent Quartodeciman, advocating for the celebration of Easter on the 14th of Nisan. He was known for his strong defense of this practice and refused to change the date of Easter despite pressure from other Christian leaders. Pope Victor was the bishop of Rome during the Quartodeciman controversy and strongly opposed the Quartodeciman practice. He sought to enforce the Sunday observance of Easter on a universal level and even threatened to excommunicate those who continued to follow the Quartodeciman tradition. Apostle John, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, was believed to have encouraged the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. His influence carried weight among early Christians, and his stance on the issue played a significant role in the controversy. Polycarp, a disciple of Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, also supported the Quartodeciman practice. He was known for his steadfast adherence to this tradition and was a respected figure in the early Christian church, contributing to the defense of the Quartodeciman position. Overall, these figures played key roles in the Quartodeciman controversy, representing different sides of the debate and influencing the development of Easter observance within the early Christian church. Polycrates, Pope Victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp were all significant figures in the Quartodeciman controversy. Polycrates was a bishop of Ephesus and a prominent Quartodeciman, advocating for the celebration of Easter on the 14th of Nisan. He was known for his strong defense of this practice and refused to change the date of Easter despite pressure from other Christian leaders. Pope Victor was the bishop of Rome during the Quartodeciman controversy and strongly opposed the Quartodeciman practice. He sought to enforce the Sunday observance of Easter on a universal level and even threatened to excommunicate those who continued to follow the Quartodeciman tradition. Apostle John, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, was believed to have encouraged the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. His influence carried weight among early Christians, and his stance on the issue played a significant role in the controversy. Polycarp, a disciple of Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, also supported the Quartodeciman practice. He was known for his steadfast adherence to this tradition and was a respected figure in the early Christian church, contributing to the defense of the Quartodeciman position. Overall, these figures played key roles in the Quartodeciman controversy, representing different sides of the debate and influencing the development of Easter observance within the early Christian church. How was the Easter date derived at Nicaea and how did it differ from the 14th of Nisan? At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the bishops gathered to address a number of issues, one of which was the date of Easter. They sought to establish a uniform date for the celebration of Easter that would be observed by all Christians. The formula established at the Council of Nicaea for calculating the date of Easter was based on astronomical calculations. It was determined that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This formula ensured that Easter would always fall on a Sunday and would be celebrated around the same time each year. This formula differed from the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, based on the Jewish calendar. The Nicaean formula was based on a combination of the solar and lunar calendars, ensuring that Easter would be aligned with the spring equinox and the practices of the wider Christian community. By establishing a universal formula for calculating the date of Easter, the Council of Nicaea sought to bring unity and consistency to the celebration of this important Christian holiday, despite differences in tradition and practice among the various Christian communities.
@@ReasonableFaithSA For a long time I have felt unsettled about the holidays that are celebrated by the modern church not being those instituted by God. It isn't what I read in scripture. I didn't know how to find that information. But with the internet and easier access to information, I have been looking into it. That's how I ended up at your video, in search of more resources. What I am finding out confirms to me that the church has deviated from keeping Gods appointed feasts to create their own days of celebrating. Anyone can look into it and find the information. Jesus kept the Passover. Scripture itself shows us the Apostles and early Church, even after Jesus' death and resurrection, kept the Passover and held to keeping the appointed times which were set by God back in Leviticus 23. God says in Leviticus that they are His feasts. They are not just Jewish tradition. 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. From Wikipedia: Quartodeciman controversy When Pope Victor wanted to set an official practice of Easter on the whole Christian world, to celebrate Easter on Sunday, Polycrates writing in the name of the entire Asian church, argued that the apostles taught to celebrate the Passover (Holy Communion) on the 14th day of Nisan. In his letter, he appeals to the authority of Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius and Melito, all of whom were Quartodecimans.[3] Despite Polycrates convening a synod in Ephesus to declare Quartodecimanism official, later the tradition died out, because Nicea declared Easter to be celebrated on a Sunday. It was forced onto the whole Christian world and how many understand this. Polycrates letter to pope victor As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day, neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried; his other daughter also, who passed her life under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, and a witness and a teacher-he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch, who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth. day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith. Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." … Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter These are just excerpts of the points. Read it in full at the website “fourthcentury”. The audacity of the claims made and unchristian statements. (3.) At the council we also considered the issue of our holiest day, Easter, and it was determined by common consent that everyone, everywhere should celebrate it on one and the same day. (4.) Therefore have nothing in common with that most hostile people, the Jews. We have received another way from the Savior. (5.) It is truly most absurd for them to boast that we are incapable of rightly observing these things without their instruction. (6.) Why then should we follow the example of those who are acknowledged to be infected with serious error? (8.) For our Savior left us only one day to be observed in remembrance of our deliverance, (9.) ….For this reason Divine Providence directed that we put into effect an appropriate correction and establish uniformity of practice, as I suppose you are all aware. (11.) But to sum up matters briefly, it was determined by common consent that the most holy festival of Easter should be solemnized on one and the same day; (12.) Since these things are consistent, gladly receive this heavenly and truly divine command. For whatever is done in the sacred assemblies of the bishops can be traced to Divine will. This is serious matter. This is the decision according to men by their own reasoning, wanting to do things their own way, to change what God Himself instituted and claiming it was the Lord who gave the change. Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. The Sabbath Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. The Passover Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
@@ReasonableFaithSA I responded to your comment the other day but for some reason my comment was removed. I don't agree with that viewpoint. In Leviticus 23, God says they are His feasts. He gave the Israelites the feasts to be kept, so they are not just a Jewish tradition. Jesus kept the Passover and expected the Apostles to keep it and to teach the keeping of the Passover. Scripture shows the Passover was kept. Pope Anicetus was involved in keeping the roman tradition of easter on Sunday but Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna defended the Eastern tradition of keeping of the correct date of Passover. Pope victor was enforcing easter on Sunday to which Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, sent a letter to pope victor defending keeping the Passover on the correct date, Nissan 14, as they always had and were taught by the Apostle John. The emperor Constantine was involved with this as well and had some awful things to say in his letter, “Constantine’s Letter concerning the date of Easter “ Both letters can be found online. People should take the time to read them to learn what was done. As you say, christmas and easter are not commanded in the bible nor are they shown as being practiced in the early church. I started feeling unsettled about these things. The more I learn the more I understand. So why does the modern church celebrate these days instituted by man and deviate away from Gods appointed times? The roman church was drifting away and forcing their traditions on others. So the majority of Christians are celebrating these times not even realizing they are following after rome. Chatgpt doesn't address that aspect of the controversy. So really the bishops, pope, emperor trying to decide what date to celebrate easter is moot because they were deviating away from Gods own set time. They were wrong and operating according to their own will. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7:25 We are a wild olive branch grafted in. Romans 11 There is one faith. Ephesians 4
@@nightowl5396 In the OT, festivals are prescribed, but not in the NT. In Colossians 2L16-17, Paul says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Doesn't fussing over the date of easter fall into this category? My impression is that early Jewish Christians would have observed the sabbath and also met with Christians on the Sunday (Acts 20:7), but no NT author makes a big deal about it. If I was at Nicaea, I might have dozed off at this part of the debate. I think the history is interesting and all denominations have a tendency to drift, but is this issue really all that important? Does the date of easter matter? I realise that it is frustrating when an issue is important to you and others don't deem it important. I get that on other issues.
This lecture was too confusing. How can you use the Bible as evidence of the Bible? Maybe someone can help me, where is an archeological grave for any of the characters who supposedly historically existed in the Bible? Anyone can help with some answers? Thanks.
Marked graves for Biblical figures are not the type of evidence that you would expect to find. We would only expect to find marked graves for a few major political figures and even those are rare. There may be busts or monuments for major poliitical figures, but the people in the NT were not major political figures. Most of the evidence is textual. There is a lot of material in the book of Acts that can be checked and this is documented in books, such as 'The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history' by Colin Hemer, or you can google many articles on the web. Most evidence is textual. 7 of Paul's letters (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are regarded as undisputed. This is quite remarkable, as if there is any possibility of doubt, then many scholars will doubt it. To get the title of undisputed, the evidence has to be chained to concrete. For these books we know who wrote it and what he wrote. So you can read these letters with a high level of assurance that you are reading what Paul wrote, regardless of whether you believe what Paul says. That is up to you to judge. The ordinary Christian just reads the Bible. For them, it has the ring of truth and that is my experience too. I read it to examine it, but it jumps out and examines me. It challenges me morally like no other book. I apprehend God speaking to me. So I suggest you try that and see what happens.
35 mins into the video, still can't tell what this guy is trying to show, he says he is neutral but keeps quoting the bible and making comments without much structure, I'll give him a few more mins.
@@randyforman2286 The bible is a historic document in the sense that it is the Hebrew (and other ancient cultures) book of mythology; it is not a book of history; it has as much true history in it as Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, Batman, Superman, etc
Strangely Professors of history from best universities and specializing in Gospels claim that Luke does not depict Jesus as literally Son of God, just a prophet. In The Bible most prophets are called Sons of God including Moses but it's not interpreted in a literal sense. Holy Spirit appears also in Talmud and Rabbinic literature. In Torah it's called Spirit of God.
Just because they are professors at premier Universities does not equate to factual claims. If those professors were knowledgeable of Biblical Text as originally inspired in Greek as well as Ancient Christianity, they would know the truth about Christ Jesus. εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν
You are probably partly right. "The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians", but Constantine probably was not Arian. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism.
