Thank you again Bruce for your gifted teaching! I sort of flunked church history in primary school, never liked it, but you have turned me around. I can't get enough!
Bruce, I've been a Christian for a long time, I've never had any need to learn church history. But lately God has brought me around some subjects where i needed to dip a little bit in church history, then l have found you, i have enjoyed it very much, and you explained it very well, Thank you, May the LORD bless you and keep you
Thank you. I have found the study of God's work in the world through his people since the time of Christ to be deeply rewarding. Thanks for the encouragement!
Dear Sir, I can't thank you enough for putting these videos online. May God bless you and your family and your ministry more abundantly. Thank you very much....
I graduated from University this past May and this is the first year I haven’t gone back to school. Thank you, Sir, for feeding my hunger for continued learning while I work to afford Grad school. It truly is such a blessing to listen to your lectures.
Very sobering to think about how after all of the persecution perpetrated by the Caesars, Constantine would bend his knee to those who stood firm in Christ and would offer them sincere apologies. I would have teared up if I had witnessed that.
Bruce - I just want to say that your teaching ministry is still going strong. I just discovered you here and I am going through everything you have done! Its great to have this kind of info after being saved for 50 years. This stuff helps when witnessing in every way.
I have watched 7 videos so far, taking notes even. Been looking for this for a long time. thanks once again. will surely send some questions your way if I find something not clear. so far so good. online education for real. God bless you sir.
Great series the early church history reminded me the book written by Bruce Shelley's History of Christian Church, it is another good book faithful to the scripture and history, thank you.
A great saint of the faith...he was used by the Holy Spirit to save the faith from disintegration he stood for and defended the eternal Sonship of the Lord...a Great soul may he rest in peace and tribute to him...
I have been reading Paradise Restored and every chapter begins with a quote from Athanasius. I began wondering about who this person was and today I found this video. Thank you. My next read will be On The Incarnation.
It is sad that after the reformation we did not have a man of the stature of Athanasius that could harmanise the sovereignty and free will controversy!
I appreciate all the church history books and teachers but I appreciate you do more than a cursory introduction to these important names but spend a little time dealing with some of their contexts and challenges. It makes them less blurry. Before Athanasius was just a name I tried to remember among Polycarp, Justin, and Ambrose and others, now I know him better and he stands out, as he should, from among them. He's not just a fuzzy, Latin picture with a 2 sentence bio in a book but a real man who struggles in his day -- like us! I also appreciate the empathy you have for the saints and even a few off the mainstream. You have an attitude that doing theology was a messy business post-Pentecost -- I appreciate the tone. Thanks! :)
Revelation 13:16-18 16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Question. When did this happen?
I like Bruce Shelley's treatment of Church History: www.amazon.com/Church-History-Plain-Language-Shelley/dp/0310115965/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bruce+shelley+church+history+in+plain+language&qid=1675117368&sprefix=bruce+shelley%2Caps%2C382&sr=8-1
@GoreBruce, so I’ve started listening to “On The Incarnation” by Athanasius yesterday. And I know that you ascribe to the author of Hebrews being pinned by Apollos, as do I. But I couldn’t help but wonder if that puts any doubt in your mind in regards to the author of Hebrews when Athanasius mentions the author Paul when citing a few verses from Hebrews. Granted there are still two Paul’s but wouldn’t it seem likely at this point that Athanasius would distinguish one from the other while giving the Apostle Paul the first name preeminence and Paul of Apollos the ladder if he was the author? Since Athanasius knew a guy, who knew a guy, who was the Apostle John, it seems little more plausible when he uses Paul’s name as the author of Hebrews. Who else would his listeners think he was talking about? I think he would have made it clear to his readers if it were Apollos by identifying him as such.
The canonicity of Hebrews was hotly debated in the first few centuries of the Church's history. Hebrews was finally included on the assumption that it had been written by Paul, although there was no clear evidence of that. Athanasius shared that view, though there were always some dissenters. Martin Luther took the view that is was written by Apollos, but of course, no one knows for sure. I have no doubt that it belongs in the canon, for whatever that's worth.
I have no doubt that Hebrews belongs in the canon as well. I was just curious if Athanasius’s closeness to the Apostle John by three generations gave or gives you pause that when he’s saying “Paul” he’s pretty confident in his intent that it was the Apostle he was speaking of in Hebrews and not Apollos. Surly the consistency and authorship of Hebrews would have been maintained as accurate and true being that the years from the Apostle John to Athanasius weren’t all that long. I’m not trying to be dogmatic but to me it’s just a matter of if he said Paul is the author in his book than it’s got a lot more weight than the Kings English going for Apollos.
