This is all the proof I need. His gracefulness, his wisdom, his patience, the embodiment of a true Christian that also has the knowledge packed in to defend his beliefs with honor. I don’t know why people need a miracle to believe, this is proof of God’s grace at work, and I hope we can all achieve those levels of virtue someday
This is EXACTLY what I came to say. The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work. Idk why anyone would take it as some sort of authority on Christian doctrine.
Julian is a horrible listener. He just kept spewing the lies he has been told instead of ASKING an actual scholar. He chose to keep TELLING the scholar what was and what wasnt. Im certain this isnt the first time hes done this Thankfully Wes knows his stuff
No one thought the movie was real. The author of the book and the director of the movie both stated that the "history" the movie references was actual, real history. When they both new, for a fact, that it wasn't.
@jabloneynophony1875 ya, a lot of people thought, and still think, this was real. Why? Because the book it's all based on, Holy Blood Holy Grail, is written as historical fact. Now, this has been totally destroyed by facts, but people don't know that unless you do a bunch of separate research.
@@ericharmon7163 What I mean is the writer of The Davinci Code knew it was all BS but presented it as based on real historical studies. He knew it wasn't real, but lied about it anyway.
What history?😂😂..fake romani history of the fasci? There were empires preceding The Roman Colone Empire we still currently live under..wat history?, all the made up, copy and paste bs you learned in school or church? 😂
To all people saying the bible is false ask yourself this reasonable question.... how has no one EVER been able to debunk the bible, a book that has been written thousands of years ago??
Has anyone proved any of the outlandish claims the Bible makes? Why was God so prevalent in ancient times interacting with people during the most brutal time in history. Yet no proof God exists, no proof of any of the crazy stuff going on in the Bible either. Let alone that God gave his followers permission to kill rape and kidnap. God kills waaaay more people than the devil, the words were written by men to control men period. Ive read the Bible 3 times, and used to go to church regularly growing up, I just got old enough and smart enough to realize that none of it makes sense, and if its real God is the evil one.
Bro why is the earth round and not flat the Euphrates river dried where them angels at wiping 1/3 of humanity?😂😂😂😂 dinosaurs existed and banging your own cousin causes deformation ....there god has been proven false want more 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The story of our existence was started and written with the end already known. If you read the end, you’ll immediately want to know the beginning . It will all fall into place from there. Promise.
One of the most frustrating things to me about these clips is the fact that somehow Julian(?) thinks the “Roman Empire” had something to say about the list of books (canon) being used by the church. Tone had nothing to do with it. Never did. Those books were written by the apostles early on and were used by the different churches (not meant to imply different sets of beliefs) around the known world. Immediately. As they were written they were used. The apostles produced and therefore established these materials. So Christians read the 4 gospels, Paul’s letters and a few other documents from the beginning.
What? Nobody, not even the most diehard biblical scholar, has ever claimed that the scriptures were written down "immediately" much less used uniformly throughout the world wherever Christians had gone. At earliest maybe 20 years after Jesus supposed death or some of them written, but most we're not scribed until closer to 100 years after his death.
@@HughCraneII, quite sure those "Biblical scholars" u mention are atheists who have to push for later dating or else belief Jesus is who He said He is.
@@HughCraneII Spot on. Who or who are those that put these writings together. What if they were altered to suit their own narrative and now this information has been passed on from generation to generation. Someone better invent a time machine to learn what really happened.
@@HughCraneIII think he means that the canon was established by actual use in churches in the first and second centuries, not by the arbitrary decision of some committee long after the fact like the popular myth claims.
Billy Carson’s head is gonna explode when he sees this He ruined his career Now he can sit in his movie theatre with his clothes and watch after his wife leaves him See how long it takes before she leaves when the clout and money run out
You shouldn't view it in this light. Billy Carson is clearly still an intelligent man, misguided maybe but intelligent. You should pray not for his downfall but he finds humility, then take accountability and then begin to speak truth about Christ and His word. If you enjoy the things that Wes Huff is doing, can you imagine there was another like him through Billy Carson who is able to find his mistake and is able to refute anyone else that might head that same direction. Like ripples in water.
I get what Julian is trying to ask, and Wes actually has articulated in more clearly in some of his other videos. The "decisions" of what books would be in the New Testament happened, as Wes stated, gradually and organically - not at a single, secret council. Underground christian churches were founded in many different areas in the 1st century, often by the original 12 apostles and/or secondary disciples (there were many more than just the core 12.) As documents were written, they would be copied and carried to the new churches, who would add them to their collections, and there was generally a chain of custody confirmation - in other words, a reliable leader would either personally deliver or send a close co-worker to vouch for the authenticity of the documents. Over time, the different churches would have developed their library of New Testament scriptures - think of it like a collection of albums or CD's. Some churches may have a few more or less based on which documents arrived to them, and different early church fathers would quote or mention these lists in their writings (the Canon lists as Wes mentioned.) Once all the original apostles had passed, the New Testament was considered closed, and if any new documents "popped up" there would be questions raised as to whether they were authentic, and if the chain of custody could not be verified and/or the doctrines did not line up with the earlier confirmed scriptures then they would be tossed out or ignored. There is an example of this where one of the 2nd century churches reached out to one of the early fathers (Serapion, I believe,) regarding the "new" Gospel of Peter that had shown up and asked if it was legit and should they read it. In his first response letter, he basically said "Sure, go ahead and check it out." Then he actually got to read it for himself and sent a second letter saying, "Yeah, no, that one is a fake - don't bother." During the 2nd and 3rd centuries as the dust settled there were discussions and debates over some of the less common books, and the early church was cautious and took their time to confirm the legitimacy. However, those debates were mostly hashed out long before Constantine's birth, so that when Constatine commissioned the first full, cover-to-cover copy of the Old and New Testament into one book (of which Codex Sinaiticus is probably one of,) the canon was already set.
Hahahahaha I love how this dude is trying to keep up with Huff intelligently but it’s obvious the little research he did before the interview wasn’t enough. "I KNOW, I KNOW" 😂😂😂
Only thing i disagree with in this clip is saying that Mark wasnt a disciple.. him being a “companion” to Peter and following the example of Jesus Chris necessarily makes him a disciple.. he might have meant Apostle but he was most certainly a disciple
Christ said in John 10:30 I and the Father are one. He told Peter, If you have seen Me you have seen the Father. Isiah said Christ would be "called" the Son of God. Yahshua means Yah is salvation. So yes Jesus, Yahshua is God
Not entirely accurate. Your word entomology. Yah does not mean salvation. Its a base word for god like el. Yeshua yoshi also yehoshua means God will save us. Yeshua means he will save us. Both are Joshua. Yehoshua brought them into the promised land Yeshua will bring us into the promised kingdom of God..... Idk .... Look into it
Also, the Hebrew word for “one” is “echad” and it means “one in purpose”. The idea that unity means the two are the exact same person is a contextual misinterpretation. And it’s illogical.
@LFTDLorax02 yes echad means unity like a pair of pants or pair of scissors or the united states these are many separate states representing one country as a whole. Echeed is the number one if you will meaning only one, singular. Standing alone. If Deuteronomy 6:4 was the word echeed then it would mean only one person. Yet its echad instead. Meaning multiples making up one. The father and I are one. This simply means they follow the same thing and wont do differently they are One. Same when married two become one echad, in spirit and in mind but not physically. Physically they are two not one or echeed...... However in reference to God, He can put himself into different forms. We see this throughout the OT the burning bush water an angel spirit......man or divine being..... This 3persons crap is completely against one God ideology. Father son and holy ghost are the same person. Like water has 3 forms liquid solid and gas yet its the same water. Its no different still the exact same chemical makeup. But this is a quandary cause a father cannot be his own son and a son cannot be his own father literally by definition they are two seperate things. I concur with the "echad" use of one tho. However one person can create lets say an intelligent minded robot. And this "life" may be looked at as "son" as it is a creation coming from, which id beg grants this creator title of father to this creation or "son' if you will. But is this really a biological offspring. As we intend offspring is the creation of something through the reproductive processes of two separate entities. But maybe God is asexual. Which may explain why in the Trinity we see a familial connection, through gendered words. Such As holy spirit or ruach haqodesh is feminine gender and father and son are both masculine. Id think an asexual being would contain the possible make up of both sexes\genders within itself 🤔 having ability to spawn offspring without a mate....... Idk just spit balling as the ideology of "the trinity" is an enigma. If we humans can even contemplate it or fully grasp its purpose\meaning. English extremely takes away from proper meaning in Hebrew when translated especially if Hebrew isnt completely understood through all of its aspects not just written words
@ it does: he prefers his cultural identity (so far). He knows though that the Church history points to the Apostolic Churches as the historical church.
While it's true the council of nicea didn't decide the cannon, it was decided at the next council meetings. The councils of Carthage and Hippo While no books were added some books were eliminated removed from cannon.
The distinction of what is or is not canon can be thought of as looking through the books, asking if they are legitimate historically and then looking through and comparing it to the great mass of other sources and asking if they are consistent. For instance the Gospel of Judas is not canon because it is not of the correct time period (dating to 2nd century when it allegedly is meant to be a first century text) but also because it is inconsistent with every other teaching of Christianity. For a reductio ad absurdum, if a modern day Gnostic said, "I found a lost book of the Bible!" and showed something that we can date to the 21st century that just so happens to be a Gnostic text that is written using modern language, it doesn't really count as being "eliminated from the canon" to have the Church say, "No, you didn't."
@@Akhgy : You are correct. They were local N African councils with no binding on the whole church. They certainly did not set the canon for the whole church.
Which Council of Nicea are you speaking of, there were four of them. And they did talk about the Canon of the Bible because they were trying to convince many of the other churches to submit their authority to the Catholic church so that they could combine them all and those that didn't submit were killed and then their second in command were brought and lo and behold they submit. Some of them never sent anybody to them because they refuse to submit their belief in Christ to this unification Church which is what the word Catholic means. Call predicated on the LIE that Constantine made up about 15 years after the mayor of engine and said oh suddenly he remembers seeing a cross in the sky!
Modalism is precisely what tertullian teaches. And what the Catholic Church still tries to convince everybody and you've got a plethora of protestant religions who have adopted that silly ass construct.
@@thomasfrancois3211 your rationale is lacking intelligence. She was a virgin because God needed to use a vessel appropriate for sending his son. And no man could have claimed to be his father. Hence deity holy etc.
Grrr Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. @Weshuff why would you misquote Gods Word? It clearly states WITH THE HOUSE OF ISREAL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH. Inconspicuous replacement theology sneaking in there.
@jabloneynophony1875 yea.. and so did "the fourth kind" which is about aliens possessing peoples body lol Authors say shit to get people in seats and into book stores. This ain't news
@@Man-u-flex Billy called himself an expert and well look at him now. People can claim titles they never earned. The question is can they back their claims through verifiable evidence and prove it to be information that holds against scrutiny. You should learn what this saying means: “confidence doesn’t translate into competence.”
Actually I think I can point to Luke 1: 35-37 wherein Mary is impregnated by the Holy Ghost and she is told that Elisabeth is 6 months pregnant. She delivers by tradition in June 23 and Mary 6 months later. Because tradition has creation of life made in the spring time the incarnation of God must also start in springtime (April). His Herald John is born when the summer is in full zenith and then the Lord is born when light is at the lowest. This is the logic behind Christmas Day dating. But no, you will not find any calendar day for any event announced in scripture. In this venue, the day of Christ’s death and resurrection is in the springtime thus fully closing the life cycle of His incarnation.