@@ReasonableFaithSA he was arian before the council Please go through the history Eusebius of Nicomedia baptised Constantine and eusabius was an arian priest and Constantine himself beleived arian theology to be true But after the council he accepted what the council professed.
I thought the same thing. It can be hard for Christians to think of their religion as a man-made mythology though. To them, it’s true, most likely because they were indoctrinated into it at a very young age, their state/region/country most likely had it as the most dominant religion, and their community reinforced the indoctrination. Indoctrination by family at a very young age can be very difficult and a long process to remove, particularly when the mythology continues to permeate around you.
Interesting view. I put the following question to chatGPT: In John 1:1 which members of the trnity are associated with the word and God? Here is the answer: In John 1:1, the verse associates two entities with the terms "the Word" and "God": "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here, "the Word" refers to Jesus Christ, who is described metaphorically as the Word or "Logos" in Greek. This verse establishes the eternal existence of Jesus Christ ("the Word") and also equates "the Word" with God. The verse emphasizes both the distinctiveness of the Word ("the Word was with God") and the divine nature of the Word ("the Word was God"). This passage is often used to highlight the Christian understanding of the Trinity, suggesting the co-existence of Jesus (the Word) with God while also being identified as divine. It speaks to the Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ as an integral part of the triune nature of God. I do have some reservations on what chat says. Here is my understanding: It may be better to say that the Word is the eternal son, rather than Jesus. Jesus in the human incarnation of the eternal son.
@@ReasonableFaithSA John 6:63 says: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the “words”which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” Note 3 in the New Testament Recovery Version on the words clearly explains the difference between logos and rhema and how the Lord’s words impart the divine life to us: Note 3: “The Greek word for “words” here and in v. 68, is Rhema, which denotes the instant and present spoken word. It differs from logos (used for Word in 1:1), which denotes the constant word. Here the words follows the Spirit. The Spirit is living and real, yet He is very mysterious, intangible, and difficult for people to apprehend; the words, however, are substantial. First, the Lord indicated that for giving life He would become the Spirit. Then He said that the words He speaks are spirit and life. This shows that His spoken words are the embodiment of the Spirit of life. He is now the life-giving Spirit in resurrection, and the Spirit is embodied in His words. When we receive His words by exercising our spirit, we get the Spirit, who is life.”
Your depiction of the Council of Nicea thoroughly lacks the truth of the "Holy Trinity" and the fact that many of the stories incorporated in the accepted canons were of African and other origins, pre-dating accepted Christian text by thousands of years.
What he is saying is historically incorrect that's the Fourth 4th century in the 4th century There were no such thing called Christianity and Arius was talking about Christ he talking about Saraps
Trinitarianism is Satanic human tradition, like the Pharisees. Because title substitutions for names (like the word "GOD") refer to the person, the identity behind the title, if one believes GOD is the Father, but Jesus is also GOD, then what is meant by the word "GOD" has changed, and is no longer referring to a person, but a thing one is calling THEM. For the case of both the Father and Jesus being considered "GOD," the meaning of the word "GOD" would then have been changed to be referring to the name of the one group one has put THEM into, vs how MANY of THEM there are in the group. This is done so that believers of this doctrine wouldn't be accused of polytheism, but it doesn't work. No one called GOD can be more than one person, otherwise there would be an "s" added to the end of the word and we would call them gods. Telling others that two or more persons is not plural, because they share one quality, only deceives the acolyte of this doctrine, not others. Consider Peter, Paul, and Thomas. Three persons, one human nature. It doesn't work to say these three humans are "one human" because they have one human nature. We still know THEY are THREE and therefore we refer to THEM as THEY. And if "GOD" is more than one person, it is POLYTHEISM, no matter how many human explanations it is wrapped in. What is real, is truth, and no one can change that anywhere, but in one's own mind.
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
@@TobiasFlaviusIs a feeble attempt at proof texting the best you can do? Have you not read the next verse? Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him GOD his he Those are singular personal pronouns pointing to one person. Tell me, what school did you go to where you were brainwashed to believe that singular personal pronouns apply to two or more people?
You're trying to make sense out of nonsense. These are iron age reporters trying to convince jews that jesus was there a messiah. After all if you have faith you don't need sense. If you want to try to make sense of it, it's like trying to put a round peg through a square hole.
From the Father proceeds the Son and from the Son proceeds the Holy Ghost. The 'mind' of God IS the Son and as the Son puts His mind to 'work' and that work being perpetual IS the Holy Ghost the doer of all things.
Trinity existed before Jesus Christ. Trinity is a Greek philosofical myth that existed before Christ except it wasn't the father, son, and spirit. It was a Hellenistic platonic philosophy that later during the church period was mix with the new Jewish religion and the Trinity was born.
Interesting comment. I put the following question to chatGPT: Was the doctrine of the trinity based on hellenistic platonic philosophy? ChatGPT: The doctrine of the Trinity, a central theological concept in Christianity, was not directly based on Hellenistic Platonic philosophy. However, there are some historical and philosophical influences that played a role in shaping early Christian discussions of the Trinity. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity took place within the context of early Christian theological debates and the need to articulate the nature of God in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the experiences of the early Christian community. Here are some factors and influences to consider: Scriptural Roots: The doctrine of the Trinity was primarily derived from interpretations of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Early Christian theologians sought to understand and reconcile passages that referred to the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, while affirming monotheism. Jewish Monotheism: Early Christians, many of whom were Jewish, had a strong foundation in Jewish monotheism. They maintained a belief in one God, which was rooted in Jewish tradition. Greek Philosophical Concepts: While not directly based on Platonic philosophy, early Christian theologians engaged with Greek philosophical concepts, particularly the terminology and vocabulary used to articulate theological ideas. Terms like "ousia" (essence or substance) and "hypostasis" (person) were borrowed from Greek philosophy to help explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theological Controversies: The doctrine of the Trinity was developed, in part, as a response to theological controversies and heresies within the early Christian church. Theological debates spurred the need for precise language and definitions. Creedal Formulations: Early Christian creeds, such as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD), played a significant role in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity and clarifying the beliefs of the Christian community. These creeds were influenced by both biblical language and philosophical terminology. While some Greek philosophical terms were employed to express Christian theological concepts, the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Christian scripture, tradition, and theological reflection. The early Christian theologians grappled with how to express the biblical teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet share a common divine essence. In summary, while there were interactions between early Christian theology and Greek philosophy, the doctrine of the Trinity primarily emerged from the unique theological and scriptural context of early Christianity, with a strong emphasis on monotheism and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I think this is a balanced view of the relationship between Christian theology and Greek philosophy. Regards, Kevin Rogers, Director, Reasonable Faith Adelaide
Whatever you say... Revealtion chapter 19...11 till 16 says JESUS THE WORD OF GOD..THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORD'S...HE IS THE WORD , THE WORD WAS GOD....THE UNSEEN FATHER WAS SEEN THROUGH THE WORD WHO WAS SAME AS THE FATHER
Well Christopher does not really sounds very confident in his presentation, always looking for the approval of the masses. Like he wrote it the nite before or is just reading someone else's outline. He needs to read and make up his mind what is the controversy and present it the way he wants. For example does he have a belief and is he just presenting both sides for you to make your own mind up
@Kevin Rogers ya, but does that mean all views are righ, what do you think, by presenting a topic about a matter, does that mean the matter is true or false, remember the church pronounces those that don't follow a line of thought, anathema, which is very strong condemnation, for instence if by not accepting something is anathema, they are according to there own definition of anathema. The definition being "a formalcurse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunication of a person or denouncing a doctrine"
Too bad the early church fathers adopted Paul's ideas instead of Jesus. Paul was a religous nut who never met Jesus but self appointed himself as an apostle and whose words went AGAINST Jesus. Jesus said we are ALL sons of God, not just him. And Jesus never mentioned anything about him dying for our sins, that was Paul's idea. Paul put Jesus on a pedestal and thus castrated Jesus message to bring the kingdom of Heaven to Earth by loving your neighbors as yourself.
1Peter 2:24, 1Peter3:18, 1Jn2:2, Luke 24:25-26, Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
@@zoehannah6278 They believe too that Constantin is a Serb because of his birth plase Naissus (Nis), and Licinius is the founder of their most notorious families Nemanjici... Why not believe they are Illyrians, or Bulgarians!?!?! Why Serbs? Serbs came to Balkan in 6th or 7th century during "Great migration" ...
The man that you are referring to is Laurie Eddie, who was the founder of SA sceptics. As it so happens, I am currently in Egypt and have just completed a tour. I have learnt a lot about the egyptian Gods and egyptian religious beliefs. I also have a lot to learn. Many of Laurie's views on parallels are rejected by mainstream scholars.
In Nicea they didn't understand that the Holy Spirit is the Father. In other terms the Father is here in the limited form of a spirit "God is a spirit". ("Spirit" means that the God's words are spoken by NOBODY, i.e. God is absent). Jesus has thus the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit (Holy)" according to circumstances. But they are just two equivalent names. For example Jesus could have said "..but blasphemy against the Father will not be forgiven..." instead of "..but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven..." , they are equivalent. Thus, no "third divine person", no triune God exists.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 Three distinct persons of God. The difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is elaborated upon in John's account of the Last Supper. What you're promoting is called modalism and it's been universally rejected by the Church for about 1,800 years.