@@GoreBruce touché brother Bruce, how about 3 to possibly 4 lifetimes😉? Anyways thanks for corresponding back with me. Your labors are always appreciated by me.
As someone with a borderline obsession with learning about history, as well as with all things related to the Bible and Jesus Christ, I _really loooove_ these videos! However, with regard to the statement, around 15:30, that the Scriptures never specifically say anything about "one essence, three persons...", I have to _very_ respectfully disagree... (1 John 5:5-8) _"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? {6} This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. {7} _*_For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one._*_ {8} _*_And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one._*_"_ I can't imagine how it could possibly be made any more clear than that! You also have the following... (John 1:1-5) _"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and _*_the Word was God._*_ {2} The same was in the beginning with God. {3} _*_All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made._* (This seems to refute the notion that He was a created being, as it states _all_ things were created by Him! =P) _{4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."_ (John 10:27-30) _"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: {28} And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. {29} My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. {30} _*_I and my Father are one._*_"_
+Just Because (Jen) Thanks for your kind feedback. I think my comment was that the Bible never uses the specific language, 'one essence, three persons.' I certainly agree with you however that the Bible teaches that concept. You should also be careful about relying too heavily on 1 John 5:7. There is virtually no early textual support for that verse, which was apparently added much later by a well intended copyist. Bottom line - the Bible is Trinitarian. On that we fully agree!
Thanks for pointing that out, Jen. I do the old Rev. 22:11 for any who don't accept Holy Writ (their choice what to accept, though I still highly suggest that the naysayers read up a bit before carving out their own "canon of the Scriptures" which is VERY common right now in all places that would call themselves church but are not). ITA that St. John couldn't have made it any clearer, but if one doesn't accept St. John's Gospel and epistles, even then One Holy God Triune is throughout all the main older translations including the Vulgate, the KJV, and even some Westcott & Horts like the NASB, not to mention the LXX. (The newer "feel good translations" of the last hundred or so years, ehh, I treat them as the koran and don't even look, but from Moses and Job and the Prophets, most particularly the Psalms, God is throughout. Our cup overflows in the NT. Holy Writ is definitely there for any who want to read it or hear it unadulterated, even on YT! (Or "especially on UA-cam" which probably grinds corporate gears a bit..) Blessings and Grace!
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This one was pretty nice. Thank you for disseminating some of this (which, sadly, many "quick growing" Christians who think unorthodox stuff, such as turning into angels to "Fly!" at the moment of someone's death, _could really use Athanasius and just basic Church history_ so they might go back and reread more than a few cherry-picked verses over and over.) I'm not a Presbyterian, or even know what that is, really (I thought you guys were the Calvinists or something; I can't get it straight... no offense!), but I think to have a learned Protestant as yourself somewhat promoting the study of Church history, and "the cream of the crop" post-first C AD, is a blessing that *might actually save some souls.* Honestly I've picked up a LOT more myself in your OT lectures, especially (and I mean _especially_ as in "what's going on" in these books) when reading the post-exile Jewish books of Esther, Ezra/Esdras/Nehemiah and Malachi. And maybe Daniel even (though the book of Daniel, and commentaries about it, has served to help me place Babylonian/Mede events properly, I think). Really appreciated series that I can recommend to many.
It actually helped me see the Church as one organism over time. The pop culture blurs catholic history. And by that their missing like 1500 stories of their building. Yet they pic up scraps from them. Then judge the generation in a blur.
Time?? One day is as a thousand years. Yet going back to getting up night after night for 30 odd years to use the can. Could it be that this amount of "time" is relevant? Hmmm. Wonderful to think about this stuff.
thank you for setting a table before me in the presence of my enemies. The following entry is circa your topic. Synod of Laodicea (4th Century) Canon 29 Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
I enjoy these. Thanks for them. Just wanted to mention Jews weren't hard monotheists till after Christ. Two Powers of Heaven and Mike Heiser on youtube show the Jewish Trinity in scripture and 2nd Temple thinking
Yes, the Jewish religion took on more of a hard monotheism as a reaction to Trinity. The earlier view actually allowed for a kind of plurality of deity, as documented quite thoroughly by Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven.