Father Christ Mas is Santa you could change the words around and you have Satan . Funny that and on the same day as Gods Birth date or maybe Satan is the God of this World . This world is a prison until you wake Up and see things for what they are
Look at this Guy.. you actually think People life end in the Bible.. Tradition actual tells you.. The Original Calendar is January, we today are using a different calendar so it’s December
@@dannygonzalez3817 The great thing about Christianity, is that it can be as simple as "Jesus saved me from my sins by dying on the cross and rising again", and also as deep as an ocean for those of us who really want to get into the nitty gritty details. Personally, I think every Christian should get into the details haha
good stuff julian. There were Hellenists, Buddhists, Greeks etc from Alexandria who participated in the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). They played a significant role in the theological debates and resolutions of the council. The most notable figures at the council include: 1. Alexander of Alexandria. Bishop of Alexandria. Alexander was one of the leading figures opposing the teachings of Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, who argued that Christ was a created being and not co-eternal with God the Father. This theological position, known as Arianism, was a central issue at the Council of Nicaea. Alexander vigorously defended the doctrine of the Trinity, emphasizing the co-eternality and consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Father and the Son. 2. Athanasius of Alexandria. A deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander. Athanasius acted as Alexander's chief theological advisor and secretary at the council. Although young, he was a brilliant theologian and strongly opposed Arianism. Athanasius later became Bishop of Alexandria and a central figure in defending Nicene orthodoxy throughout his life, earning him the title Athanasius Contra Mundum (Athanasius against the world). 3. Arius. A presbyter (priest) from Alexandria. Arius was not officially a participant in the council, as his theological views were being debated and condemned. However, his teachings and arguments, particularly his claim that "there was a time when the Son was not," were at the heart of the council's proceedings. His views were declared heretical, and the Nicene Creed was formulated to affirm the full divinity of Christ. Contributions of the Alexandrian Delegation: The Alexandrians were pivotal in shaping the theological outcome of the council. They emphasized the term homoousios (of the same essence) to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, which became a cornerstone of Nicene Christianity. The Alexandrian representatives demonstrated the intellectual and theological leadership of their city, which was one of the leading centers of early Christian thought. If you’ve done your Research into the UNDENIABLE, you will see that the CHRIST story is a mashup of different gods, cleverly put together by allegory and metaphor by the Flavians, Justinians and finally culminating with 'church' elders, in order to unify the Esoteric eternal wisdom into a Tangible saviour that can become the cornerstone of government. the Council was very smart. Way too smart for this generation… even for Wes.
I do not disagree on the questioning of many of the questioned books of the New testament. However, multiple books of the Old testament have been dropped. This can now be found in two different places that help to validate one another as being a more official Canon. The Dead Sea scrolls as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox. I can actually show overwhelming evidence as to why these books should be included as well as why they were removed. I think what's even more remarkable is a validation of this across religions. As a lifelong Christian, I have my roots where they are and they aren't going anywhere. However, I still study. What other religions are about. The Muslims stay in the Quaran the recognition of Christians and Jews. They also recognize that Christians are to observe the Bible but there is one quote that always comes up. That is that their book has been corrupted. Now most Christians would take offense to that. I definitely always did. And then I started understanding. Dad, my faith has been based around a very corrupted religion. It is crazy though to think that that was written in the Quran. Again, this is not to put Credence in Islam. However, it is still rooted in the same family. There are other truths written in there, and when you recognize when that when Islam came about, those people in power, would have been some of the few to even be able to recognize this corruption with how few people that were literate. Please do not take us the wrong way. It has not changed My faith, only factual things about the religion. There have been a number of things distorted though both biblically as well as things like holidays we recognize and the time in which they are recognized. These things arent Biblical, they were made up by these early people that made up the power that would become the church.
So then how can you call yourself a Christian while believing that it’s corrupt? That the church has allowed it to be corrupted? Do you mean your concept of the religion or the actual religion itself? For Islam, There is not even close to enough genealogical evidence from the Muslim texts themselves that Muhammad is even a decent of Abraham. Just keep that in mind. If you believe in Christianity and the words of Jesus that makes Jesus according to his own words the God that spoke to Moses and the God the spoke to Abraham. The natural entailment of that is that Islam is not Abrahamic since they do not believe in the God that Abraham believed in according to the words of Jesus himself. You are also presupposing that everything in the religion must come directly from the Bible. I’m assuming that you are aware that even the Bible itself did not exist for hundreds of years after the formal conception of Christianity. On top of that even the Bible both OT and NT shows that not everything has to come directly from the scriptures itself. That is evident in the example of the “seat of Moses” that Jesus mentions. That’s in Matthew 23. Or when Paul says to teach from what had been sent by letter(written down) and by word of mouth or orally. That means that there would be things that exist in the religion that would not be directly found in the Bible. That’s in 2 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians. Paul doesn’t say that the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of the truth but that the church is THE PILLAR. That’s in 1 Timothy 3. To presuppose that everything must specifically come from the Bible in the religion of Christianity is also non biblical on top of illogical.
@AntiSewingCircleChristianity I'm not disagreeing with you, however you are validating my question in the above. Saying that the Bible did not exist for four hundred years. It actually DID, just not in the for and definitely not what we recognize as canonical now. The main question is, do you believe what you do BECAUSE of the Bible or because of Traditional teachings of the RELIGION? The collection of books that were being taught from match up historically much closer to both the Dead Seas Scrolls as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. The long espoused belief was these were all just "gnostic" books. Actually no, that's VERY incorrect. The Ethiopian Orthodox is much closer to what you would see in a very conservative, protestant, western church than anything that fits the "gnostic" description. As far as the question of the "corruption" of the book. Please see my statement. If I DIDN'T make it clear enough, I want to make sure there is no question....the physical book can be corrupted. I did also say that the MESSAGE was NOT. When I talk about a corruption of facts, I'm speaking of historical events and the record of them. The message of knowing and accepting Christ, His way of living, as an example of how we ALL should be living is how we attain salvation. That message can be very clear still, while certain aspects of the HISTORICAL stories have been corrupted or completely removed. This is NOT any different from the way American History is taught. It is correct, however a LOT is left out often in most public schools. I don't want to take this off topic, but need to make this point. There is a lot of our history that is not taught. It doesn't make what we learned incorrect per say, but incomplete. I can give you plenty of examples as to where the Masoretic Texts are corrupted. Better still is a video that I found a few years ago. Probably one of the best breakdowns of this subject. Keep in mind PLEASE. EVERYTHING I have talked about, I have prayed over for well over a year before sharing. This was something I knew was not going to be taken easily, lightly..... however you want to describe. It is NOT questioning God, Jesus Christ, etc. If anything, I believe this shows even more of His magnificence. The fact that we have the message of salvation. Please remember how easily this was done to the Bible when it was done. Because the people in power, some of the few that were literate as well, that fact made this crime against God all the worse. They could hide this from people just as they did with a LOT of messages. None of what I'm saying is to be a challenge against the faith, it IS a challenge against the BELIEFS and PRACTICES as Christians that people take part in. Down to the changing of the Sabbath by the early church, the coordination of "holidays" to coincide with Pagan ones of the era. NONE OF THIS IS BIBLICAL!! There is simply more to our history. Unfortunately for "mainstream" or "Big" science and archeology these stories start to lend more credence to other historical but supposedly "mythical" stories and events and even entities. This is a big reason so much will continue to be hidden. If you wonder about the legitimacy of some of the texts I'm referring to, such as what we just singularly call Enoch is actually multiple books. However, it is recognized and important enough that various cultures from the middle east to Africa to Europe have Enochian stories FAR beyond what Genesis covers. HOW IS THAT? How is that possible if these were just "uninspired writing"? Ask this also, of all the books REMOVED by the early Catholic Church, Jubilees is used by the Catholic Church still. HOWEVER, that is the ONE book in which the early protestants rejected. Why??? How about the fact that the book used by the Catholic Church is not even CLOSE to the Jubilee's found in 3rd century and prior collections. In fact, this book is often referenced specifically to PROTECT certain practices of Catholicism. Being that it is NOT the original, should have more people questioning this. Let me ask you this. Have you ever asked the questions of "what's up with this Enoch guy in Genesis?" The first man to not die. The first to be called so Righteous that he was set apart from other humans of the era. But we only get told VERY basic info, as if it is going to be explained elsewhere. Same with SO MANY stories in the old testament but in particular Genesis. In the books of Jasher, Jubilees (the historically original), Enoch, 2nd and 3rd Esdras...all of these expand on stories in Genesis. They also help to validate other topics and points throughout later books. When I brought the topic of the Quran and Islam, I'm probably the last person that will defend anything about Islam. In fact that statement has always bothered me, that it was even written. However, as I learn more in life, this statement is turning out to be more true than I wanted to believe, but not in the manner I originally took the comment. Just because their beliefs are wrong, it doesn't mean they were not sharing facts. Remember this, they were alive then, we weren't. The leaders in Islam at the time, like Christian leaders, were among the very limited and few literate people of the time. Also, a lot of people don't realize this. WHY would the Jesuits be the group that funded the printing of the first Qur'ans? I don't have a good answer, but is something that everyone should question. Of all the the things they could have made false claims of, to attempt and discredit the Bible, they don't. In fact, it states that we as followers of the Bible are to follow the Bible. It actually states more to validate what is said throughout the Bible than it does to take away from it. Anyway, I appreciate the questions and would be happy to continue talking about this. Btw (just a final note), if you asked me if I'm a Christian. I don't know that I would answer it the same. I am a follower of Christ. I am trying to mirror a teaching closet to that of the 3rd century and prior followers of Christendom. I can't, in good faith say that I could call myself that when actively speaking AGAINST what (sadly and unfortunately) very twisted and corrupt church leaders did to a one time PURE FAITH and connection/relationship with God, by abusing it and turning it into another "religion" of the world.
Someone needs to do a bit more research!! Constantine did not convert to christianity until he was on his death bed and he was willing to convert to others and did on during the same time frame prior to death! The bible was a collaboration of older stories of course but that was to insure the population transition would be easier to swallow. In truth the followers of Yeshua's teachings never called themselves christian and avoided religions in all their constructs. Christianity was designed by Rome not Yeshua Ben Joseph! The original and subsequent followers of his teachings called themselves Pastophorey and the teachings were called simply " the way"! This is the problem with follow or studying sanctioned or offical text and books I stead of cross triangulating people and cultures that had no dog in the Roma fight like the Essenes and the Ethiopian tribes of the day. The first church wasn't a church at all but rather a meeting place in Glasgow to discuss all sort of wisdom and knowledge of the old and known world at that time. This was paid for and started by Joseph of armathea and his nephew Yeshua!! This well known by many in that region and is even written about in diaries, offical text, and in Roman records. Yeshua never said worship me or a god but rather that god is within and we are our own masters! History is a journey of self discovery as much as it is of the past. Approaching it from any frame of non objectivity is very dangerous to a clear line of truth!! This means if you're a satanist you probably shouldn't be the foremost word on christianity and nor should the life long Christian. Both are skewed for different reasons! Additionally, Pontius' wife knew Yeshua long before he was killed due to the fact that Yeshua resurrecting their sick child daughter. Pontus's wife was a frequent listener of "the way" and told her husband about Yeshua before the scheme of killing him played out! This is why Pontius had such a hard time condemning Yeshua. He knew this was a set up and yet he opted to allow Yeshua's enemies to incur the "karma" of his fate rather than risk his position. Plus the fate of Yeshua was known by his inner circle and they all had a key role and parts to play to make sure it was all brought to fruition. Difficult, yes but they were loyal and knew the importance of what was about to take place! Lastly, there were several attempts on Yeshua's life prior to the crucifixion and none of these are in the bible's I've read but again the Roman's in the region were aware of at least two. Religion is the kindergarten of spiritual development and the cabal made sure the masses picked on to stay stagnant for over 1000 years. Yeshua was disclosing truth about the spirit not a religious doctrine, but that for the researcher to discover. Laziness and or the desire to be right is why so many fall short of the full truth. They want you to tell them instead of discovering it themselves. The indoctrinated only know how to be re-indocteinaed but they have a hard time thinking for themselves!!