@@AGPArchivist A poor performance of the churchfathers: they are just three NAMES, not PERSONS! If they were three Persons, Jesus would of course always state "I am with the Father and the Holy Spirit" "I am with the Paracletos and with the Father".... On the contrary Jesus NEVER states that, because He does not EVEN KNOW WHAT IS A TRINITY!! I.e.the trinity has been later INVENTED. Jesus ALWAYS states (50 times) in all different ways to be ONLY WITH THE FATHER. PERIOD. Thus, Jesus CRYSTAL CLEAR tells us that God is made by 1. the Father and 2. the Son. PERIOD. Yes, CRYSTAL CLEAR: "...those who will believe in me through their word so that they all may be one, as you, FATHER, are in ME, and I in YOU. THEY also may be ONE IN US...". Father and Son, no further third person, NO PARACLETOS IS THERE.. And what about the Holy Spirit? The solution to this problem is simple: the name "Holy Spirit" corresponds to the Father TOO! Jesus simply is together with the "FATHER who is a SPIRIT" (Jn.4:23-24) and calls Him "Holy Father, Holy Spirit": they are two EQUIVALENT names. You can learn it from the speech about the two blasphemies, where the second one is of course directed to the Father: He is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus. Indeed the Holy Spirit - who is inside Jesus - CAN ONLY BE THE FATHER: no one else is there! This means that the "Spirit of God" inside Jesus simply is "God [the Father] who is a Spirit". No "helper-God" exists. In Matthew 28:19 (A) FATHER: with the word "Father" Jesus refers to God is HIS FULLNESS: the God that NOBODY ever SAW, KNEW ("no one has seen God at any time"). The world did not know him AT ALL: "the world has not known you"! Only Jesus DID it (in the past, not now). (B) HOLY SPIRIT: but the Father - whom nobody ever saw - is able to be here in the form of a spirit! He is the Holy Spirit ("God is a spirit"). This means we have the PRESENCE of God here with his words and his actions, but NOBODY is actually here. This is why you can say He is a "spirit". You can say that the Holy Spirit COMES FROM the Father is his fullness. He is always inside Jesus, He was also inside Elisabeth, Zacharias, John... (C) SON: Jesus indeed is the ONLY KING of heaven because God is actually MISSING: He is only a spirit, nobody is actually here. Jesus is the King, not the Father. Thus, only Jesus DECIDES your fate, NOT GOD. Jesus DOES NOT SEAT on the right hand of God (fake "long ending of Mark's" statement) He seats on the right hand of the POWER of God (a thing). Indeed Jesus hasn't got his own, He is not almighty.
Watched for purely historical reasons, because this is part of the beginnings of the world I live in. I also watch shows on astronomy and expanding space/time that is expanding right now around us, adding the size of an atom to every kilometer throughout a universe. A universe who's size physicist don't know, our 13 billion light year observable universe could be 90, 10, 1, .1%,.... of the whole universe. The expansion rate was required to vary with a precise recipe to tear apart black hole densities but not so fast to not allow the big bang (recombination of basic particles at exactly the right density) to happen and not to fast to not allow star formation or too slow to have everything lump back into yet another big black hole. Then you can go into quantum mechanics, chemistry, and all the knifes edge requirements needed for the universe and organic chemistry. In the end the positive feedback and inherent stability of the earth and life make it a certainty there is and has been uncountable earth like planets and life similar to ours through billions of years, asking the question why this god who had the power to create this great universe and the knifes edge physics and chemistry, wanted to communicate directly with anyone within this universe does not make a lot of sense. And the timing of god communicating, around the time of formal story telling, philosophy, writing, etc is suspicious, why didn't this communication 10 or 20 thousand years earlier. I believe a god (force or power no one will ever know or probably understand if they were told) created or orchestrated it all, but we are to insignificant to communicate with, though this and many other earth like existences were one of the outcomes of the universe in the same way as atoms, planets, galaxies, organic chemistry are.
You still believe in a god or God. Your main thrust seems to be that we are too insignificant for God to care about us. Isn't this being anthropomorphic? Is God like a general who has no time for his privates. The God of the Bible is maker of all but also knows the number of hairs on our head and knows when a sparrow falls. He knows the large and the small. He knows all of our days while we are still in the womb. This is far greater than considering God like a general. I cannot answer the question about the timing of God's visitation. People argue why not earlier or later? How God deals with each individual is beyond my understanding, but that is no surprise.
Confusing! "In the name of the father, the son and holly spirit"!?!?!? Who is father, who is son, who is holly spirit!?!?!? Who is Christ? Christians believe in Christ!?!!? God is all those three!?!?!? But who is Christ!??!?! Also the human beings of blood and flash proclaimed Jesus davine!?!?!? Nooooooo! Confusing!!!!
It’s a very good presentation but the facilitator must have been more serious and stop laughing all the time. Maybe in other kind of matters , a facilitator could behave the way he did. I think actually he needed to talk in a clearer way, respectfully such as, like a priest. Most of he said is good, but there is only one doubt about it: ¿Was there, n the ancient Roma Empire ruled by Constantine, other Christian Churchs that weren’t invited to the Nicea meeting of bishops? For instance, I heard about Indian and China’ christian belivers who do not owed to Eastern church of Christ those days and first centuries A.C.
I think this guy is confused or he's just intentionally avoiding the truth.I did'nt watch the whole video but it was not christian but the catholic church.Is was 318 catholic bishops that convened to initiate jesus.
howell Ignatius of Antioch who didnt make up the term himself called it The Catholic Church..StPolyCarp in the same century also used it when he was old as he was Christian for 80 plus years - so it existed already in the 1st century. It was clearly understood that the Church was Catholic
the father son theology is just plan dumb. Where is mother in this story? The father son and holy spirit, really??? Common sense shows and tells you, all life comes from Mother.
He pretty much white washed the whole thing and the fact that he himself is a Christian makes it hard for me to believe that his presentation wasn't biased and that he didn't come with his own agenda
Everyone is biased to some degree. Are you inferring that only a non-Christian can be unbiased? The people who are most biased are those who deny that the are, because they are deluding themselves.
@@ReasonableFaithSA That's not what I'm saying at all and of course we're all biased when it comes to something but I'm just saying caught a lot of lies in his presentation and I believe the reason for it is because he wants to believe what he's saying because he's a Christian and if the presentation had been given by someone who didn't have any personal attachment to the said religion we may have gotten a more honest presentation
@@middletonwilliams7608 Good, we are in agreement that we are all biased. I am very sure that Chris had no intention to lie. He tried to be honest. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything he said is correct. What were some of the things that he said that you believe are untrue?
Yes, back then the church was “one”. It was the Catholic Church. You’re wrong about universal(the definition of catholic) church meaning “for all Christians”. It means the Church, the Gospel, is for both Jew and Gentile, for everyone. Not just for the Jews.
You can call the Nicaean church catholic, if you like, but the church at the time of Nicaea was vastly different from the Roman Catholic church at the time of the reformation. The Nicaean church consisted of the East and West. The great schism occurred in 1054, which split the western Roman church from the 4 eastern bishoprics.
Christianity was established in Africa very early, and probably before Europe, but it was established in Europe very early as well. Paul's letter to the Romans was written in about 57 AD. There was already an established church in Rome the. Prisca and Aquila joined Paul in Corinth in 49AD from Rome. Irenaeaus was bishop of Lyons in France. Gregoy of Tours wrote a history of the Franks. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours.
@@ReasonableFaithSA if you knew the story of Heru, you would know the christ story was written in the pyramids of Africa thousands of years before Europe was even a place.....some 3000bc. The story was changed by the Greeks and then the Romans, that's where your mordern day christianity is said to have started. Declared by Pope Constantine to be the religion the world most follow or die.
@@jermainemoss7809 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship-and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22-31)
@@ReasonableFaithSA what does this explain? The facts remain that all beliefs and religions were birth out of the land of cush. You're talking about the writings of Paul like his writings were the 1st.
@@jermainemoss7809 I don't quite know where you are coming from. Before Christ people may have glimpses of the truth, but Jesus is God's clear revelation and the past must be set aside. If you are claiming that Jesus is an invetion based on opying ancient pagan religions, then that is another matter. There are 100s of these claims and they contradict. What are you actually saying?
man thank you for this, I have been trying to find information on the councils but i can only find information on chalcedon. Does anyone know where i can read the councils?
Thank you Mr. Stabolidis for presenting the the Council of Nicaea clearly so that I can now firm my understanding about the Trinity.
God bless you.
Hendra.
Thank you for your supportive comments. I will pass them on to Chris.
@@ReasonableFaithSA Thank you very much and really appreciate it.
@@judahking6793 yes
@@ReasonableFaithSA , are you a part of the Church that members of the Nicaea Council belonged to?
@@Eagle1349 I guess it depends on what you mean. As far as God is concerned, there is only one church, which is not to be equated with any particular denomination. God knows those who are his. I expect that most who attended Nicaea are genuinely Christian and I believe I am too.
Very good teaching. Useful!
Great video! Thank you!
Nice presentation and discussion thanks
Great lecture! Thanks😊
Very informative and interesting 👍💕
Can someone help me? Did the bishops quote from the New Testaments during the debate?
Here is an answer from Christopher:
Good question Yaw.
Yes the Fathers definitely quoted scripture in the debate and used it to formulate the creed. In fact, much of the Creed and the majority of the Church Liturgy they used (and the Orthodox Church still uses today) contains direct quotes from scripture.