Cool ty We enjoy your history series. I listened last year, and decided to relisten to them. Hope you're well through our Pandmonium of world crisis Pan must be out and about from Mount Hermon. Our foundation and Rock was laid at the gate of his rock. 🤷
Have been studying history and beliefs of different cultures for over 30 years and I still find it funny that I am still learning things today that they new back then that is not taught now. This is my synopsis on all the different Sects of Christ even down the line to all the denominations we have today THEY SHOULD ALL be studied each one brought a little truth from The Scriptures that the others did not and they came in an order (Thanks To The Father, Son, and Spirit) that was needed at the time the sect were formed if you look at their teachings and I mean original creeds and testaments of faith you will find not one still practice or believe as they did when they were formed if you study them all today even the people in the denominations do not know what or why their denominations were formed they just go for an hour a week and testify to The Father stuff they do not even understand Please do your own research and Seek all Truth through Love Faith and Righteousness If you say you will die for something it would be intelligent to know where what and why you are doing so The Martyrs of Christ studied the little they had could tell how it was passed down the line They fully understood what they were dying for When you testify to The Father you are saying that you will die for Him since you trust that everything He did was righteous had a purpose and was done out of Love but how can you do that if you do not know the extents that He went through for Us all through history how we know as much about The Father That we do where we get our information can we back up what we say when we are believers for Remember we will stand before The Throne of The Father and have to give an accounting which means we will have to explain the whys and what fors we made our decisions and actions we chose Romans 14:12, Matt. 12:36, James even goes so far in his gospel one step further all of you who profess you are teachers James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers knowing that we will receive a stricter judgement Paul states in 1 Corin 4:2 those who teach must be found trustworthy I can go into this all day but there is enough food for thought May God The Father God The Son and The Holy Spirit Bless you all
Firstly, as according to one of the books about St. Athanasius, Bishop Alexander, who saw the Baptism and the sincerity of the act in the "playing Church" incident, confirmed the Baptisms, as was the custom of the time. Secondly, St. Nicholas (the original Santa Claus) punched Arius at Nicea 325. Other than that, good job!
Bruce Gore thank you for these videos. I actually stumbled over these videos on youtube. As i am an avid lover of history and Christ, i have found a new home. Thank you. I look forward to watching many more!
@@mightyeagle51 Just not through the heresies of Rome. Any body that teaches that Mary is co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, and that she was sinless is distorting the Scriptures. Jesus alone is the only mediator between God and man. The RCC did not encourage people outside of the clergy to learn to read the Bible for themselves and so had complete control over the dissemination of false teachings. Thank the Lord for the bravery of men like Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin and others who directed the Church back to the only source of infallible truth: God's word. The RCC cannot be infallible because people are not infallible, and since the RCC is made up of fallible people, then it is also fallible.
@@douglasmcnay644 The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Queen of heaven and earth. Let us look in the bible for the answer: "And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Revelation 12: 1; I ask you Who where's a crown? And where is she? She is in the heavens with her feet upon the moon. What does this mean? God is the Light(the Sun) and Mary reflects the light upon the earth(the moon). She is a Queen, crown with the stars. Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you? You brother, sister, someone? Have you said pray for me I'm going to the doctor, of pray for my son, pray for my mom she's got cancer? Or Pray for me and my husband, we are going through a hard time...etc. anything? They would pray for you to God, yes? Now hold that thought. Does Jesus love his mother? If she said help me with dinner, or clean your hands, or help you father, would he not do what she asked? He was the perfect Son, so he would be obedient to his mother and father. So now that they are both in heaven, would he stop loving them? No! So then if you can ask a friend to pray for you, or you can pray for a friend, why not ask Mary to pray for you as well? If Christ Loves her, then he would respect her Pray, and since she is the closes to him, because she is his mother, he would grant her pray! This is Why Catholics ask for Mary to Pray for us. Why did the common man not read? two reasons: 1st because he did not need to read to do his job, blacksmithing, farming, etc. 2nd, and more importantly, because they couldn't afford to send their sons and daughters to school. They needed them to work in the fields or in the shops. Another thing, the printing press was not invented until the late 15th century, so every book was hand written, this took weeks to copy any work. So even if they could read, they wouldn't have any books to read. Only monasteries or Churches had any kind of books, or personal libraries. What is the good of an Infallible Book, if no one can infallibly understand it? Look at how many Christian religions there are, all of them say the bible says something a little different from the next. Why would God, in all His wisdom, allow all this confusion about Himself? There must be a true way of interpreting the Bible, but who has the authority to decide which one is true? It cannot be left up for personal interpretation, there must be an authority that has the power to interpret the bible, otherwise we end up with a million and one different understandings, and all claiming to be right. The Pope only claims to be infallible by the Power of the Holy Spirit and in union with the magisterium, not by his own doing. Papal authority is in the bible: The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ, he does not claim to be Christ, but rather claims to be a Steward until the Return of the King. This can be seen in the bible when Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter(Matthew 16:19). This is only significant because of the OT, like all the rest of the NT. Read Isaiah 22(namely 22: 20-25) , in which the king(guided by God) gives his steward the keys of the kingdom of Israel, he is the only one who can open the gate, no other key existed. And when the King went away, the steward would be in charge. This is what the Pope claims to be, He has the authority to bind and loss. This link is very basic, but does a good job explaining. questions.org/attq/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-gave-peter-the-keys-of-the-kingdom/#:~:text=Peter%20used%20the%20keys%20Christ%20gave%20him%20to,vision%20and%20an%20appeal%20from%20Cornelius%20%28Acts%2010%29.