What on non-spherical earth do you mean? What does the 1611 KJV protected by the Holy Spirit and God's angels say? Why go outside THE WORD. Why?. Vanity.
“All the early Christians agreed on the four gospels.” I’m not an expert but how about the Coptics? How about the Ethiopian gospels with supplemental information? Not so sue this guy passes as a historical expert- may be a bit of a theological bias backed by excessive confidence going on here. I saw some healthy skepticism from Julian on this one, but not sure why there wasn’t push back on “what about the non-canonical gospels?” “What about the Book of Enoch?”
You're 100% correct he does seem to have a religious bias. He's no different than the so-called Christian living next door....they believe they are the know all that ends all. 🤦
Early Christians as in the Acts church before denominations/factions authored by carnal men (Jude 1:3-4) to divide the church. The book of Enoch is another gnostic writing by the same false Jews behind the shocking Talmud. Here is a link to a brother breaking down the various heresies therein through the lens of sound scripture. By Jon Lansing (Pensacola Baptist Church) from 6 yrs ago -41 minutes- ua-cam.com/video/jgxwAy5CoEk/v-deo.htmlsi=pR1qbYg62DsjCSjm
I think you misunderstand, which indeed shows your bias. Wes was only saying that everybody agreed that the Four Gospels identified were indeed "Gospels" of note themselves. He is talking about the need of the early Church (1st century) to identify those teachings and histories which were undeniable. These four were undeniable. Sure, you can now argue about whether other books should be included in the Bible. But you're not of the early Church nor of the organic process in which these reliable teachings were identified, traced through genealogy, validated, and agreed. This is how the early Church protected both the Message of Jesus, but also protected themselves.
This dude is a word smith, very clever in how he uses words listen to what and how he said the council of nicaea basically didn't mention scripture....when u research anywhere the main point was about what t in Scripture was correct or not based on how certain ppl saw it. I don't claim to know everything or be a scholar, but a lot of big words numbers..and "opinions" of certain clergy don't equal proven "fact" in my opinion.
He said the Council of Nicea didn't have anything to do with the canon of Scripture. That's correct. It was about addressing the Arian heresy. If you disagree, please make sure to come up with some really good sources to substantiate your claim. Da Vinci Code stuff isn't gonna cut it. God bless!
That’s a pretty common belief. Even if it was written by a disciple of Mathew it would still be attributed to him. If you told me a story of something you personally witnessed and I wrote it down to keep record. It’d still be your account of an event and not mine.
@@_flyinlion_8995How’s it post moving? You know most of the autobiographies you read aren’t written by the actual person. They’re written by writers using the information given to them by the subject. It’s still their story as told by them ( but technically written by someone who’s capable of writing it down coherently)
Eat the meat spit out the bone. Not saying the bible is bad but dont get why god has to rely on imperfect man which he created to share his message in an honest way...in my opinion the most high placed everything in nature something man cannot deny but work within himself
Book of Romans talks exactly what you’re inquiring about. However, God used the lingua Franca of every single text established in the canon and deuterocanonical texts. God established the Orthodox Church to continue the liturgical worship to help us hear his Word.
This guy entered the discipline he works in to prove his pre-held beliefs, with the objective to uphold the fundamentalist institution. Not with a truly open academic mind. He does make good points throughout the podcast, but other times he tactfully navigates to avoid information, and look any deeper. Such as his dismissiveness towards other books without going into what's in them. With Naicia his objective is to pick it apart and minimize it.
He justifies it academically and logically, so if you think he’s manipulating the information then you have to show it rather than accuse a credible scholar.
@@lukemoone4702 like I said in my comment the other books that were left out. He says the books were popular to specific regions, they supposedly contradict each other and he doesn't go into the details of what is inside them.
Nah, this guy Wes is a controlled opposition. There's things he's purposefully leaving out and overlooking for the sake of his own Narrative. EDIT: Here's my original refutations for those wondering: First of all, He just Lied about the Council of Nicaea, because they were responsible with The Church Fathers for judging books based on their "canon capacity." Secondly: - Wes's points on Methodlogical Analysis are fallacious. He talked about observing the likelihood or probability of things happening, yet hides behind context when it comes to Black and White things in The Bible like most Modern Christians. His idea of - He talked about Superficial Parallels in all religions and cultures, when that is absolutely false since there are differences in each of them(Like how in Japanese mythology there is no Great Flood), unless he concedes a point that everything is the same(which wouldn't fit his narrative) - He also was wrong about multiple things said about the Book of Enoch. 1) He said that there was no verse where The Angels taught man about making weapons, cosmetology, and arithmetic, when clearly those things are in there. 2) He said the Angels weren't having sex with human women, when half of the exact reason some of them came down from heaven was that exact reason, seeing how beautiful they were; and also that's how the Nephillim were created, which was a piece of the reason for The Great Flood in the first place. -He says the God decided to “reveal” himself by the masculine plural, but then backtracks and says God created man in his image, completely overlooking that the verse says “Let US make man in OUR own image. He blames human abuse of things for how God chose to represent and reveal , which is the masculine plural, because “Elohim” is Plural in Hebrew, proving a point for Billy; where If God is all-knowing, he would KNOW how people are interpreting him, and correct it in the first place. But even that is besides the point, since God or "Yahweh" was apart of an Ancient Pantheon anyway, long before certain events arose. -He said you can track empirically the agency of women, but the movement of Christiantiy, and that whenever an area became populated by Christians, there is a direct correlation with the priveleges and treatment of women that expand in time, when the surrounding culture largely didn’t view women as being fully human; A Large generalization of history considering, as an example, Viking women could openly divorce their husband if he was seen as an incompetent partner, and also considering at the end of the day, most cultures fully acknowledged and promoted the idea of a Divine Feminine, something that Christianity relentlessly tries to reject and hide(even though it is still within it). -He said that Christianity teaches that everybody has worth by simply being human, when there are countless verses saying that we are nothing, or wretched sinners, helpless and horrid; born a sinner and worthy of death and hell -He says what he believes, he believes is true, but only on the evidence of actual documentation, but clearly once again, sidelines the idea of critical evidence involving the matter. He talks about eye witness accounts being a piece of the reason, but really believes that someone else other than the disciples saw Jesus walk ontop of the ocean. -He wants to dispute The verbal eye witness accounts of dozens of ancient tribes that have been around for thousands of years, by saying “Most of that is oral history.”, yet overlooks the amount of oral history that had to have taken place for most of everything in The Bible to even have taken place! -He talks about finding avenues from whether you can find out something is falsifiable, or what is “Accurate”, but will say he is not aware of the cases that The Ancient Tribes have brought up and spoke/written of, admitting they have credibility. -He asks for verification of these things besides the word and pictures of the Tribes , but will operate under the Black and White Premise of Faith. Absolute Paradox and Hypocrisy. People shouldn't act like he is making any points worth noting besides the stoking of his Faith. As I said, I don't agree with many points Billy says, definitely not on Jesus, as well as the Sinai Bible and The Gospek of Mary, but there's some things he was on point with, at least as far as the Tribes, and Wes even admits it in the debate/discourse. It's clear he is pushing some agenda, which makes sense since he is an apologetic.
Prophets ultimately point to one who is to come, Jesus. He is the word, He is the fulfilments, there is nothing else needed for salvation. Everything ends with Jesus.
@ law of Moses, the writings from the prophets, and that Christ says he is the Law. If you look at the Orthodox Church, we see that the consensus is Christ was prophesied in all of the OT. No where in the New Testament do we see any prophets being referenced or eluded to other than the Spirit coming to comfort us, help us remember scripture, and transform us. Lastly, all of the “prophets” people speak of - I.E. Joseph smith and Muhammad and other cult leaders - all fail as “prophets” and all aren’t even mentioned. They’re all illiterate conmen. If there is a prophet mentioned, you better be able to provide evidence and scripture.
@@lukemoone4702 "in all of the new testament do we see any prophets being referenced or eluded to?" Yes. "Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon..." 1 Cor 12: 28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers..." Seems to imply there are prophets AND apostles in the Church after Christs resurrection.... Revelation 11 talks of 2 prophets being killed in Jerusalem... in the LAST days. Would you like more? You still have yet to give me one specific reference from the bible that states definitively that there will be NO more prophets after Christ. I see nothing in the text that states it. The only way to read that is to fill in blanks with your own dogma, or "read between the lines" and assume meaning that isn't actually there. I would also Note Christ himself speaking on the matter, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Why say beware of False Prophets. Give Christ some credit, he is an intelligent orator. If there will be NO MORE prophets, then why would he not say "Beware those who claim to be Prophets, for there will be no more prophets?" No instead he states beware of FALSE prophets, because there must also be TRUE prophets yet to come. Lastly Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” Hebrews 13:8 says Jesus is the same “yesterday, today, and forever. If he is the same then why does he not still speak through prophets? Christ was and still is the Greatest prophet, but he never claimed to be the last, and he continues speak through prophets today, just as he ALWAYS has.
I don’t agree with Carson but if Yashua dies on a cross then why is he dressed as a gardener when he resurrected and told marry to lie to the disciples and say he did.. and this is in the Bible.. why does a ghost need a disguise..
@@bo6244 Where does it say he dressed up like a gardener? You are making stuff up. Jesus resurrected as Himself in all His glory. A glorified body may appear different because it’s an upgrade to the physical body that existed prior. He was still Himself though not a “ghost.”
@ John 20 go ahead and read the whole thing and remember I don’t have to make anything up u illiterate nut. Mary literally stays the whole night and sees men take his body out of the tomb.
@ and yashua could change his body prior to him ascending so your not provided anything that says he is a ghost and he ate food afterwards I don’t know many ghost that can eat.
Look up the Latin vulgate, the infamous Sinai Bible and the Ethiopian Bible, revelations are in every earlier version of the Bible, if it weren't, it wouldn't be the compilation known as the Bible, just scriptures
@ all I’m saying is that the Book of Revelation was not settled Canon by 325. It wasn’t until the council of Rome 381 that it was definitively added. Like he says there were many people who had many different lists. Some lists even include the Revelation of Peter as part of their list. I’m an Orthodox Christian and to this day it’s the only Book NOT read Liturgically.
@totalityofscripture1001 I gave you hints in my previous comment. Look into the Latin vulgate, it was compiled in 325 to 330 a.d. The Ethiopian Bible was compiled in 118 a.d, the Sinai Bible was in 315 a.d(roughly). The council of nicea had nothing to do with it. The council and Constantine are consistently brought up when someone doesn't agree with narrative or does not research the truth, it's a pot hole for people who didn't do the proper research.
@ and I didn’t make a claim even remotely close to what you’re addressing. I didn’t say Revelation didn’t exist. All I said was that it wasn’t settled by 325. St. Athanasius went to Rome 381 to petition for its canonization in which he was successful. Hear what I’m saying and what I’m not saying. For the record, Appealing to the Vulgate isn’t as solid of an argument that you believe it is since it also has books (Shepard of Hermes and Epistle of Barnabas) NOT typically found within the Canon. Same goes for the Ethiopian which has Enoch.
But there is a way to do it by human means. Build a huge pool. Attach inflated pig skins to the blocks, float them into place, build the walls of the pool higher. As you go higher, build a chute with air lock type doors to slow down the rising blocks. Bam. Float all the heavy blocks there. There's is canals that lead from the old river to the sites still.
This part of the bible shows SOMBODY is lying. Why would God make a covenant in one part of time and then tell his son to erase that? Either the covenant was a lie or the idea of not needing one is. So wich party lied.
You show your ignorance of the Bible. Seek to learn the whole Bible before commenting. you all take up valuable space for wisdom and fill it with ignorance.