Some examples off the top of my head are:
"The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26) and "being raised from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:4).
They would have been intimately familiar with scripture, but interestingly, the earliest codified list of the 27 books of the New Testament (and in the same order we have today) was only articulated by Saint Athanasius in his Easter letter (367 AD) between the two councils that settled the creed. It is probable that this was more an articulation of what was already standard practice.
History shows that the Church came before Scripture and the Fathers would have understood the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Which is why they articulated this one statement of faith based on scripture as well as the common tradition that was being taught at the time. Councils like this were called when they could see traditions being altered by groups like the Arians.
If you're interested in miracles, an interesting Father to look into in regards to this council is Saint Spyridon. He was uneducated compared to the other Fathers, but when arguments broke out about the Trinity versus Arian teachings, he didn’t quote scripture. He took a brick in his hand, held it up in front of everyone and then it proceeded to break into the clay, fire and water showing that 3 elements could come from 1 thing.
I hope that helps!
Thank you so much for taking your time to answer my question. I have been told that it was Eusebius who reported about this conference of Nicea and I believe you might have read the original copy. If you have read it did Eusebius mention those verses you gave an example in your narrative?
Thank you.
@@yawampadu4449 That was a reply from Chris. He does not want to be active in social media because of his profession. I suggest you google your question or google "historical records of the council of Nicaea". This is an excerpt from a book.
Nicene Parallels: Five Historical Records of the Council of Nicaea in Parallel
This table contains five historical records of the Council of Nicaea(325C.E.), set out in parallel for the reader. The sources are cited and I have divided the material up into sections as indicated here below. This work is an appendix to a larger research this material is that only two of the authors for these sources, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, were present at the Council itself.Kind regards, C.G. Bateman
Impetus to Council (p. 3)
Calling the Council (p. 5)
Council of Nicaea: Attendees and Aims (p. 6)
Council Deliberations (p. 11)
Consequum Nicaea (Consequences) (p. 30)
Nicene Statement of Faith:
Closing Words (p. 38)
You can also download a pdf copy of Eusebius' Church history.
An easy way to find out is just to ask chatGPT.
Eg ask what were the church councils?
I got the following answer:
The early church councils were gatherings of bishops and religious leaders from the Christian church to discuss and address theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical issues. These councils played a significant role in shaping the beliefs, practices, and organization of the Christian church. Some of the most important early church councils include:
Council of Nicaea (325): The first ecumenical council convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to address the Arian controversy, specifically the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. The council produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Christ and condemned Arianism.
Council of Constantinople (381): This council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and expanded upon its teachings, particularly regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It also affirmed the primacy of the see of Constantinople in the Eastern Christian Church.
Council of Ephesus (431): Convened to address the Nestorian controversy, which centered on the nature of Christ as both fully human and fully divine. The council affirmed the title of Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary and condemned Nestorianism.
Council of Chalcedon (451): Convened to address the Monophysite controversy, concerning the nature of Christ having one divine nature. The council affirmed the definition of Christ having two distinct natures, one divine and one human, in hypostatic union.
Second Council of Constantinople (553): Focused on addressing controversies related to the teachings of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The council condemned certain writings and teachings as heretical.
Third Council of Constantinople (680-681): Addressed the issue of Monothelitism, a heretical doctrine that denied Christ's possession of a human will along with his divine will. The council affirmed that Christ had two wills, human and divine.
These are just a few of the early church councils that played a crucial role in defining Christian doctrine, combating heresy, and establishing the theological foundations of the Christian faith. Subsequent councils were held throughout history to address additional theological controversies and issues within the church.
I then asked:
Where do we get info on the council of nicaea?
Here is the answer:
Information about the Council of Nicaea can be found in a variety of historical sources, including:
Primary sources: The primary sources for information about the Council of Nicaea are the Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the council, as well as documents and letters written by participants in the council, such as the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria.
Church historians: Many early church historians, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen, wrote accounts of the Council of Nicaea and its proceedings. These accounts provide valuable insights into the historical context and decisions made at the council.
Ecumenical councils: The decisions and canons of the Council of Nicaea were recorded and preserved in the Acts of the Council, which were later referenced in subsequent ecumenical councils and church documents.
Modern scholarship: Historians and scholars have studied and analyzed the Council of Nicaea from various perspectives, providing interpretations and insights into the events leading up to the council, the debates and controversies that took place, and the lasting impact of its decisions on Christian theology and practice.
Online resources: There are many online resources available that provide information about the Council of Nicaea, including scholarly articles, books, websites, and documentaries. These resources can offer a comprehensive overview of the historical context, key figures, and theological issues discussed at the council.
By consulting a combination of these sources, one can gain a deeper understanding of the Council of Nicaea and its significance in shaping Christian doctrine and history.
You can then query each of the suggested sources using chatGPT.
Asking chat gpt about anything is basically the same going to the devil himself and asking for a lesson. Great way to get lied to with absolutely no recourse. Only a colossal retard would suggest this.
There is evidence that Constantine set himself up to be the 'Son'. With some of the religious symbolism at the time on his statues and the arch. I don't think he was as much a convert as history portrays
True. Constantine did not convert until end of his life.
Did Hagia Sofia was build as mousoleum to Constantine I!?!?! Justinianus who came after Constantine build " the Church" which was the first "monoteistic" religious building in the world and it was standing as a model to other churches (and mosques ). As I heard Jesus did not accept any buildings where people could gathering and pray to the god (Which god did Jesus believed in???) He was opposed to clerics who stood between the believing people and the god!
He was baptized on his deathbed if that gives you an idea
@kevinrogers2751I think a baptism at the death bed is called "covering your bets."
Asar, Auset, and Haru
Thats right..They cangive credit to Afrikans for anything
Which egyptian god was the messiah sister?
@DazeOfNoah how do you denounce facts that the story’s was stole and reinvent to fit a more modern civilization that doesn’t care about inner but on focus on fate …. ?
I wonder what was the characteristic of each mentor the council. Are we saying was he seat was occupied by an individual deemed honest, intelligent intellect? What qualifies them of that title?
Is it fair to day that the Christian before this council would have been closer to Chris doctrine than those of today ?
The council comprised of about 300 bishops, clergy, theologians, and historians of the original churches. The debates took several months
I would like some selected bibliography please.
I suggest you google your question or google "historical records of the council of Nicaea". This is an excerpt from a book.
Nicene Parallels: Five Historical Records of the Council of Nicaea in Parallel
This table contains five historical records of the Council of Nicaea(325C.E.), set out in parallel for the reader. The sources are cited and I have divided the material up into sections as indicated here below. This work is an appendix to a larger research this material is that only two of the authors for these sources, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, were present at the Council itself.Kind regards, C.G. Bateman
Impetus to Council (p. 3)
Calling the Council (p. 5)
Council of Nicaea: Attendees and Aims (p. 6)
Council Deliberations (p. 11)
Consequum Nicaea (Consequences) (p. 30)
Nicene Statement of Faith:
Closing Words (p. 38)
You can also download a pdf copy of Eusebius' Church history.
the formal prohibition at the great Church Council of Elyrus in A.D. 303, when it was declared that "the form of God, which is immaterial and invisible, shall not be limited by figure or shape." In 692, the council of Constantinople had similarly prohibited "to paint or represent Jesus as a lamb," as also "to bow the knee in praying, as it is the act of idolatry." But the council of Nicaea (787) brought this idolatry back, while that of Rome (883) excommunicated John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, for his showing himself a declared enemy of image worship. Ref,,,,The Secret Doctrine Vol 2 Page 279.
I have never heard of the "Church Council of Elyrus in A.D. 303". I thought that Nicaea was the 1st council. Do you have a link to this council? On the rest of your post, what point are you making?
I've been studying The Secret Doctrine by Helena Petrova Blavatsky a mystic of Russian Jewish decent, and in the second volume titled Anthropogenesis or the evolution of the human species, she suggests that modern science is at present materialistic. So I am trying to trace the source of this disconnection with the spiritual side of man. I believe that the real issue and result of the council of Nicaea was that the church became an idolatrous cult and instituted the adoration of images, which anthropomorphized "the form of God which is as said before, immaterial and invisible, and shall not be limited by figure or shape." This I believe was the beginnings of materialism in the west, which has now contaminated the east.
For instance, with the advent of the industrial revolution, it was thought that the machine would become the servant of man, but the opposite has happened; man has become a slave to the machine, ie when the tank is empty the machine will go no further until filled again with the fossil fuels which is said to be causing climate change and global warming.(this needs more elaboration but at another time)
After Nicaea all students of the occult schools were forced underground, and the Inquisition made it punishable of heresy. This of course was in the aims of the clergy to control the lives of ordinary subjects, with a bit of hell fire and brimstone threats thrown in for measure.
HPB refers to Jesus as the wise Galilean Adept -- whose message was distorted out of recognition (as was his own personality), and made to fit in with one of the most cruel as the most pernicious of all theological dogmas..
The SD can be found in PDF form online.
@@hiltonroberts8742 sounds like you been studying a twat
@@IDNeon357 Oh yea! clarify please. (I know what a twat is.) but why are you saying this? are you just being trollish, then I'm not interested. If you are trying to enlighten me, then I am. As I am always in search of truth no matter where it comes from.