Documents that were eventually assembled into the single volume Bible were widely circulated, and many Christian families of means had copies of some of them.
If I compare what early theologians like Irenaeus or Tertullian wrote with both Arius and Athanasius, they may have been uneasy with both of them. They certainly would not be confident with calling Jesus a "creation" like Arius, but they thought, like him, that Christ had a beginning and that "there was a time when Jesus was not". On the other hand, unlike Athanasius, they only called the Father "truly God", the Word was only Deuteros Theos or Alius Deus, obviously a lesser divine being, though in constant unity with God.
You are quite correct. In the second century the church's language describing Christ had not become nearly as precise is was necessary later in the controversies culminating the Nicaea. Tertullian gave the church the term 'trinity' which was very helpful, but his explanation of the meaning of the term was later found to be quite inadequate. Similar observations might be made of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, and others.
Their theology was certainly simpler. But also different, that's my point. They did not believe that God is a Trinity, not even Tertullianus. If you do not believe that the Word is co-eternal with God, you have a very different Christology than the post-Nicean church. My personal term for their Christology is "deuterotheistic" (I'm proud of that term :-)), because that's what the Logos was for them, a deuteros theos. That's actually fairly "precise". The only ones far into the 4th century who spoke about God as a kind of "trinity" or trias were the "antitrinitarian" Monarchianists, but a trinity in 3 modi, not in 3 persons. I think about the later trinitarian Christianity as formulated by the Cappadocians as a kind of synthesis between what I call Deuterotheistic and Monarchianistic Christology. Or, nearer in time, between Eusebian and Kryptosabellian Homoousianism.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 9The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, 10and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, BECAUSE they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, 12in order that judgment may come upon all who have DISBELIEVED the truth and DELIGHTED in wickedness.
With respect to the Arian belief that only god is everlasting, and not the spirit, Socrates argued otherwise, in the speech to Phaedrus set out by Plato. Socrates argued from the principles of thermodynamics, claiming that which moved due to external influence must have a beginning and end, but that which moved due to its own influence, such as life, must be eternal and indestructible. His reasoning was that all things decay over time (entropy), whereas the life force, the soul, did not, and fashioned its own movement from its divine will. The logic of the matter, to his mind, was that the soul cannot have a beginning or end, because if it did then it would not be self propelled, and capable of creating order from a relentless march towards disorder. Personally, I'm with Socrates on this one. The soul, and the holy spirit, must be eternal and everlasting, because life contradicts thermodynamic laws, and only god, and that which is of god, can do that.
Bruce you are so good at explaining history, have you thought about doing a series on the founding of Islam and the 4 caliphs following Mohammed? Just a rundown of their history the same way you’ve done here and maybe you could compare the historical evidence of the Bible to that of the Quran? (You’ll find their is no evidence that Mohammed or the 4 caliphs ever existed). There is zero contemporary historical or archaeological evidence for Mohammed and his next four successors. It’s very interesting and since Islam claims the Quran in essence, to be the third book in Gods trilogy, why not do a study?
To me, Christ "is" God. Christ "is" the resurrected Son (because He had a mom) in order that He "is" a human. For some reason, I believe that God did not understand what it is to "be" human, so He came to dwell among us. Getting up in the middle of winter to go use the outhouse for 30 odd years? To mash a finger while building a chair, and the associated callouses, to be walking across a room and stub his toe on a table leg. Just the odds and ends of being an average Joe upon earth. God did not "need" Mary to create Christ... yet in order for Christ to be human He had to have a mom. Simple.
There is One God, right thru the OT. The concept of a Trinity, not even a Trinity it was the divinity of Jesus Christ that was discussed, the Holy Spirit or power of the One God had not even addressed. This time was the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic system as they had left the simple teaching of the Apostles of the first century (as Paul warned). Jesus Christ’s message was the coming Kingdom of God on earth. Airies was right, Jesus Christ is not God. Mohammed plagerised the OT & the God of the OT is One. There were no Popes in Rome but Bishops until 606 AD.