@@wesleywarsmith1113 you misunderstand. He didn't erase it, he fulfilled it. Otherwise the Old Testament would be banned and erased from most bibles now. 😅 So you can't "get"/understand what Jesus accomplished in the new covenant outside the context of the old one. Just one concept I'll describe: Atonement. Atonement is basically how you received forgiveness from God. In the old covenant, that was achieved through constant sacrifices being made by priests at certain times and occasions. God, being holy, requires holiness from his people, who are clearly NOT holy😅. So these sacrifices would atone for their sin and God would accept them.. However, this would never end because people are sinful and will always require sacrifice then. Jesus comes in, and 'fulfills' this convenant requirement by becoming the "ultimate sacrifice". Meaning he took on the price that needed to be paid for sin, and took it upon himself to be the sacrifice. And on top of that, those who would trust in him had his righteousness passed onto them, because just paying for sin doesn't clear it from the hearts of the people.. So Jesus' sacrifices fulfills the old covenants requirement for atonement, and Jesus' own holiness is passed on to his people because they can't achieve holiness on their own. Which is why it's called "Good news", cos that thing you could never do (be right with God) was done FOR you.. By God Himself orchestrating the way forward. Of course I could say more but that's just a bird's eye view of what's happening with these covenants. I hope it's a bit clearer now. You don't have to agree with it. I'm just hoping you get what's happening at least a bit more now when you hear talk of one covenant and then a new one. The old one was fulfilled by the new one. Hence that quote from Isaiah 31:31 "..I will write the Law in their hearts.." The Law placed a demand on man if he was to be right with God.. Man couldn't pull it off.. Jesus did it for man.. Man can now be right with God through Jesus. Okay I'll stop here. I literally stopped my walk to my meeting to finish this 😂 I hope it's clearer for you now @wesleywarsmith1113
@musanetesakupwanya1050 He didnt fulfil the covenant. He declared it unnecessary. You best not try to lie to me. In the new testament he declared it unnecessary just like all the rituals. He never fulfilled their covenant it went on without him.
@@wesleywarsmith1113Jesus never declared all rituals unnecessary, in fact he established the ritual of the eucharist. And yes, he fulfilled the Old Covenant, the purpose of that Covenant was Jesus Christ.
John 1. In the beginning there was the word/Logos and the word/Logos was God and the word/Logos was with God. John 1 is a purely metaphysical statement that clarifys the Jewish theological statement of Genesis 1. The greatest problem is Christians christianize the OT not understanding the Jewish meaning embedded in the text. Jews do not believe or recognize the New Testament and at no time should Christians think the OT is Christian. The real key is understanding Genisis 1 lines 4-6, the second day of creation. If you do not understand why God (the Jewish God) was silent and did not say it was good on the second day you understand nothing. Metaphysics is the foundation of Christian theology. The old Testament theology is not metaphysical in the slightest. It's Jewish.
Trinity makes no sense, how does Wes believe in trinity? There is only one God, Jesus is the ancient of days. I pray he recieves the revelation of who Jesus really is
So you’re a heretic? If you don’t believe in the Monarchal Trinity you are simply wrong. And secondly, please enlighten us on who Christ is actually, use actual sources and not forgeries lol.
The council of Nicea did not establish any New Testament doctrine?! How about the nicean creed which is the formation of the Trinity, establishing Jesus as divine, etc? Also for the record, I’m not a Christian nor Jew nor Muslim, but Christian scholars really need to stop lightly reflecting on Torah (5 books) here and there. The idea that you would take the Christian perspective on the Hebrew Bible as Gospel is crazy and conveniently selective. Also, you can’t say that the doctrine which would become the new Testament was already officially colonized by the council of Nicea because there are large bats of original Christians, such as the coptics as well as numerous other Christian variations throughout the lands of “Canaan”, Egypt and beyond. By defining your Christianity through the official Roman narrative is to literally whitewash Jesus and what would become Christianity. If I were Christian, I would be reading the Ethiopian Bible first and foremost, as it is without question the most complete document compared to anything that Rome got their hands on and decided to approve . It is the same thing with Ashkenazi Jews, they seem to think that the traditions and perspectives that they created while living in Europe for 2000 years, supersede the traditions, practices and perspectives that were held in the lands of “Canaan” we are many of their ancestors never left. You can see that today with how the European Jews hold the Arabian Jews as second class citizens and look down upon them. This is the same thing that this guest is doing when he speaks with such confident while reading books in English, Latin etc when European super power decided to claim Jesus as their own.
Just because it outlined doctrine doesn’t mean it made it up. I can say that the sky is blue but that doesn’t change the color of the sky into being blue. Also, the Ethiopian New Testament is way newer than the Greek New Testament. All the apostles wrote in Greek, so why the heck would we read the Ethiopian Bible which is just a translation from the original Greek😂😂
@ outlined doctrine“? Can you explain why you even mean by that? I’m not arguing between which one of them are older- you created that strawman. Me: “the sky is blue” You: “well archaeologist say that apples are the oldest fruit” 👏🏼 I said if you want a complete story, the Ethiopian Coptic Bible seems to be the one. And nice try trying to turn the conversation into a debate about logic, to deflect from the main point. And therein lies the exact problem- taking something that is supposed to be spiritual in nature and moving it up into the brain I tried to explain the illogical away.
@@RomeRomein How about you seek reality and realize that you are easily fooled into believing that such a thing as Christ exist. That is the manipulation that has been played onto you by those who created religion, now you are on both sides of the pendulum - One side claims to protect you from the second side that does everything to attack you. You're being played and you don't even know it. Gullible Christian.
It’s just as difficult to prove Wes is right or wrong just as it is to prove Billy is right or wrong. I will say that it seems highly unrealistic that key to eternal life is given freely to people for nothing. Look. You need food and water to live. Without it you will die but they charge you money for that. The things that you will literally die without you have to pay for. So. I don’t see why anyone is just going to tell you how to live forever for free when they still charge you for simple shit like a sandwich. My guess is it’s all a scam. All religions. It’s just promises of a reward later for your good behavior today. It’s all control.
So you don’t understand your own straw man argument. It’s free in the sense that God became incarnate to die and fulfill the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins. It’s not free in the sense that you have to follow the Commandments of God that is in the New Testament. You can’t fulfill the full law and will sin either way, and that’s the sacrificial atonement to cover your transgressions and garments in blood to make you white as snow.
It wasn't freely given. Christ just paid for all of us. It actually makes a fair bit of sense. Adam, the original father of humanity, cursed us all to a fallen world when he allowed Eve to disobey God and then followed her into that disobedience. It was his job to lead her in obedience and instead was led by her in disobedience. Because of this original sin, we are all born into sin. So if one man could damn us it logically follows that it would take only one man to undo it. All we have to do is accept the gift of Christ's sacrifice. There's a reason the Bible refers to Christ as the New Adam/Better Adam/Last Adam.
You are a wealth of Biblical knowledge Wes.
Great job Wes, keep exposing the lies.👏🏼
This is all the proof I need. His gracefulness, his wisdom, his patience, the embodiment of a true Christian that also has the knowledge packed in to defend his beliefs with honor. I don’t know why people need a miracle to believe, this is proof of God’s grace at work, and I hope we can all achieve those levels of virtue someday
@@supergilley04EXACTLY !!! Everything you just said …
Fun fact: The Davinci Code is a fictional work.
I thought about pointing that out but then I realized the bible is too. Rev 12:3 - my nuts, their chin 🐉
Fun fact; it was portrayed as fact and many believed it to be true.
This is EXACTLY what I came to say. The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work. Idk why anyone would take it as some sort of authority on Christian doctrine.
Fun Fact : The daVinci code was never portrayed as a factual piece of work..
@Teezeboy Fun Fact, everyone took it as fact.
Julian is a horrible listener. He just kept spewing the lies he has been told instead of ASKING an actual scholar. He chose to keep TELLING the scholar what was and what wasnt. Im certain this isnt the first time hes done this
Thankfully Wes knows his stuff
Imagine believing that the Davinci Code A MOVIE was real. Are people really this stupid? Yes.
No one thought the movie was real. The author of the book and the director of the movie both stated that the "history" the movie references was actual, real history. When they both new, for a fact, that it wasn't.
@jabloneynophony1875 ya, a lot of people thought, and still think, this was real. Why? Because the book it's all based on, Holy Blood Holy Grail, is written as historical fact. Now, this has been totally destroyed by facts, but people don't know that unless you do a bunch of separate research.
Imagine not knowing the movie was inspired by real historical stuff lol.
@@ericharmon7163 What I mean is the writer of The Davinci Code knew it was all BS but presented it as based on real historical studies. He knew it wasn't real, but lied about it anyway.
What if it is
This guy got Library of history knowledge on the tips of this tongue
This guy is a false teacher he's a pagan
Yes .
& the library is definitely not controlled or compromised huh .
What history?😂😂..fake romani history of the fasci? There were empires preceding The Roman Colone Empire we still currently live under..wat history?, all the made up, copy and paste bs you learned in school or church? 😂
Knowledge? This guy believes the bible is an actual historic book.
Great job Wes. Keep up the amazing work you do.
Need to get back in my Bible.
No you don't
Me too!!! My problem is I get frustrated not understanding everything I'm reading. Hope you have better understanding than me.
Seek Christ before you meet him, it's worth it
@@RomeRomeincult activities 😂
@@RomeRomein I’m saved bro. No worries.
4:33 what are you even saying bro "yes i know", that wasnt your point, if youre making a podcast LISTEN
Most credible guy I know. Wes huff. I thought frank turek was it. This dude on another platform
To all people saying the bible is false ask yourself this reasonable question.... how has no one EVER been able to debunk the bible, a book that has been written thousands of years ago??
Has anyone proved any of the outlandish claims the Bible makes? Why was God so prevalent in ancient times interacting with people during the most brutal time in history. Yet no proof God exists, no proof of any of the crazy stuff going on in the Bible either. Let alone that God gave his followers permission to kill rape and kidnap. God kills waaaay more people than the devil, the words were written by men to control men period. Ive read the Bible 3 times, and used to go to church regularly growing up, I just got old enough and smart enough to realize that none of it makes sense, and if its real God is the evil one.
Bro why is the earth round and not flat the Euphrates river dried where them angels at wiping 1/3 of humanity?😂😂😂😂 dinosaurs existed and banging your own cousin causes deformation ....there god has been proven false want more 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Called rewritten by others to co trol morons like you 😂. Ask yourself and be aware
You're cooking brother. People can make assumptions, but the Bible has no contradictions
The Bible contradicts itself many times. The trinity is illogical nonsense. The Bible is wrong about everything. It's just man-made mythology.
The story of our existence was started and written with the end already known. If you read the end, you’ll immediately want to know the beginning . It will all fall into place from there. Promise.
Like watching a nuclear physicist explain fission to a 5 year old!
One of the most frustrating things to me about these clips is the fact that somehow Julian(?) thinks the “Roman Empire” had something to say about the list of books (canon) being used by the church. Tone had nothing to do with it. Never did. Those books were written by the apostles early on and were used by the different churches (not meant to imply different sets of beliefs) around the known world. Immediately. As they were written they were used. The apostles produced and therefore established these materials. So Christians read the 4 gospels, Paul’s letters and a few other documents from the beginning.
What? Nobody, not even the most diehard biblical scholar, has ever claimed that the scriptures were written down "immediately" much less used uniformly throughout the world wherever Christians had gone. At earliest maybe 20 years after Jesus supposed death or some of them written, but most we're not scribed until closer to 100 years after his death.
@@HughCraneII, quite sure those "Biblical scholars" u mention are atheists who have to push for later dating or else belief Jesus is who He said He is.
@@HughCraneII Spot on. Who or who are those that put these writings together. What if they were altered to suit their own narrative and now this information has been passed on from generation to generation. Someone better invent a time machine to learn what really happened.
@@HughCraneIII think he means that the canon was established by actual use in churches in the first and second centuries, not by the arbitrary decision of some committee long after the fact like the popular myth claims.
@@HughCraneIIwhen did the King James Version come out? Because using the present time..most pastor read it and don’t to much predate that book?