@@hiltonroberts8742
I realize your comments are quite old but:
Did you find what youw were looking for? Have you encountered writings of Rudolf Steiner? I recall him describing this phenomena of man becoming less spiritual, though I don't know if his work would actually help you find clarity.
I highly encourage the facilitator to continue to do further research. Maybe start with reading "The Pillory" about the Borgia family as it pertains to the early pictures of Jesus the Christ/Yahshua the Messiah
U R GOD: ALL IS: SEPARATION IS AN ILLUSION THAT IS NOW OVER:
@@emeryjohnfrazierWell i'm glad I got that figured out. You know, every answer to a complex problem is concise, clear, and wrong.
What realised surprised me when studying the church fathers and arguments for the divinity of Christ, how little they referred to the TeNaCh but rather used philosophical reasonings. For example I don’t see any good arguments explaining how Jesus could be the literal son of God via a virgin birth when the promised messiah in the Jewish bible is a son of David. If Jesus is the son of David then he must have had a human father since tribal affiliation is only passed on from father to son. It also can’t be passed on via adoption. For example a benjamite being adopted into a Levite family will never be allowed into the priesthood because even though his adoptive father is a Levite, his birth father is a benjamite. These kind of questions I would have expected to be discussed at the council of Nicaea. It is obvious that by that time the church already was in apostasy or they just compromised to pacify a likely hostile environment at the court of Constantine.
I am surprised you expected to make sense. These are iron age people trying to convince jews that jesus was the real deal. It was as much political as it was unscientific. It's not supposed to make sense. If you have faith you don't need sense.
Solid information. You might want to leave the giggling home next time. Other than that it was good.
The Edict of Milan made Christianity one of a number of state tolerated religions.
Having grown up a JW they do believe the Son is a creature, the highest of all created things so essentially Arian. But they do use the same Bible, although a problematic translation, which does have all the theophanies and Christ’s explicit statements that he is God although not the Father and accused of blasphemy for it, the part in Revelation where Christ says “I’m the first and last alpha omega. I was dead and then alive”. St Paul’s interchanging of Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ so it really is a cult like mentality of purposefully ignoring these scriptural examples of the Trinity and believing their governing body over the Bible. Orthodox myself now so always try to get them to research this topic when I can. Thanks for the video.
The New World Translation differs significantly for John 1:1.
The Greek is Εν αρχη ην ο Λογος, και ο Λογος ην προς τον Θεον, και Θεος ην ο Λογος. ' . They get excited because there is no article prior the last Θεος, and so they translate it as 'a God'. However, there is no article for Εν αρχη as well. So, to be consistent they should translate this as 'in a beginning'. also 'Θεος ην ο Λογος' is what is called a predicate nominative construction. The verb to be uses the nominative case for both the subject and the predicate, so which is which? The subject includes the article and it is dropped for the predicate, So including the article for the predicate is incorrect grammar. Thus the conventional translation is correct.
@@KevinRogers-cp4tyHello sir. I am a Jehovahs Witness. Also Greek who was orthodox but changed after much research and study of Gods word. I am now an older woman and despite the debates about scriptures and verses I believe there is one God and one Savior.
@@ConnieBoolieris I can understand people having problems with the trinity. It took 300 years to get to Nicaea, so there were plenty of Christians prior to that who had a range of ideas. We probably all have some incorrect beliefs. My main problem with 'sects' is that they tend to claim that they alone are the one true church and disqualify everyone else. I accept you. Can you accept me?
@@ConnieBoolieris The doctrine of the trinity is tricky and it does not surprise me that some have problems with it. The church proceeded for 300 years before it was formalised. If you believe what you read in the NT then you are probably fine. The problem with unorthodox groups is that they believe they are the one true church and disqualifiy others. None of us have got it all right, and God is kind.
The old who said Paul created Christianity just watches conspiracy theories whole day
The definition of church you say is Christian, yes, true it is., but it began with the Emperor of Rome when His empire joined pagan philosophies and some of the believers of the WAYS teachings.
And yes, Universalism again that is
Catholicism, which all stems from the beginnings of the joining of the Roman Empire with pagan beliefs and some believers of the WAY’s teachings taught by The Only Begotten Son of God The Father YAH. And then written in letters/ epistles by the Hebrew disciples . The believers of the WAY Who believed in Joshua( English version) of Yahushua the Messiah, NOT “CHRIST “ again that is also Catholic , Christ = anointed with oil, but Messiah was anointed with the holy spirit of the Father at His baptism.
“They were first called Christians in Antioch,”as stated in the book of ACTS , but previous to that they were called Nazarenes and believers of the WAY . It only mentions the word Christian 3 times, but believers of the WAY and Nazarenes many times in the book of Acts. So you see the emperor inserted himself within the True assembly, not “ Church “ the Universal Church/Catholic Church which took over the written word which was originally written in Hebrew , because the disciples spoke Hebrew as is stated, in the book of ACTS 26: Paul told the authorities that he was on the road to Damascus, a voice in the Hebrew tongue said to him Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?
As the old saying goes , “ All roads lead to Rome.” which leads everyone to worship this JC, except for the narrow Road who worship our Heavenly Father YAHUHA and believe in His Only Begotten Son Who’s written Name has His Father’s Name in it Yahushua!!
“ I have come in my Father’s NAME and you do not receive me, if ANOTHER comes in His OWN NAME him you would receive” John 5:43,
” Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the spirit of God CALLS Jesus/ Yahushua a CURSE and no one can Say Jesus/ Yahushua is LORD except by the Holy Spirit” 1 Corinthians 12:3,
So I ask you, how are these people in Hollywood and presidents etc. praising Jesus and at other times cursing him. Check some videos out online about that and you’ll see this is true . if you don’t already know, just put it in the browser.
Blessings ❤🙏
Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me. That was God talking to Paul not Paul speaking in Hebrew. This proves nothing . You should read what Paul said about the letter of the word.
Some of the people that’ve commented cant except that you have facts 😂😂🤣 #factsarefacts ✌🏽
42:00 passover and Easter weekend controversy
I was disappointed that the quartodeciman controversy was not covered. Polycrates, pope victor, Apostle John, Polycarp. The apostles held to passover as commanded by Jesus. Easter is time set by man.
Personally, I am not fussed about celebrations or their dates. In the NT we are not commanded to celebrate Easter, Christmas or any other festival, or their dates. We should be mindful of the incarnation and the Easter events all year round.
I had never heard of the term 'Quartodeciman controversy,' so thanks for educationg me.
I looked it up on chatGPT, given below.
The Quartodeciman controversy was a religious dispute in the early Christian church regarding the date of Easter. The controversy revolved around whether Easter should be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar, or on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover. Those who advocated for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan were known as Quartodecimans, while those who argued for the Sunday observance were known as the Sunday observers.
The controversy arose in the 2nd century and continued for several centuries, with different regions of the Christian world adopting different practices. Eventually, the Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where it was decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. This formula, known as the Computus, is still used to calculate the date of Easter in most Christian traditions today.
How were Polycrates, pope victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp relevant to The Quartodeciman controversy?
Polycrates, Pope Victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp were all significant figures in the Quartodeciman controversy.
Polycrates was a bishop of Ephesus and a prominent Quartodeciman, advocating for the celebration of Easter on the 14th of Nisan. He was known for his strong defense of this practice and refused to change the date of Easter despite pressure from other Christian leaders.
Pope Victor was the bishop of Rome during the Quartodeciman controversy and strongly opposed the Quartodeciman practice. He sought to enforce the Sunday observance of Easter on a universal level and even threatened to excommunicate those who continued to follow the Quartodeciman tradition.
Apostle John, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, was believed to have encouraged the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. His influence carried weight among early Christians, and his stance on the issue played a significant role in the controversy.
Polycarp, a disciple of Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, also supported the Quartodeciman practice. He was known for his steadfast adherence to this tradition and was a respected figure in the early Christian church, contributing to the defense of the Quartodeciman position.
Overall, these figures played key roles in the Quartodeciman controversy, representing different sides of the debate and influencing the development of Easter observance within the early Christian church.
Polycrates, Pope Victor, Apostle John, and Polycarp were all significant figures in the Quartodeciman controversy.
Polycrates was a bishop of Ephesus and a prominent Quartodeciman, advocating for the celebration of Easter on the 14th of Nisan. He was known for his strong defense of this practice and refused to change the date of Easter despite pressure from other Christian leaders.
Pope Victor was the bishop of Rome during the Quartodeciman controversy and strongly opposed the Quartodeciman practice. He sought to enforce the Sunday observance of Easter on a universal level and even threatened to excommunicate those who continued to follow the Quartodeciman tradition.
Apostle John, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus, was believed to have encouraged the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. His influence carried weight among early Christians, and his stance on the issue played a significant role in the controversy.
Polycarp, a disciple of Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, also supported the Quartodeciman practice. He was known for his steadfast adherence to this tradition and was a respected figure in the early Christian church, contributing to the defense of the Quartodeciman position.
Overall, these figures played key roles in the Quartodeciman controversy, representing different sides of the debate and influencing the development of Easter observance within the early Christian church.
How was the Easter date derived at Nicaea and how did it differ from the 14th of Nisan?
At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the bishops gathered to address a number of issues, one of which was the date of Easter. They sought to establish a uniform date for the celebration of Easter that would be observed by all Christians.
The formula established at the Council of Nicaea for calculating the date of Easter was based on astronomical calculations. It was determined that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This formula ensured that Easter would always fall on a Sunday and would be celebrated around the same time each year.