Wes' patience towards the host is saint level. Dude is insufferable.
Very informative. Thank you.
Anyone who reads church history already knows this.
Exactly!
Wes is a great teacher
Awesome guest. Extremely knowledgeable. Please have him on again.
Billy Carson’s head is gonna explode when he sees this He ruined his career Now he can sit in his movie theatre with his clothes and watch after his wife leaves him See how long it takes before she leaves when the clout and money run out
You shouldn't view it in this light. Billy Carson is clearly still an intelligent man, misguided maybe but intelligent. You should pray not for his downfall but he finds humility, then take accountability and then begin to speak truth about Christ and His word. If you enjoy the things that Wes Huff is doing, can you imagine there was another like him through Billy Carson who is able to find his mistake and is able to refute anyone else that might head that same direction. Like ripples in water.
All Christians agree on the gospels
I get what Julian is trying to ask, and Wes actually has articulated in more clearly in some of his other videos.
The "decisions" of what books would be in the New Testament happened, as Wes stated, gradually and organically - not at a single, secret council.
Underground christian churches were founded in many different areas in the 1st century, often by the original 12 apostles and/or secondary disciples (there were many more than just the core 12.)
As documents were written, they would be copied and carried to the new churches, who would add them to their collections, and there was generally a chain of custody confirmation - in other words, a reliable leader would either personally deliver or send a close co-worker to vouch for the authenticity of the documents.
Over time, the different churches would have developed their library of New Testament scriptures - think of it like a collection of albums or CD's. Some churches may have a few more or less based on which documents arrived to them, and different early church fathers would quote or mention these lists in their writings (the Canon lists as Wes mentioned.)
Once all the original apostles had passed, the New Testament was considered closed, and if any new documents "popped up" there would be questions raised as to whether they were authentic, and if the chain of custody could not be verified and/or the doctrines did not line up with the earlier confirmed scriptures then they would be tossed out or ignored.
There is an example of this where one of the 2nd century churches reached out to one of the early fathers (Serapion, I believe,) regarding the "new" Gospel of Peter that had shown up and asked if it was legit and should they read it. In his first response letter, he basically said "Sure, go ahead and check it out." Then he actually got to read it for himself and sent a second letter saying, "Yeah, no, that one is a fake - don't bother."
During the 2nd and 3rd centuries as the dust settled there were discussions and debates over some of the less common books, and the early church was cautious and took their time to confirm the legitimacy. However, those debates were mostly hashed out long before Constantine's birth, so that when Constatine commissioned the first full, cover-to-cover copy of the Old and New Testament into one book (of which Codex Sinaiticus is probably one of,) the canon was already set.
The interviewer seems to know more than his guest ' I know' 😂
Hahahahaha I love how this dude is trying to keep up with Huff intelligently but it’s obvious the little research he did before the interview wasn’t enough. "I KNOW, I KNOW" 😂😂😂
Lets get the Gnostic Informant on here
Gnostics were Debunked 1600+ Years ago. You’re late
Thus Dude is Legit as they come pure Mastery and he'll be on Joe Rogan soon
rogan is trash why would he want to purvey that nonsense show
He won’t because Joe Rogan would actually press him every time he runs from a question/topic.
@@magicproductions7434 I didn’t see Rogan press Billy Carson on his Christian hate speech.
Hopefully JRE is more mature than your thinking.
Only thing i disagree with in this clip is saying that Mark wasnt a disciple.. him being a “companion” to Peter and following the example of Jesus Chris necessarily makes him a disciple.. he might have meant Apostle but he was most certainly a disciple
Stop interrupting
Christ said in John 10:30 I and the Father are one. He told Peter, If you have seen Me you have seen the Father. Isiah said Christ would be "called" the Son of God. Yahshua means Yah is salvation. So yes Jesus, Yahshua is God
Not entirely accurate. Your word entomology. Yah does not mean salvation. Its a base word for god like el.
Yeshua yoshi also yehoshua means God will save us.
Yeshua means he will save us.
Both are Joshua. Yehoshua brought them into the promised land Yeshua will bring us into the promised kingdom of God.....
Idk .... Look into it
Also, the Hebrew word for “one” is “echad” and it means “one in purpose”. The idea that unity means the two are the exact same person is a contextual misinterpretation. And it’s illogical.
@LFTDLorax02 yes echad means unity like a pair of pants or pair of scissors or the united states these are many separate states representing one country as a whole.
Echeed is the number one if you will meaning only one, singular. Standing alone. If Deuteronomy 6:4 was the word echeed then it would mean only one person. Yet its echad instead. Meaning multiples making up one. The father and I are one. This simply means they follow the same thing and wont do differently they are One. Same when married two become one echad, in spirit and in mind but not physically. Physically they are two not one or echeed...... However in reference to God, He can put himself into different forms. We see this throughout the OT the burning bush water an angel spirit......man or divine being.....
This 3persons crap is completely against one God ideology. Father son and holy ghost are the same person. Like water has 3 forms liquid solid and gas yet its the same water. Its no different still the exact same chemical makeup. But this is a quandary cause a father cannot be his own son and a son cannot be his own father literally by definition they are two seperate things.
I concur with the "echad" use of one tho.
However one person can create lets say an intelligent minded robot. And this "life" may be looked at as "son" as it is a creation coming from, which id beg grants this creator title of father to this creation or "son' if you will. But is this really a biological offspring. As we intend offspring is the creation of something through the reproductive processes of two separate entities. But maybe God is asexual. Which may explain why in the Trinity we see a familial connection, through gendered words. Such As holy spirit or ruach haqodesh is feminine gender and father and son are both masculine. Id think an asexual being would contain the possible make up of both sexes\genders within itself 🤔 having ability to spawn offspring without a mate....... Idk just spit balling as the ideology of "the trinity" is an enigma. If we humans can even contemplate it or fully grasp its purpose\meaning.
English extremely takes away from proper meaning in Hebrew when translated especially if Hebrew isnt completely understood through all of its aspects not just written words
Still blows my mind that knows the church history in such detail and yet he insists on being a Protestant.
Maybe that should tell you something
@ it does: he prefers his cultural identity (so far). He knows though that the Church history points to the Apostolic Churches as the historical church.
@@nikostheater maybe you should cling less to church tradition and more to God's word 🤷
Why would he become a catholic?
While it's true the council of nicea didn't decide the cannon, it was decided at the next council meetings. The councils of Carthage and Hippo
While no books were added some books were eliminated removed from cannon.
The distinction of what is or is not canon can be thought of as looking through the books, asking if they are legitimate historically and then looking through and comparing it to the great mass of other sources and asking if they are consistent.
For instance the Gospel of Judas is not canon because it is not of the correct time period (dating to 2nd century when it allegedly is meant to be a first century text) but also because it is inconsistent with every other teaching of Christianity.
For a reductio ad absurdum, if a modern day Gnostic said, "I found a lost book of the Bible!" and showed something that we can date to the 21st century that just so happens to be a Gnostic text that is written using modern language, it doesn't really count as being "eliminated from the canon" to have the Church say, "No, you didn't."
Carthage and Hippo were not councils of the whole church….east and west. Those councils were initiated by Rome.
@@GusShrednyum.. no lol, Carthage is about North African controversy, has nothing to do with the Roman church.
-
@@Akhgy : You are correct. They were local N African councils with no binding on the whole church. They certainly did not set the canon for the whole church.
Julian is not the sharpest tool in the box
Athanasius 💯
Which Council of Nicea are you speaking of, there were four of them. And they did talk about the Canon of the Bible because they were trying to convince many of the other churches to submit their authority to the Catholic church so that they could combine them all and those that didn't submit were killed and then their second in command were brought and lo and behold they submit. Some of them never sent anybody to them because they refuse to submit their belief in Christ to this unification Church which is what the word Catholic means. Call predicated on the LIE that Constantine made up about 15 years after the mayor of engine and said oh suddenly he remembers seeing a cross in the sky!
Davinci code is fiction. We already know this. Still enjoyed the movie.
So what happened at the council of Nicea? 🤣
Condemned the heresy of arianism
They addressed Arianism, and then created the nycean creed I think.
Not sure, I wasn’t there. 🤷🏻♂️
A meeting to aGree That Serapis AKA Jesus was a Divine Human instead of ah pretend Messiah
Dealt with Arianism and instituted the Nicean Creed, which highlights the Monarchal Trinity.
"i know that" sounds like a 5 year old.
To all protestants I challenge you to read the Canons of Nicaea.
Modalism is precisely what tertullian teaches. And what the Catholic Church still tries to convince everybody and you've got a plethora of protestant religions who have adopted that silly ass construct.
God . Can. Not. Die ..
Nobody . Said . God . Did .
God MANIFESTED as man did.
Why does the genealogy in Matthew matter if Mary was a virgin?
Bc of the Prophecies in the Old Testament. Messiah will come from the house of David(which he Did)
That’s the point she was not a virgin!!
@@thomasfrancois3211she was a virgin until after Jesus birth
@@thomasfrancois3211 Every Knee Will Bow & Every Tongue will Profess Christ is King of Kings
@@thomasfrancois3211 your rationale is lacking intelligence.
She was a virgin because God needed to use a vessel appropriate for sending his son. And no man could have claimed to be his father. Hence deity holy etc.
Grrr Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV
[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
@Weshuff why would you misquote Gods Word?
It clearly states WITH THE HOUSE OF ISREAL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.
Inconspicuous replacement theology sneaking in there.
The divinci code is a work of historical fiction... obviously they are not telling the truth lol these titles are goofy as shit
The author of the book and the director of the movie both claimed that the Davinci Code was based on real historical facts about Jesus.
@jabloneynophony1875 yea.. and so did "the fourth kind" which is about aliens possessing peoples body lol Authors say shit to get people in seats and into book stores. This ain't news
@@jabloneynophony1875they're selling books and a movie. Of course they would say something vague like that to get people in.
@@jabloneynophony1875 any source?
@@iadmitbut433 Yeah. I was alive during the press tour. And its right in the novel as well.
The thing that’s so strange experts on both sides are certain of there claims even though they opposite of each other
@@Man-u-flex Billy called himself an expert and well look at him now. People can claim titles they never earned. The question is can they back their claims through verifiable evidence and prove it to be information that holds against scrutiny. You should learn what this saying means: “confidence doesn’t translate into competence.”
But one of them is wrong .Just like those mentioned in Rev 20:10-15.
There are absolutely ZERO actual academic historians who claim that Nicea was about “making the Bible”. It’s not a “both sides” issue at all.
Wes proved Billy Wrong & Showed Examples and Proof of why he was wrong. If thats not enough then you’re Cooked.
So Jesus is like Player 1 logging in ?
Show me where in any Bible that God's birth is DEC 25TH
Actually I think I can point to Luke 1: 35-37 wherein Mary is impregnated by the Holy Ghost and she is told that Elisabeth is 6 months pregnant. She delivers by tradition in June 23 and Mary 6 months later. Because tradition has creation of life made in the spring time the incarnation of God must also start in springtime (April). His Herald John is born when the summer is in full zenith and then the Lord is born when light is at the lowest. This is the logic behind Christmas Day dating. But no, you will not find any calendar day for any event announced in scripture. In this venue, the day of Christ’s death and resurrection is in the springtime thus fully closing the life cycle of His incarnation.
Why does it matter?
Father Christ Mas is Santa you could change the words around and you have Satan . Funny that and on the same day as Gods Birth date or maybe Satan is the God of this World . This world is a prison until you wake Up and see things for what they are
Look at this Guy.. you actually think People life end in the Bible..
Tradition actual tells you..
The Original Calendar is January, we today are using a different calendar so it’s December
@@Patrick-c7iwhat shit is this?
Santa Claus is actually base on a Real person, it’s a Bishop of The Church called Nicholas
The holy grail is christ himself, not the woman, that s the blasphem of da vinci code movie
Shutup and listen to the actual expert 😂😂😂😂
Love Wes huff he’s all facts and backs the truth
Humans certainly believe the silliest things….
Agreed. Like you believing this infinitely complex universe created itself.
Well the DaVinci code is a fictional book
Like what? Don’t make claims you can’t prove
People say Bush would be the anti , then Obama , then the pope
Christianity seems complicated now lol.
@@dannygonzalez3817 Maybe you should learn more about it so it’s not complicated to you.
@ great idea thanks
@@dannygonzalez3817 The great thing about Christianity, is that it can be as simple as "Jesus saved me from my sins by dying on the cross and rising again", and also as deep as an ocean for those of us who really want to get into the nitty gritty details. Personally, I think every Christian should get into the details haha
That’s what happens when they believe so many entities are considered god or congruent to God but still claim monotheism
Not to mention it’s been so Europeanized
good stuff julian. There were Hellenists, Buddhists, Greeks etc from Alexandria who participated in the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). They played a significant role in the theological debates and resolutions of the council. The most notable figures at the council include:
1. Alexander of Alexandria. Bishop of Alexandria. Alexander was one of the leading figures opposing the teachings of Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, who argued that Christ was a created being and not co-eternal with God the Father. This theological position, known as Arianism, was a central issue at the Council of Nicaea. Alexander vigorously defended the doctrine of the Trinity, emphasizing the co-eternality and consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Father and the Son.
2. Athanasius of Alexandria. A deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander. Athanasius acted as Alexander's chief theological advisor and secretary at the council. Although young, he was a brilliant theologian and strongly opposed Arianism. Athanasius later became Bishop of Alexandria and a central figure in defending Nicene orthodoxy throughout his life, earning him the title Athanasius Contra Mundum (Athanasius against the world).
3. Arius. A presbyter (priest) from Alexandria. Arius was not officially a participant in the council, as his theological views were being debated and condemned. However, his teachings and arguments, particularly his claim that "there was a time when the Son was not," were at the heart of the council's proceedings. His views were declared heretical, and the Nicene Creed was formulated to affirm the full divinity of Christ.
Contributions of the Alexandrian Delegation:
The Alexandrians were pivotal in shaping the theological outcome of the council. They emphasized the term homoousios (of the same essence) to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, which became a cornerstone of Nicene Christianity. The Alexandrian representatives demonstrated the intellectual and theological leadership of their city, which was one of the leading centers of early Christian thought.
If you’ve done your Research into the UNDENIABLE, you will see that the CHRIST story is a mashup of different gods, cleverly put together by allegory and metaphor by the Flavians, Justinians and finally culminating with 'church' elders, in order to unify the Esoteric eternal wisdom into a Tangible saviour that can become the cornerstone of government. the Council was very smart. Way too smart for this generation… even for Wes.
Yeah no
I do not disagree on the questioning of many of the questioned books of the New testament. However, multiple books of the Old testament have been dropped. This can now be found in two different places that help to validate one another as being a more official Canon. The Dead Sea scrolls as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox.
I can actually show overwhelming evidence as to why these books should be included as well as why they were removed. I think what's even more remarkable is a validation of this across religions. As a lifelong Christian, I have my roots where they are and they aren't going anywhere. However, I still study. What other religions are about. The Muslims stay in the Quaran the recognition of Christians and Jews. They also recognize that Christians are to observe the Bible but there is one quote that always comes up. That is that their book has been corrupted. Now most Christians would take offense to that. I definitely always did. And then I started understanding. Dad, my faith has been based around a very corrupted religion. It is crazy though to think that that was written in the Quran. Again, this is not to put Credence in Islam. However, it is still rooted in the same family. There are other truths written in there, and when you recognize when that when Islam came about, those people in power, would have been some of the few to even be able to recognize this corruption with how few people that were literate.
Please do not take us the wrong way. It has not changed My faith, only factual things about the religion. There have been a number of things distorted though both biblically as well as things like holidays we recognize and the time in which they are recognized. These things arent Biblical, they were made up by these early people that made up the power that would become the church.
So then how can you call yourself a Christian while believing that it’s corrupt?
That the church has allowed it to be corrupted?
Do you mean your concept of the religion or the actual religion itself?
For Islam,
There is not even close to enough genealogical evidence from the Muslim texts themselves that Muhammad is even a decent of Abraham. Just keep that in mind.
If you believe in Christianity and the words of Jesus that makes Jesus according to his own words the God that spoke to Moses and the God the spoke to Abraham. The natural entailment of that is that Islam is not Abrahamic since they do not believe in the God that Abraham believed in according to the words of Jesus himself.
You are also presupposing that everything in the religion must come directly from the Bible.
I’m assuming that you are aware that even the Bible itself did not exist for hundreds of years after the formal conception of Christianity. On top of that even the Bible both OT and NT shows that not everything has to come directly from the scriptures itself. That is evident in the example of the “seat of Moses” that Jesus mentions. That’s in Matthew 23.
Or when Paul says to teach from what had been sent by letter(written down) and by word of mouth or orally. That means that there would be things that exist in the religion that would not be directly found in the Bible. That’s in 2 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians.
Paul doesn’t say that the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of the truth but that the church is THE PILLAR. That’s in 1 Timothy 3.
To presuppose that everything must specifically come from the Bible in the religion of Christianity is also non biblical on top of illogical.
@AntiSewingCircleChristianity I'm not disagreeing with you, however you are validating my question in the above. Saying that the Bible did not exist for four hundred years. It actually DID, just not in the for and definitely not what we recognize as canonical now.
The main question is, do you believe what you do BECAUSE of the Bible or because of Traditional teachings of the RELIGION? The collection of books that were being taught from match up historically much closer to both the Dead Seas Scrolls as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. The long espoused belief was these were all just "gnostic" books. Actually no, that's VERY incorrect. The Ethiopian Orthodox is much closer to what you would see in a very conservative, protestant, western church than anything that fits the "gnostic" description.
As far as the question of the "corruption" of the book. Please see my statement. If I DIDN'T make it clear enough, I want to make sure there is no question....the physical book can be corrupted. I did also say that the MESSAGE was NOT.
When I talk about a corruption of facts, I'm speaking of historical events and the record of them. The message of knowing and accepting Christ, His way of living, as an example of how we ALL should be living is how we attain salvation. That message can be very clear still, while certain aspects of the HISTORICAL stories have been corrupted or completely removed. This is NOT any different from the way American History is taught. It is correct, however a LOT is left out often in most public schools. I don't want to take this off topic, but need to make this point. There is a lot of our history that is not taught. It doesn't make what we learned incorrect per say, but incomplete.
I can give you plenty of examples as to where the Masoretic Texts are corrupted. Better still is a video that I found a few years ago. Probably one of the best breakdowns of this subject. Keep in mind PLEASE. EVERYTHING I have talked about, I have prayed over for well over a year before sharing. This was something I knew was not going to be taken easily, lightly..... however you want to describe. It is NOT questioning God, Jesus Christ, etc. If anything, I believe this shows even more of His magnificence. The fact that we have the message of salvation. Please remember how easily this was done to the Bible when it was done. Because the people in power, some of the few that were literate as well, that fact made this crime against God all the worse. They could hide this from people just as they did with a LOT of messages. None of what I'm saying is to be a challenge against the faith, it IS a challenge against the BELIEFS and PRACTICES as Christians that people take part in. Down to the changing of the Sabbath by the early church, the coordination of "holidays" to coincide with Pagan ones of the era. NONE OF THIS IS BIBLICAL!! There is simply more to our history. Unfortunately for "mainstream" or "Big" science and archeology these stories start to lend more credence to other historical but supposedly "mythical" stories and events and even entities. This is a big reason so much will continue to be hidden.
If you wonder about the legitimacy of some of the texts I'm referring to, such as what we just singularly call Enoch is actually multiple books. However, it is recognized and important enough that various cultures from the middle east to Africa to Europe have Enochian stories FAR beyond what Genesis covers. HOW IS THAT? How is that possible if these were just "uninspired writing"? Ask this also, of all the books REMOVED by the early Catholic Church, Jubilees is used by the Catholic Church still. HOWEVER, that is the ONE book in which the early protestants rejected. Why??? How about the fact that the book used by the Catholic Church is not even CLOSE to the Jubilee's found in 3rd century and prior collections. In fact, this book is often referenced specifically to PROTECT certain practices of Catholicism. Being that it is NOT the original, should have more people questioning this.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever asked the questions of "what's up with this Enoch guy in Genesis?" The first man to not die. The first to be called so Righteous that he was set apart from other humans of the era. But we only get told VERY basic info, as if it is going to be explained elsewhere. Same with SO MANY stories in the old testament but in particular Genesis. In the books of Jasher, Jubilees (the historically original), Enoch, 2nd and 3rd Esdras...all of these expand on stories in Genesis. They also help to validate other topics and points throughout later books.
When I brought the topic of the Quran and Islam, I'm probably the last person that will defend anything about Islam. In fact that statement has always bothered me, that it was even written. However, as I learn more in life, this statement is turning out to be more true than I wanted to believe, but not in the manner I originally took the comment. Just because their beliefs are wrong, it doesn't mean they were not sharing facts. Remember this, they were alive then, we weren't. The leaders in Islam at the time, like Christian leaders, were among the very limited and few literate people of the time. Also, a lot of people don't realize this. WHY would the Jesuits be the group that funded the printing of the first Qur'ans? I don't have a good answer, but is something that everyone should question. Of all the the things they could have made false claims of, to attempt and discredit the Bible, they don't. In fact, it states that we as followers of the Bible are to follow the Bible. It actually states more to validate what is said throughout the Bible than it does to take away from it.
Anyway, I appreciate the questions and would be happy to continue talking about this.
Btw (just a final note), if you asked me if I'm a Christian. I don't know that I would answer it the same. I am a follower of Christ. I am trying to mirror a teaching closet to that of the 3rd century and prior followers of Christendom. I can't, in good faith say that I could call myself that when actively speaking AGAINST what (sadly and unfortunately) very twisted and corrupt church leaders did to a one time PURE FAITH and connection/relationship with God, by abusing it and turning it into another "religion" of the world.
Ammon Hillman is King
Bruh youre the worst interviewer 😂. Let people finish their thoughts
Someone needs to do a bit more research!! Constantine did not convert to christianity until he was on his death bed and he was willing to convert to others and did on during the same time frame prior to death! The bible was a collaboration of older stories of course but that was to insure the population transition would be easier to swallow. In truth the followers of Yeshua's teachings never called themselves christian and avoided religions in all their constructs. Christianity was designed by Rome not Yeshua Ben Joseph! The original and subsequent followers of his teachings called themselves Pastophorey and the teachings were called simply " the way"! This is the problem with follow or studying sanctioned or offical text and books I stead of cross triangulating people and cultures that had no dog in the Roma fight like the Essenes and the Ethiopian tribes of the day. The first church wasn't a church at all but rather a meeting place in Glasgow to discuss all sort of wisdom and knowledge of the old and known world at that time. This was paid for and started by Joseph of armathea and his nephew Yeshua!! This well known by many in that region and is even written about in diaries, offical text, and in Roman records. Yeshua never said worship me or a god but rather that god is within and we are our own masters! History is a journey of self discovery as much as it is of the past. Approaching it from any frame of non objectivity is very dangerous to a clear line of truth!! This means if you're a satanist you probably shouldn't be the foremost word on christianity and nor should the life long Christian. Both are skewed for different reasons! Additionally, Pontius' wife knew Yeshua long before he was killed due to the fact that Yeshua resurrecting their sick child daughter. Pontus's wife was a frequent listener of "the way" and told her husband about Yeshua before the scheme of killing him played out! This is why Pontius had such a hard time condemning Yeshua. He knew this was a set up and yet he opted to allow Yeshua's enemies to incur the "karma" of his fate rather than risk his position. Plus the fate of Yeshua was known by his inner circle and they all had a key role and parts to play to make sure it was all brought to fruition. Difficult, yes but they were loyal and knew the importance of what was about to take place! Lastly, there were several attempts on Yeshua's life prior to the crucifixion and none of these are in the bible's I've read but again the Roman's in the region were aware of at least two. Religion is the kindergarten of spiritual development and the cabal made sure the masses picked on to stay stagnant for over 1000 years. Yeshua was disclosing truth about the spirit not a religious doctrine, but that for the researcher to discover. Laziness and or the desire to be right is why so many fall short of the full truth. They want you to tell them instead of discovering it themselves. The indoctrinated only know how to be re-indocteinaed but they have a hard time thinking for themselves!!