This formula differed from the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, based on the Jewish calendar. The Nicaean formula was based on a combination of the solar and lunar calendars, ensuring that Easter would be aligned with the spring equinox and the practices of the wider Christian community.
By establishing a universal formula for calculating the date of Easter, the Council of Nicaea sought to bring unity and consistency to the celebration of this important Christian holiday, despite differences in tradition and practice among the various Christian communities.
@@ReasonableFaithSA
For a long time I have felt unsettled about the holidays that are celebrated by the modern church not being those instituted by God. It isn't what I read in scripture. I didn't know how to find that information. But with the internet and easier access to information, I have been looking into it. That's how I ended up at your video, in search of more resources. What I am finding out confirms to me that the church has deviated from keeping Gods appointed feasts to create their own days of celebrating.
Anyone can look into it and find the information.
Jesus kept the Passover. Scripture itself shows us the Apostles and early Church, even after Jesus' death and resurrection, kept the Passover and held to keeping the appointed times which were set by God back in Leviticus 23. God says in Leviticus that they are His feasts. They are not just Jewish tradition.
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
From Wikipedia:
Quartodeciman controversy
When Pope Victor wanted to set an official practice of Easter on the whole Christian world, to celebrate Easter on Sunday, Polycrates writing in the name of the entire Asian church, argued that the apostles taught to celebrate the Passover (Holy Communion) on the 14th day of Nisan. In his letter, he appeals to the authority of Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius and Melito, all of whom were Quartodecimans.[3]
Despite Polycrates convening a synod in Ephesus to declare Quartodecimanism official, later the tradition died out, because Nicea declared Easter to be celebrated on a Sunday.
It was forced onto the whole Christian world and how many understand this.
Polycrates letter to pope victor
As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day, neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried; his other daughter also, who passed her life under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, and a witness and a teacher-he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch, who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth. day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith. Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." …
Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter
These are just excerpts of the points. Read it in full at the website “fourthcentury”. The audacity of the claims made and unchristian statements.
(3.) At the council we also considered the issue of our holiest day, Easter, and it was determined by common consent that everyone, everywhere should celebrate it on one and the same day.
(4.) Therefore have nothing in common with that most hostile people, the Jews. We have received another way from the Savior.
(5.) It is truly most absurd for them to boast that we are incapable of rightly observing these things without their instruction.
(6.) Why then should we follow the example of those who are acknowledged to be infected with serious error?
(8.) For our Savior left us only one day to be observed in remembrance of our deliverance,
(9.) ….For this reason Divine Providence directed that we put into effect an appropriate correction and establish uniformity of practice, as I suppose you are all aware.
(11.) But to sum up matters briefly, it was determined by common consent that the most holy festival of Easter should be solemnized on one and the same day;
(12.) Since these things are consistent, gladly receive this heavenly and truly divine command. For whatever is done in the sacred assemblies of the bishops can be traced to Divine will.
This is serious matter. This is the decision according to men by their own reasoning, wanting to do things their own way, to change what God Himself instituted and claiming it was the Lord who gave the change.
Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
The Sabbath
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
The Passover
Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
@@ReasonableFaithSA I responded to your comment the other day but for some reason my comment was removed.
I don't agree with that viewpoint. In Leviticus 23, God says they are His feasts. He gave the Israelites the feasts to be kept, so they are not just a Jewish tradition. Jesus kept the Passover and expected the Apostles to keep it and to teach the keeping of the Passover. Scripture shows the Passover was kept.
Pope Anicetus was involved in keeping the roman tradition of easter on Sunday but Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna defended the Eastern tradition of keeping of the correct date of Passover.
Pope victor was enforcing easter on Sunday to which Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, sent a letter to pope victor defending keeping the Passover on the correct date, Nissan 14, as they always had and were taught by the Apostle John.
The emperor Constantine was involved with this as well and had some awful things to say in his letter,
“Constantine’s Letter concerning the date of Easter “
Both letters can be found online. People should take the time to read them to learn what was done. As you say, christmas and easter are not commanded in the bible nor are they shown as being practiced in the early church. I started feeling unsettled about these things. The more I learn the more I understand. So why does the modern church celebrate these days instituted by man and deviate away from Gods appointed times? The roman church was drifting away and forcing their traditions on others. So the majority of Christians are celebrating these times not even realizing they are following after rome.
Chatgpt doesn't address that aspect of the controversy.
So really the bishops, pope, emperor trying to decide what date to celebrate easter is moot because they were deviating away from Gods own set time. They were wrong and operating according to their own will.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Daniel 7:25
We are a wild olive branch grafted in. Romans 11
There is one faith. Ephesians 4
@@nightowl5396 In the OT, festivals are prescribed, but not in the NT. In Colossians 2L16-17, Paul says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Doesn't fussing over the date of easter fall into this category? My impression is that early Jewish Christians would have observed the sabbath and also met with Christians on the Sunday (Acts 20:7), but no NT author makes a big deal about it.
If I was at Nicaea, I might have dozed off at this part of the debate. I think the history is interesting and all denominations have a tendency to drift, but is this issue really all that important? Does the date of easter matter?
I realise that it is frustrating when an issue is important to you and others don't deem it important. I get that on other issues.
This lecture was too confusing. How can you use the Bible as evidence of the Bible? Maybe someone can help me, where is an archeological grave for any of the characters who supposedly historically existed in the Bible? Anyone can help with some answers?
Thanks.
Marked graves for Biblical figures are not the type of evidence that you would expect to find. We would only expect to find marked graves for a few major political figures and even those are rare. There may be busts or monuments for major poliitical figures, but the people in the NT were not major political figures. Most of the evidence is textual. There is a lot of material in the book of Acts that can be checked and this is documented in books, such as 'The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history' by Colin Hemer, or you can google many articles on the web.
Most evidence is textual. 7 of Paul's letters (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are regarded as undisputed. This is quite remarkable, as if there is any possibility of doubt, then many scholars will doubt it. To get the title of undisputed, the evidence has to be chained to concrete. For these books we know who wrote it and what he wrote. So you can read these letters with a high level of assurance that you are reading what Paul wrote, regardless of whether you believe what Paul says. That is up to you to judge.
The ordinary Christian just reads the Bible. For them, it has the ring of truth and that is my experience too. I read it to examine it, but it jumps out and examines me. It challenges me morally like no other book. I apprehend God speaking to me. So I suggest you try that and see what happens.
35 mins into the video, still can't tell what this guy is trying to show, he says he is neutral but keeps quoting the bible and making comments without much structure, I'll give him a few more mins.
He's dispelling common misconceptions which he outlined in the beginning of the presentation. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
The Bible is a historic document
@@randyforman2286 The bible is a historic document in the sense that it is the Hebrew (and other ancient cultures) book of mythology; it is not a book of history; it has as much true history in it as Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, Batman, Superman, etc
Strangely Professors of history from best universities and specializing in Gospels claim that Luke does not depict Jesus as literally Son of God, just a prophet. In The Bible most prophets are called Sons of God including Moses but it's not interpreted in a literal sense. Holy Spirit appears also in Talmud and Rabbinic literature. In Torah it's called Spirit of God.
How do you explain the resurrection of Jesus, the only that happened to Jesus not other prophets
@@MauleyColas It also happened to many noble Jews at the same time according to Mathew's Gospel.
Just because they are professors at premier Universities does not equate to factual claims. If those professors were knowledgeable of Biblical Text as originally inspired in Greek as well as Ancient Christianity, they would know the truth about Christ Jesus. εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν
@@andyboa8107 are you referencing Elijah?
Trinity and Three in one, or three arms of one God, is the same with minor differential details.
Constantine was arian after the council he turned nicean christian but his sons remained to be arian Christian
You are probably partly right. "The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians", but Constantine probably was not Arian. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism.
@@ReasonableFaithSA he was arian before the council
Please go through the history Eusebius of Nicomedia baptised Constantine and eusabius was an arian priest and Constantine himself beleived arian theology to be true
But after the council he accepted what the council professed.
@@saintsm See www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33qptu/did_constantine_the_great_become_arian/
Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus the sun god until he was baptized on his death bed
Interesting that he calls intelligent questions "strange" and "bizarre"..... 🧐
I thought the same thing. It can be hard for Christians to think of their religion as a man-made mythology though. To them, it’s true, most likely because they were indoctrinated into it at a very young age, their state/region/country most likely had it as the most dominant religion, and their community reinforced the indoctrination. Indoctrination by family at a very young age can be very difficult and a long process to remove, particularly when the mythology continues to permeate around you.
@@ttrestle Bingo!
The church of today have nothing in common with the church back then. Hebraism vs Greek mythology
In the beginning
was the Word (Holy Spirit),
and the Word was with God (Jesus),
and the Word was God (Father).
You get it?
Interesting view.
I put the following question to chatGPT:
In John 1:1 which members of the trnity are associated with the word and God?
Here is the answer:
In John 1:1, the verse associates two entities with the terms "the Word" and "God":
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Here, "the Word" refers to Jesus Christ, who is described metaphorically as the Word or "Logos" in Greek. This verse establishes the eternal existence of Jesus Christ ("the Word") and also equates "the Word" with God.
The verse emphasizes both the distinctiveness of the Word ("the Word was with God") and the divine nature of the Word ("the Word was God"). This passage is often used to highlight the Christian understanding of the Trinity, suggesting the co-existence of Jesus (the Word) with God while also being identified as divine. It speaks to the Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ as an integral part of the triune nature of God.
I do have some reservations on what chat says. Here is my understanding:
It may be better to say that the Word is the eternal son, rather than Jesus. Jesus in the human incarnation of the eternal son.
@@ReasonableFaithSA
John 6:63 says:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the “words”which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
Note 3 in the New Testament Recovery Version on the words clearly explains the difference between logos and rhema and how the Lord’s words impart the divine life to us:
Note 3:
“The Greek word for “words” here and in v. 68, is Rhema, which denotes the instant and present spoken word. It differs from logos (used for Word in 1:1), which denotes the constant word. Here the words follows the Spirit.
The Spirit is living and real, yet He is very mysterious, intangible, and difficult for people to apprehend; the words, however, are substantial.
First, the Lord indicated that for giving life He would become the Spirit. Then He said that the words He speaks are spirit and life. This shows that His spoken words are the embodiment of the Spirit of life. He is now the life-giving Spirit in resurrection, and the Spirit is embodied in His words.
When we receive His words by exercising our spirit, we get the Spirit, who is life.”
You know this was later inserted into the gospel by a scribe, right?
Your depiction of the Council of Nicea thoroughly lacks the truth of the "Holy Trinity" and the fact that many of the stories incorporated in the accepted canons were of African and other origins, pre-dating accepted Christian text by thousands of years.
I like the presenter but the video quality is so poor. And it flashes every once in awhile
We like the presenter too. Sorry about the video quality..
What he is saying is historically incorrect that's the Fourth 4th century in the 4th century There were no such thing called Christianity and Arius was talking about Christ he talking about Saraps
This sounds strange. Where did you get this from?
Trinitarianism is Satanic human tradition, like the Pharisees.
Because title substitutions for names (like the word "GOD") refer to the person, the identity behind the title, if one believes GOD is the Father, but Jesus is also GOD, then what is meant by the word "GOD" has changed, and is no longer referring to a person, but a thing one is calling THEM.
For the case of both the Father and Jesus being considered "GOD," the meaning of the word "GOD" would then have been changed to be referring to the name of the one group one has put THEM into, vs how MANY of THEM there are in the group. This is done so that believers of this doctrine wouldn't be accused of polytheism, but it doesn't work.
No one called GOD can be more than one person, otherwise there would be an "s" added to the end of the word and we would call them gods.
Telling others that two or more persons is not plural, because they share one quality, only deceives the acolyte of this doctrine, not others.
Consider Peter, Paul, and Thomas. Three persons, one human nature.
It doesn't work to say these three humans are "one human" because they have one human nature.
We still know THEY are THREE and therefore we refer to THEM as THEY.
And if "GOD" is more than one person, it is POLYTHEISM, no matter how many human explanations it is wrapped in.
What is real, is truth, and no one can change that anywhere, but in one's own mind.
moron read bible first before asking question..
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
@@TobiasFlaviusIs a feeble attempt at proof texting the best you can do? Have you not read the next verse?
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him
GOD
his
he
Those are singular personal pronouns pointing to one person.
Tell me, what school did you go to where you were brainwashed to believe that singular personal pronouns apply to two or more people?
You're trying to make sense out of nonsense. These are iron age reporters trying to convince jews that jesus was there a messiah. After all if you have faith you don't need sense. If you want to try to make sense of it, it's like trying to put a round peg through a square hole.
Lmao. Nonsense
From the Father proceeds the Son and from the Son proceeds the Holy Ghost.
The 'mind' of God IS the Son and as the Son puts His mind to 'work' and that work being perpetual IS the Holy Ghost the doer of all things.
And where in the world did you pull that from? Sounds like you cut and pasted.
Trinity existed before Jesus Christ. Trinity is a Greek philosofical myth that existed before Christ except it wasn't the father, son, and spirit. It was a Hellenistic platonic philosophy that later during the church period was mix with the new Jewish religion and the Trinity was born.
Interesting comment.
I put the following question to chatGPT:
Was the doctrine of the trinity based on hellenistic platonic philosophy?
ChatGPT:
The doctrine of the Trinity, a central theological concept in Christianity, was not directly based on Hellenistic Platonic philosophy. However, there are some historical and philosophical influences that played a role in shaping early Christian discussions of the Trinity.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity took place within the context of early Christian theological debates and the need to articulate the nature of God in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the experiences of the early Christian community. Here are some factors and influences to consider:
Scriptural Roots: The doctrine of the Trinity was primarily derived from interpretations of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Early Christian theologians sought to understand and reconcile passages that referred to the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, while affirming monotheism.
Jewish Monotheism: Early Christians, many of whom were Jewish, had a strong foundation in Jewish monotheism. They maintained a belief in one God, which was rooted in Jewish tradition.
Greek Philosophical Concepts: While not directly based on Platonic philosophy, early Christian theologians engaged with Greek philosophical concepts, particularly the terminology and vocabulary used to articulate theological ideas. Terms like "ousia" (essence or substance) and "hypostasis" (person) were borrowed from Greek philosophy to help explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Theological Controversies: The doctrine of the Trinity was developed, in part, as a response to theological controversies and heresies within the early Christian church. Theological debates spurred the need for precise language and definitions.
Creedal Formulations: Early Christian creeds, such as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD), played a significant role in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity and clarifying the beliefs of the Christian community. These creeds were influenced by both biblical language and philosophical terminology.
While some Greek philosophical terms were employed to express Christian theological concepts, the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Christian scripture, tradition, and theological reflection. The early Christian theologians grappled with how to express the biblical teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet share a common divine essence.
In summary, while there were interactions between early Christian theology and Greek philosophy, the doctrine of the Trinity primarily emerged from the unique theological and scriptural context of early Christianity, with a strong emphasis on monotheism and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
I think this is a balanced view of the relationship between Christian theology and Greek philosophy.
Regards,
Kevin Rogers,
Director, Reasonable Faith Adelaide
Whatever you say...
Revealtion chapter 19...11 till 16 says JESUS THE WORD OF GOD..THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORD'S...HE IS THE WORD , THE WORD WAS GOD....THE UNSEEN FATHER WAS SEEN THROUGH THE WORD WHO WAS SAME AS THE FATHER
Um.
Well Christopher does not really sounds very confident in his presentation, always looking for the approval of the masses. Like he wrote it the nite before or is just reading someone else's outline. He needs to read and make up his mind what is the controversy and present it the way he wants. For example does he have a belief and is he just presenting both sides for you to make your own mind up
@Kevin Rogers ya, but does that mean all views are righ, what do you think, by presenting a topic about a matter, does that mean the matter is true or false, remember the church pronounces those that don't follow a line of thought, anathema, which is very strong condemnation, for instence if by not accepting something is anathema, they are according to there own definition of anathema. The definition being "a formalcurse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunication of a person or denouncing a doctrine"
They're looking to understand spirituality but there's not one African person there......wonder where confusion comes from.
There was ana African contingent. For example, see www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/who-came-to-council-of-nicaea.html.
For that reason I’m finish watching at less than 2 min
So no one outside of Africa is spiritual?
Thx.
@@PInk77W1 no human being is not African. Study anthropology please.
@@PInk77W1 just that people outside of Africa took to false doctrine and invention of everything destructive.
Too bad the early church fathers adopted Paul's ideas instead of Jesus. Paul was a religous nut who never met Jesus but self appointed himself as an apostle and whose words went AGAINST Jesus. Jesus said we are ALL sons of God, not just him. And Jesus never mentioned anything about him dying for our sins, that was Paul's idea. Paul put Jesus on a pedestal and thus castrated Jesus message to bring the kingdom of Heaven to Earth by loving your neighbors as yourself.
1Peter 2:24, 1Peter3:18, 1Jn2:2, Luke 24:25-26,
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
moron ,paul met the risen JESUS on the way to damascus..read the scriptures first ..
Im sorry but this guy totaly missed the location of the ancient town Nicaea. It is located in nowday Nish in Serbia.
So what! You can't include everything. Is that fact really important?
@@ReasonableFaithSA to serbs it is, they've alays been notorious nationalists.🙄
@@zoehannah6278 Thank you. That may explain his comment.
@@zoehannah6278
They believe too that Constantin is a Serb because of his birth plase Naissus (Nis), and Licinius is the founder of their most notorious families Nemanjici... Why not believe they are Illyrians, or Bulgarians!?!?! Why Serbs? Serbs came to Balkan in 6th or 7th century during "Great migration" ...
The man speaking right after the talk is gold. Jesus died and left the followers on their own. thanks to paul to start Christianity.
The man that you are referring to is Laurie Eddie, who was the founder of SA sceptics. As it so happens, I am currently in Egypt and have just completed a tour. I have learnt a lot about the egyptian Gods and egyptian religious beliefs. I also have a lot to learn. Many of Laurie's views on parallels are rejected by mainstream scholars.
In Nicea they didn't understand that the Holy Spirit is the Father. In other terms the Father is here in the limited form of a spirit "God is a spirit". ("Spirit" means that the God's words are spoken by NOBODY, i.e. God is absent). Jesus has thus the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit (Holy)" according to circumstances. But they are just two equivalent names. For example Jesus could have said "..but blasphemy against the Father will not be forgiven..." instead of "..but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven..." , they are equivalent. Thus, no "third divine person", no triune God exists.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28:19
Three distinct persons of God. The difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is elaborated upon in John's account of the Last Supper. What you're promoting is called modalism and it's been universally rejected by the Church for about 1,800 years.