What on non-spherical earth do you mean? What does the 1611 KJV protected by the Holy Spirit and God's angels say? Why go outside THE WORD. Why?. Vanity.
“All the early Christians agreed on the four gospels.” I’m not an expert but how about the Coptics? How about the Ethiopian gospels with supplemental information? Not so sue this guy passes as a historical expert- may be a bit of a theological bias backed by excessive confidence going on here. I saw some healthy skepticism from Julian on this one, but not sure why there wasn’t push back on “what about the non-canonical gospels?” “What about the Book of Enoch?”
Listen to the whole podcast, he discusses all of those things. He knows his stuff and you'll be surprised about the lies you believe to be true.
You're 100% correct he does seem to have a religious bias. He's no different than the so-called Christian living next door....they believe they are the know all that ends all. 🤦
Early Christians as in the Acts church before denominations/factions authored by carnal men (Jude 1:3-4) to divide the church. The book of Enoch is another gnostic writing by the same false Jews behind the shocking Talmud. Here is a link to a brother breaking down the various heresies therein through the lens of sound scripture. By Jon Lansing (Pensacola Baptist Church) from 6 yrs ago -41 minutes-
ua-cam.com/video/jgxwAy5CoEk/v-deo.htmlsi=pR1qbYg62DsjCSjm
I think you misunderstand, which indeed shows your bias. Wes was only saying that everybody agreed that the Four Gospels identified were indeed "Gospels" of note themselves. He is talking about the need of the early Church (1st century) to identify those teachings and histories which were undeniable. These four were undeniable. Sure, you can now argue about whether other books should be included in the Bible. But you're not of the early Church nor of the organic process in which these reliable teachings were identified, traced through genealogy, validated, and agreed. This is how the early Church protected both the Message of Jesus, but also protected themselves.
Wess has videos on those topics on his channel. I am still learning and still digesting it but he has good info
This dude is a word smith, very clever in how he uses words listen to what and how he said the council of nicaea basically didn't mention scripture....when u research anywhere the main point was about what t in Scripture was correct or not based on how certain ppl saw it. I don't claim to know everything or be a scholar, but a lot of big words numbers..and "opinions" of certain clergy don't equal proven "fact" in my opinion.
3:44
Shame dude. Not so clever as you pointed out
He said the Council of Nicea didn't have anything to do with the canon of Scripture. That's correct. It was about addressing the Arian heresy. If you disagree, please make sure to come up with some really good sources to substantiate your claim. Da Vinci Code stuff isn't gonna cut it.
God bless!
Your opinion is baseless
The council of Nicea didn't have anything to do with the canon of scripture. But the canon of the Bible wasn't settled until 397 AD
Did he say Mathew wrote the book of Mathew??
That’s a pretty common belief. Even if it was written by a disciple of Mathew it would still be attributed to him. If you told me a story of something you personally witnessed and I wrote it down to keep record. It’d still be your account of an event and not mine.
@@PolfPolfgoal post moving buddy.
@@_flyinlion_8995 no it’s not.
@@_flyinlion_8995 says, a tard🤖
@@_flyinlion_8995How’s it post moving? You know most of the autobiographies you read aren’t written by the actual person. They’re written by writers using the information given to them by the subject. It’s still their story as told by them ( but technically written by someone who’s capable of writing it down coherently)
This guy and ammon hillman
...... Arias was right.
Plot twist !
Julian needs to stop talking and let the experts speak. He acts like he knows more than he does and it comes off very foolish
Eat the meat spit out the bone. Not saying the bible is bad but dont get why god has to rely on imperfect man which he created to share his message in an honest way...in my opinion the most high placed everything in nature something man cannot deny but work within himself
Book of Romans talks exactly what you’re inquiring about. However, God used the lingua Franca of every single text established in the canon and deuterocanonical texts.
God established the Orthodox Church to continue the liturgical worship to help us hear his Word.
He doesn’t. He chooses to rely on man. Just like He chooses to rely on Angels.
All just a big guess from text from years ago with no live proof. I'm just not buying it.
This guy entered the discipline he works in to prove his pre-held beliefs, with the objective to uphold the fundamentalist institution. Not with a truly open academic mind. He does make good points throughout the podcast, but other times he tactfully navigates to avoid information, and look any deeper. Such as his dismissiveness towards other books without going into what's in them. With Naicia his objective is to pick it apart and minimize it.
He justifies it academically and logically, so if you think he’s manipulating the information then you have to show it rather than accuse a credible scholar.
So what are the pieces of information that he supposedly navigates around and avoids because of his bias?
@@lukemoone4702 like I said in my comment the other books that were left out. He says the books were popular to specific regions, they supposedly contradict each other and he doesn't go into the details of what is inside them.
@blaisetzu he explains it in another clip. When he's asked about the book of enoch and the book of Jesus's wife.
@@ez1418 I'm not referring to the book of Enoch part. There's other books. He mentions them, then glosses over them.
Nah, this guy Wes is a controlled opposition. There's things he's purposefully leaving out and overlooking for the sake of his own Narrative.
EDIT: Here's my original refutations for those wondering:
First of all, He just Lied about the Council of Nicaea, because they were responsible with The Church Fathers for judging books based on their "canon capacity."
Secondly:
- Wes's points on Methodlogical Analysis are fallacious. He talked about observing the likelihood or probability of things happening, yet hides behind context when it comes to Black and White things in The Bible like most Modern Christians. His idea of
- He talked about Superficial Parallels in all religions and cultures, when that is absolutely false since there are differences in each of them(Like how in Japanese mythology there is no Great Flood), unless he concedes a point that everything is the same(which wouldn't fit his narrative)
- He also was wrong about multiple things said about the Book of Enoch. 1) He said that there was no verse where The Angels taught man about making weapons, cosmetology, and arithmetic, when clearly those things are in there. 2) He said the Angels weren't having sex with human women, when half of the exact reason some of them came down from heaven was that exact reason, seeing how beautiful they were; and also that's how the Nephillim were created, which was a piece of the reason for The Great Flood in the first place.
-He says the God decided to “reveal” himself by the masculine plural, but then backtracks and says God created man in his image, completely overlooking that the verse says “Let US make man in OUR own image. He blames human abuse of things for how God chose to represent and reveal , which is the masculine plural, because “Elohim” is Plural in Hebrew, proving a point for Billy; where If God is all-knowing, he would KNOW how people are interpreting him, and correct it in the first place. But even that is besides the point, since God or "Yahweh" was apart of an Ancient Pantheon anyway, long before certain events arose.
-He said you can track empirically the agency of women, but the movement of Christiantiy, and that whenever an area became populated by Christians, there is a direct correlation with the priveleges and treatment of women that expand in time, when the surrounding culture largely didn’t view women as being fully human; A Large generalization of history considering, as an example, Viking women could openly divorce their husband if he was seen as an incompetent partner, and also considering at the end of the day, most cultures fully acknowledged and promoted the idea of a Divine Feminine, something that Christianity relentlessly tries to reject and hide(even though it is still within it).
-He said that Christianity teaches that everybody has worth by simply being human, when there are countless verses saying that we are nothing, or wretched sinners, helpless and horrid; born a sinner and worthy of death and hell
-He says what he believes, he believes is true, but only on the evidence of actual documentation, but clearly once again, sidelines the idea of critical evidence involving the matter. He talks about eye witness accounts being a piece of the reason, but really believes that someone else other than the disciples saw Jesus walk ontop of the ocean.
-He wants to dispute The verbal eye witness accounts of dozens of ancient tribes that have been around for thousands of years, by saying “Most of that is oral history.”, yet overlooks the amount of oral history that had to have taken place for most of everything in The Bible to even have taken place!
-He talks about finding avenues from whether you can find out something is falsifiable, or what is “Accurate”, but will say he is not aware of the cases that The Ancient Tribes have brought up and spoke/written of, admitting they have credibility.
-He asks for verification of these things besides the word and pictures of the Tribes , but will operate under the Black and White Premise of Faith. Absolute Paradox and Hypocrisy.
People shouldn't act like he is making any points worth noting besides the stoking of his Faith. As I said, I don't agree with many points Billy says, definitely not on Jesus, as well as the Sinai Bible and The Gospek of Mary, but there's some things he was on point with, at least as far as the Tribes, and Wes even admits it in the debate/discourse. It's clear he is pushing some agenda, which makes sense since he is an apologetic.
Exactly
Like what?
Thank you
The Bible scholar is controlled opposition? Hahaha
Like what??
All this does is solidify in my mind the need for a continuation of prophets.
Prophets ultimately point to one who is to come, Jesus. He is the word, He is the fulfilments, there is nothing else needed for salvation. Everything ends with Jesus.
There’s nothing more prophets can do. The last of the prophets, the Ultimate Prophet, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and prophets.
@lukemoone4702 and what exactly is the law of the prophets, and where does it say that no more prophets are needed, or will be called?
@ law of Moses, the writings from the prophets, and that Christ says he is the Law. If you look at the Orthodox Church, we see that the consensus is Christ was prophesied in all of the OT. No where in the New Testament do we see any prophets being referenced or eluded to other than the Spirit coming to comfort us, help us remember scripture, and transform us.
Lastly, all of the “prophets” people speak of - I.E. Joseph smith and Muhammad and other cult leaders - all fail as “prophets” and all aren’t even mentioned. They’re all illiterate conmen. If there is a prophet mentioned, you better be able to provide evidence and scripture.
@@lukemoone4702 "in all of the new testament do we see any prophets being referenced or eluded to?" Yes. "Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon..."
1 Cor 12: 28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers..." Seems to imply there are prophets AND apostles in the Church after Christs resurrection....
Revelation 11 talks of 2 prophets being killed in Jerusalem... in the LAST days.
Would you like more?
You still have yet to give me one specific reference from the bible that states definitively that there will be NO more prophets after Christ. I see nothing in the text that states it. The only way to read that is to fill in blanks with your own dogma, or "read between the lines" and assume meaning that isn't actually there.
I would also Note Christ himself speaking on the matter, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Why say beware of False Prophets. Give Christ some credit, he is an intelligent orator. If there will be NO MORE prophets, then why would he not say "Beware those who claim to be Prophets, for there will be no more prophets?" No instead he states beware of FALSE prophets, because there must also be TRUE prophets yet to come.
Lastly Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” Hebrews 13:8 says Jesus is the same “yesterday, today, and forever. If he is the same then why does he not still speak through prophets? Christ was and still is the Greatest prophet, but he never claimed to be the last, and he continues speak through prophets today, just as he ALWAYS has.
Wes is like billy with a bit more information.
Julian is a horrible interviewer. He wants to insert his beliefs and be right at the same time
I don’t agree with Carson but if Yashua dies on a cross then why is he dressed as a gardener when he resurrected and told marry to lie to the disciples and say he did.. and this is in the Bible.. why does a ghost need a disguise..
@@bo6244 Where does it say he dressed up like a gardener? You are making stuff up. Jesus resurrected as Himself in all His glory. A glorified body may appear different because it’s an upgrade to the physical body that existed prior. He was still Himself though not a “ghost.”
@ John 20 go ahead and read the whole thing and remember I don’t have to make anything up u illiterate nut. Mary literally stays the whole night and sees men take his body out of the tomb.
@ and yashua could change his body prior to him ascending so your not provided anything that says he is a ghost and he ate food afterwards I don’t know many ghost that can eat.
@ next time you address someone you should leave out the malicious antics completely unnecessary you just called Gods word a lie and now you’re stupid
@@bo6244you know others that don’t? 🧐
The Book of Revelation was not settled by 325.
Look up the Latin vulgate, the infamous Sinai Bible and the Ethiopian Bible, revelations are in every earlier version of the Bible, if it weren't, it wouldn't be the compilation known as the Bible, just scriptures
@ all I’m saying is that the Book of Revelation was not settled Canon by 325. It wasn’t until the council of Rome 381 that it was definitively added. Like he says there were many people who had many different lists. Some lists even include the Revelation of Peter as part of their list. I’m an Orthodox Christian and to this day it’s the only Book NOT read Liturgically.
@totalityofscripture1001 I gave you hints in my previous comment. Look into the Latin vulgate, it was compiled in 325 to 330 a.d. The Ethiopian Bible was compiled in 118 a.d, the Sinai Bible was in 315 a.d(roughly). The council of nicea had nothing to do with it. The council and Constantine are consistently brought up when someone doesn't agree with narrative or does not research the truth, it's a pot hole for people who didn't do the proper research.
@ and I didn’t make a claim even remotely close to what you’re addressing. I didn’t say Revelation didn’t exist. All I said was that it wasn’t settled by 325. St. Athanasius went to Rome 381 to petition for its canonization in which he was successful. Hear what I’m saying and what I’m not saying.
For the record, Appealing to the Vulgate isn’t as solid of an argument that you believe it is since it also has books (Shepard of Hermes and Epistle of Barnabas) NOT typically found within the Canon. Same goes for the Ethiopian which has Enoch.
@@totalityofscripture1001sure. Cope harder😂
Why my comments don’t post in this video???????? Like
Your thoughts are not my thoughts. Why those it have to makes sense philosophically?
Like listening to babies babbling...
Lame
Nah, i need to know who built the pyramids, point blank...
Shut yo low iq ah up😂
The Mexicans LoL 🤣 🔥💯😎👍
Nephiliem, fallen angles, and humans.
But there is a way to do it by human means. Build a huge pool. Attach inflated pig skins to the blocks, float them into place, build the walls of the pool higher. As you go higher, build a chute with air lock type doors to slow down the rising blocks. Bam. Float all the heavy blocks there. There's is canals that lead from the old river to the sites still.
All sound good, but, I'll wait till my creator sits me down, because that's the only way ima get the truth...
ua-cam.com/video/-zFWfX3kVKw/v-deo.htmlsi=t07fnPvBc-f-fkin from the late Dave Hunt, amazing Christian scholar and Berean.
This part of the bible shows SOMBODY is lying. Why would God make a covenant in one part of time and then tell his son to erase that? Either the covenant was a lie or the idea of not needing one is. So wich party lied.
You show your ignorance of the Bible. Seek to learn the whole Bible before commenting. you all take up valuable space for wisdom and fill it with ignorance.
@danielsorenson6981 You said nothing.
@@wesleywarsmith1113 you misunderstand. He didn't erase it, he fulfilled it. Otherwise the Old Testament would be banned and erased from most bibles now. 😅 So you can't "get"/understand what Jesus accomplished in the new covenant outside the context of the old one.
Just one concept I'll describe: Atonement. Atonement is basically how you received forgiveness from God. In the old covenant, that was achieved through constant sacrifices being made by priests at certain times and occasions. God, being holy, requires holiness from his people, who are clearly NOT holy😅. So these sacrifices would atone for their sin and God would accept them.. However, this would never end because people are sinful and will always require sacrifice then.
Jesus comes in, and 'fulfills' this convenant requirement by becoming the "ultimate sacrifice". Meaning he took on the price that needed to be paid for sin, and took it upon himself to be the sacrifice. And on top of that, those who would trust in him had his righteousness passed onto them, because just paying for sin doesn't clear it from the hearts of the people..
So Jesus' sacrifices fulfills the old covenants requirement for atonement, and Jesus' own holiness is passed on to his people because they can't achieve holiness on their own.
Which is why it's called "Good news", cos that thing you could never do (be right with God) was done FOR you.. By God Himself orchestrating the way forward.
Of course I could say more but that's just a bird's eye view of what's happening with these covenants.
I hope it's a bit clearer now. You don't have to agree with it. I'm just hoping you get what's happening at least a bit more now when you hear talk of one covenant and then a new one.
The old one was fulfilled by the new one. Hence that quote from Isaiah 31:31 "..I will write the Law in their hearts.."
The Law placed a demand on man if he was to be right with God.. Man couldn't pull it off.. Jesus did it for man.. Man can now be right with God through Jesus.
Okay I'll stop here. I literally stopped my walk to my meeting to finish this 😂
I hope it's clearer for you now @wesleywarsmith1113
@musanetesakupwanya1050 He didnt fulfil the covenant. He declared it unnecessary. You best not try to lie to me. In the new testament he declared it unnecessary just like all the rituals. He never fulfilled their covenant it went on without him.
@@wesleywarsmith1113Jesus never declared all rituals unnecessary, in fact he established the ritual of the eucharist. And yes, he fulfilled the Old Covenant, the purpose of that Covenant was Jesus Christ.
John 1. In the beginning there was the word/Logos and the word/Logos was God and the word/Logos was with God. John 1 is a purely metaphysical statement that clarifys the Jewish theological statement of Genesis 1. The greatest problem is Christians christianize the OT not understanding the Jewish meaning embedded in the text. Jews do not believe or recognize the New Testament and at no time should Christians think the OT is Christian. The real key is understanding Genisis 1 lines 4-6, the second day of creation. If you do not understand why God (the Jewish God) was silent and did not say it was good on the second day you understand nothing. Metaphysics is the foundation of Christian theology. The old Testament theology is not metaphysical in the slightest. It's Jewish.
Trinity makes no sense, how does Wes believe in trinity? There is only one God, Jesus is the ancient of days. I pray he recieves the revelation of who Jesus really is
Tell us who Jesus really is since you know
All Christians believe in the Trinity. There is only one God, one divine essence expressed in 3 persons.
one god, god, three gods, 100 hundred gods........have you ever seen god? even the devil believe in one god. so what.......
So you’re a heretic? If you don’t believe in the Monarchal Trinity you are simply wrong.
And secondly, please enlighten us on who Christ is actually, use actual sources and not forgeries lol.
@@lukemoone4702 nah….the brother here most likely will copy and paste some articles
The council of Nicea did not establish any New Testament doctrine?!
How about the nicean creed which is the formation of the Trinity, establishing Jesus as divine, etc?
Also for the record, I’m not a Christian nor Jew nor Muslim, but Christian scholars really need to stop lightly reflecting on Torah (5 books) here and there. The idea that you would take the Christian perspective on the Hebrew Bible as Gospel is crazy and conveniently selective.
Also, you can’t say that the doctrine which would become the new Testament was already officially colonized by the council of Nicea because there are large bats of original Christians, such as the coptics as well as numerous other Christian variations throughout the lands of “Canaan”, Egypt and beyond.
By defining your Christianity through the official Roman narrative is to literally whitewash Jesus and what would become Christianity.
If I were Christian, I would be reading the Ethiopian Bible first and foremost, as it is without question the most complete document compared to anything that Rome got their hands on and decided to approve .
It is the same thing with Ashkenazi Jews, they seem to think that the traditions and perspectives that they created while living in Europe for 2000 years, supersede the traditions, practices and perspectives that were held in the lands of “Canaan” we are many of their ancestors never left.
You can see that today with how the European Jews hold the Arabian Jews as second class citizens and look down upon them.
This is the same thing that this guest is doing when he speaks with such confident while reading books in English, Latin etc when European super power decided to claim Jesus as their own.
Nothing you said is correct 😂. It’s at best half truths and lies by omission. Go back to Islam
He already said the council of Nicea has nothing to do with canonization of Christianity you half wit
💯
Just because it outlined doctrine doesn’t mean it made it up. I can say that the sky is blue but that doesn’t change the color of the sky into being blue.
Also, the Ethiopian New Testament is way newer than the Greek New Testament. All the apostles wrote in Greek, so why the heck would we read the Ethiopian Bible which is just a translation from the original Greek😂😂
@ outlined doctrine“? Can you explain why you even mean by that?
I’m not arguing between which one of them are older- you created that strawman.
Me: “the sky is blue”
You: “well archaeologist say that apples are the oldest fruit”
👏🏼
I said if you want a complete story, the Ethiopian Coptic Bible seems to be the one.
And nice try trying to turn the conversation into a debate about logic, to deflect from the main point.
And therein lies the exact problem- taking something that is supposed to be spiritual in nature and moving it up into the brain I tried to explain the illogical away.
👍🇧🇷
Joe Rogan wannabe
Davinci code? lol ITS STORYTELLING for god sake 😂
🇧🇷👍
Prayers and affirmations are to yourself. You are God.
Ignatius Polycarp and Clement and Papius all prove he's a liar
Malachi was here to set the record straight and get people back in order .. Mathew seems like a false book to me.. to many flaws in the writing
And you give not one example. Go away and quit taking up space you fool
Dude probly blows himself he thinks he knows everything and is never wrong
@@MOB_JD no you are just projecting
“Oh no! An eloquent, educated person who disagrees with my false beliefs! He must be prideful, I can’t possibly be wrong!” - you
West huff lying
@@slicnick9240 says you? 😁
i guess you live beside him innit
Billy carlson fan😂
Spotted the Billy Carson fan
Wait what color was Jesus? Asking for a friend!
Look at a modern day Jew from Israel and there's your answer.
Kings is a rough read.
😂😂😂😂
Really slams home how long the Con has been going on.
This guyz an Extreme Expert in
Pure Bullshit!
Amazing
Exactly!
Because you don't believe something doesn't make it false.... seek Christ before you meet him.
@@RomeRomein How about you seek reality and realize that you are easily fooled into believing that such a thing as Christ exist. That is the manipulation that has been played onto you by those who created religion, now you are on both sides of the pendulum - One side claims to protect you from the second side that does everything to attack you. You're being played and you don't even know it. Gullible Christian.
@RomeRomein-h6p
Just because I can't see you doesn't mean your not totally dillutional.
@derekpierkowski7641 🤣🤣🤣🤣
It’s just as difficult to prove Wes is right or wrong just as it is to prove Billy is right or wrong. I will say that it seems highly unrealistic that key to eternal life is given freely to people for nothing. Look. You need food and water to live. Without it you will die but they charge you money for that. The things that you will literally die without you have to pay for. So. I don’t see why anyone is just going to tell you how to live forever for free when they still charge you for simple shit like a sandwich. My guess is it’s all a scam. All religions. It’s just promises of a reward later for your good behavior today. It’s all control.
So you don’t understand your own straw man argument.
It’s free in the sense that God became incarnate to die and fulfill the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins.
It’s not free in the sense that you have to follow the Commandments of God that is in the New Testament. You can’t fulfill the full law and will sin either way, and that’s the sacrificial atonement to cover your transgressions and garments in blood to make you white as snow.
It wasn't freely given. Christ just paid for all of us. It actually makes a fair bit of sense. Adam, the original father of humanity, cursed us all to a fallen world when he allowed Eve to disobey God and then followed her into that disobedience. It was his job to lead her in obedience and instead was led by her in disobedience. Because of this original sin, we are all born into sin. So if one man could damn us it logically follows that it would take only one man to undo it. All we have to do is accept the gift of Christ's sacrifice. There's a reason the Bible refers to Christ as the New Adam/Better Adam/Last Adam.
Felix shut up dude , u probably don't have a green card .