@@AGPArchivist
A poor performance of the churchfathers: they are just three NAMES, not PERSONS! If they were three Persons, Jesus would of course always state "I am with the Father and the Holy Spirit" "I am with the Paracletos and with the Father".... On the contrary Jesus NEVER states that, because He does not EVEN KNOW WHAT IS A TRINITY!! I.e.the trinity has been later INVENTED. Jesus ALWAYS states (50 times) in all different ways to be ONLY WITH THE FATHER. PERIOD. Thus, Jesus CRYSTAL CLEAR tells us that God is made by 1. the Father and 2. the Son. PERIOD. Yes, CRYSTAL CLEAR: "...those who will believe in me through their word so that they all may be one, as you, FATHER, are in ME, and I in YOU. THEY also may be ONE IN US...". Father and Son, no further third person, NO PARACLETOS IS THERE..
And what about the Holy Spirit? The solution to this problem is simple: the name "Holy Spirit" corresponds to the Father TOO! Jesus simply is together with the "FATHER who is a SPIRIT" (Jn.4:23-24) and calls Him "Holy Father, Holy Spirit": they are two EQUIVALENT names. You can learn it from the speech about the two blasphemies, where the second one is of course directed to the Father: He is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus. Indeed the Holy Spirit - who is inside Jesus - CAN ONLY BE THE FATHER: no one else is there!
This means that the "Spirit of God" inside Jesus simply is "God [the Father] who is a Spirit". No "helper-God" exists.
In Matthew 28:19
(A) FATHER: with the word "Father" Jesus refers to God is HIS FULLNESS: the God that NOBODY ever SAW, KNEW ("no one has seen God at any time"). The world did not know him AT ALL: "the world has not known you"! Only Jesus DID it (in the past, not now).
(B) HOLY SPIRIT: but the Father - whom nobody ever saw - is able to be here in the form of a spirit! He is the Holy Spirit ("God is a spirit"). This means we have the PRESENCE of God here with his words and his actions, but NOBODY is actually here. This is why you can say He is a "spirit". You can say that the Holy Spirit COMES FROM the Father is his fullness. He is always inside Jesus, He was also inside Elisabeth, Zacharias, John...
(C) SON: Jesus indeed is the ONLY KING of heaven because God is actually MISSING: He is only a spirit, nobody is actually here. Jesus is the King, not the Father. Thus, only Jesus DECIDES your fate, NOT GOD. Jesus DOES NOT SEAT on the right hand of God (fake "long ending of Mark's" statement) He seats on the right hand of the POWER of God (a thing). Indeed Jesus hasn't got his own, He is not almighty.
Holy spirit is definitely not a name.
It's a descriptor followed by a force which God uses to accomplish his purposes.
@@AGPArchivist
Nope
@@bobbycecere1037 Not an argument.
325
SaNiGo
God is one, not three. This is a lie
Watched for purely historical reasons, because this is part of the beginnings of the world I live in. I also watch shows on astronomy and expanding space/time that is expanding right now around us, adding the size of an atom to every kilometer throughout a universe. A universe who's size physicist don't know, our 13 billion light year observable universe could be 90, 10, 1, .1%,.... of the whole universe. The expansion rate was required to vary with a precise recipe to tear apart black hole densities but not so fast to not allow the big bang (recombination of basic particles at exactly the right density) to happen and not to fast to not allow star formation or too slow to have everything lump back into yet another big black hole. Then you can go into quantum mechanics, chemistry, and all the knifes edge requirements needed for the universe and organic chemistry. In the end the positive feedback and inherent stability of the earth and life make it a certainty there is and has been uncountable earth like planets and life similar to ours through billions of years, asking the question why this god who had the power to create this great universe and the knifes edge physics and chemistry, wanted to communicate directly with anyone within this universe does not make a lot of sense. And the timing of god communicating, around the time of formal story telling, philosophy, writing, etc is suspicious, why didn't this communication 10 or 20 thousand years earlier. I believe a god (force or power no one will ever know or probably understand if they were told) created or orchestrated it all, but we are to insignificant to communicate with, though this and many other earth like existences were one of the outcomes of the universe in the same way as atoms, planets, galaxies, organic chemistry are.
You still believe in a god or God. Your main thrust seems to be that we are too insignificant for God to care about us. Isn't this being anthropomorphic? Is God like a general who has no time for his privates. The God of the Bible is maker of all but also knows the number of hairs on our head and knows when a sparrow falls. He knows the large and the small. He knows all of our days while we are still in the womb. This is far greater than considering God like a general.
I cannot answer the question about the timing of God's visitation. People argue why not earlier or later? How God deals with each individual is beyond my understanding, but that is no surprise.
Confusing! "In the name of the father, the son and holly spirit"!?!?!? Who is father, who is son, who is holly spirit!?!?!? Who is Christ? Christians believe in Christ!?!!? God is all those three!?!?!? But who is Christ!??!?! Also the human beings of blood and flash proclaimed Jesus davine!?!?!?
Nooooooo! Confusing!!!!
It’s a very good presentation but the facilitator must have been more serious and stop laughing all the time. Maybe in other kind of matters , a facilitator could behave the way he did. I think actually he needed to talk in a clearer way, respectfully such as, like a priest. Most of he said is good, but there is only one doubt about it: ¿Was there, n the ancient Roma Empire ruled by Constantine, other Christian Churchs that weren’t invited to the Nicea meeting of bishops? For instance, I heard about Indian and China’ christian belivers who do not owed to Eastern church of Christ those days and first centuries A.C.
Why are they showing Arius as white? Smfh...
What part of the video are you referring to?
Notice how this guy wont mention anything about religion for the Greeks and Romans started in Africa.
And Egypt got theirs from Middle-East
@@benboulet1724what's your source for this statement?
I think this guy is confused or he's just intentionally avoiding the truth.I did'nt watch the whole video but it was not christian but the catholic church.Is was 318 catholic bishops that convened to initiate jesus.
Catholic just means universal. The termcatholicism as a sect didn't come until later. They are Christian
howell Ignatius of Antioch who didnt make up the term himself called it The Catholic Church..StPolyCarp in the same century also used it when he was old as he was Christian for 80 plus years - so it existed already in the 1st century. It was clearly understood that the Church was Catholic
I've has it, this guy is pointless, I'm out of here
Fool...
the father son theology is just plan dumb. Where is mother in this story? The father son and holy spirit, really??? Common sense shows and tells you, all life comes from Mother.
Male chauvinism at work.
He pretty much white washed the whole thing and the fact that he himself is a Christian makes it hard for me to believe that his presentation wasn't biased and that he didn't come with his own agenda
Everyone is biased to some degree. Are you inferring that only a non-Christian can be unbiased? The people who are most biased are those who deny that the are, because they are deluding themselves.
@@ReasonableFaithSA That's not what I'm saying at all and of course we're all biased when it comes to something but I'm just saying caught a lot of lies in his presentation and I believe the reason for it is because he wants to believe what he's saying because he's a Christian and if the presentation had been given by someone who didn't have any personal attachment to the said religion we may have gotten a more honest presentation
@@middletonwilliams7608 Good, we are in agreement that we are all biased. I am very sure that Chris had no intention to lie. He tried to be honest. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything he said is correct. What were some of the things that he said that you believe are untrue?
Yes, back then the church was “one”. It was the Catholic Church. You’re wrong about universal(the definition of catholic) church meaning “for all Christians”. It means the Church, the Gospel, is for both Jew and Gentile, for everyone. Not just for the Jews.
You can call the Nicaean church catholic, if you like, but the church at the time of Nicaea was vastly different from the Roman Catholic church at the time of the reformation. The Nicaean church consisted of the East and West. The great schism occurred in 1054, which split the western Roman church from the 4 eastern bishoprics.
Christianity existed in Ethiopia thousands of years before Europe was even a place.
Christianity was established in Africa very early, and probably before Europe, but it was established in Europe very early as well. Paul's letter to the Romans was written in about 57 AD. There was already an established church in Rome the. Prisca and Aquila joined Paul in Corinth in 49AD from Rome.
Irenaeaus was bishop of Lyons in France. Gregoy of Tours wrote a history of the Franks. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours.
@@ReasonableFaithSA if you knew the story of Heru, you would know the christ story was written in the pyramids of Africa thousands of years before Europe was even a place.....some 3000bc. The story was changed by the Greeks and then the Romans, that's where your mordern day christianity is said to have started. Declared by Pope Constantine to be the religion the world most follow or die.
@@jermainemoss7809
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship-and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22-31)
@@ReasonableFaithSA what does this explain? The facts remain that all beliefs and religions were birth out of the land of cush. You're talking about the writings of Paul like his writings were the 1st.
@@jermainemoss7809 I don't quite know where you are coming from. Before Christ people may have glimpses of the truth, but Jesus is God's clear revelation and the past must be set aside.
If you are claiming that Jesus is an invetion based on opying ancient pagan religions, then that is another matter. There are 100s of these claims and they contradict. What are you actually saying?
trinity the doctrine of the devil
This has to be one of the worst lectures
Not one scripture given in defense.
John 17:1-3
John 4:21-24
🥱 😴 💤this is all Yt washed
Couldn't help throwing in some bad theology could you?
V