What a great series. Unreal that it's free on UA-cam
I am of the same opinion.
Thank you again Bruce for your gifted teaching! I sort of flunked church history in primary school, never liked it, but you have turned me around. I can't get enough!
22:30 AMEN AMEN AMEN
Bruce, I've been a Christian for a long time, I've never had any need to learn church history. But lately God has brought me around some subjects where i needed to dip a little bit in church history, then l have found you, i have enjoyed it very much, and you explained it very well, Thank you, May the LORD bless you and keep you
Thank you. I have found the study of God's work in the world through his people since the time of Christ to be deeply rewarding. Thanks for the encouragement!
Dear Sir, I can't thank you enough for putting these videos online. May God bless you and your family and your ministry more abundantly. Thank you very much....
+Paul Kondepudi I am very grateful for your kind encouragement! Blessings to you and yours as well.
+Paul Kondepudi ; If you like these, you'd probably like Dr. Ryan Reeves presentations on Church history, also on You Tube.
Bruce Gore w
Bless you Bruce for being dedicated in your teaching. And thank you Father for your word that is eternal.
I graduated from University this past May and this is the first year I haven’t gone back to school. Thank you, Sir, for feeding my hunger for continued learning while I work to afford Grad school. It truly is such a blessing to listen to your lectures.
I deeply appreciate your encouragement, and God's richest blessings to you!
Fabulous teaching and a very encouraging ending sir! Praise God! The word is not chained !
Very sobering to think about how after all of the persecution perpetrated by the Caesars, Constantine would bend his knee to those who stood firm in Christ and would offer them sincere apologies. I would have teared up if I had witnessed that.
I teared up at the hearing of it, I would have been a mess then.
Wow! I am learning a lot from this series. Blessings to you and your entire family.
Bruce - I just want to say that your teaching ministry is still going strong. I just discovered you here and I am going through everything you have done! Its great to have this kind of info after being saved for 50 years. This stuff helps when witnessing in every way.
I am delighted to hear from you, and very happy to hear that these materials are of use to you! Blessings in your ministry!
I am binging on these great videos! So edifying
We need more Athanesius now than ever before as modern Christianity got messed up with Charismatic movements
Very good lectures. Thank you for making them so readily available.
I have watched 7 videos so far, taking notes even. Been looking for this for a long time. thanks once again. will surely send some questions your way if I find something not clear. so far so good. online education for real. God bless you sir.
Great series the early church history reminded me the book written by Bruce Shelley's History of Christian Church, it is another good book faithful to the scripture and history, thank you.
Yes, I've recommended Shelley's book many times. Thank you!
Thank you for work here and presenting us with this very needed walk through church History.
My pleasure! ...and thanks for your interest!
A great saint of the faith...he was used by the Holy Spirit to save the faith from disintegration he stood for and defended the eternal Sonship of the Lord...a Great soul may he rest in peace and tribute to him...
Amen!
I have been reading Paradise Restored and every chapter begins with a quote from Athanasius. I began wondering about who this person was and today I found this video. Thank you. My next read will be On The Incarnation.
You are reading very good and rich material!
Thank you brother Bruce, that comment on 2 Tin is such an eye opener!!
It is sad that after the reformation we did not have a man of the stature of Athanasius that could harmanise the sovereignty and free will controversy!
Fantastic! Thank You!😊❤
I appreciate all the church history books and teachers but I appreciate you do more than a cursory introduction to these important names but spend a little time dealing with some of their contexts and challenges. It makes them less blurry. Before Athanasius was just a name I tried to remember among Polycarp, Justin, and Ambrose and others, now I know him better and he stands out, as he should, from among them. He's not just a fuzzy, Latin picture with a 2 sentence bio in a book but a real man who struggles in his day -- like us! I also appreciate the empathy you have for the saints and even a few off the mainstream. You have an attitude that doing theology was a messy business post-Pentecost -- I appreciate the tone. Thanks! :)
Thank you!
I like how you said that "Constantine wanted the church to be on the same page". 🤗
May Father YAHweh bless your understand and S
How you His Resurrected Sw. Praise Father YAHweh
Powerfullll, amenn!
These are excellent lectures. Thank you.
You are very kind! Thanks!
Fantastic
Revelation 13:16-18
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Question. When did this happen?
I’m really enjoying this.
What is the best book I could buy to get a church history overview of this same nature?
I like Bruce Shelley's treatment of Church History:
www.amazon.com/Church-History-Plain-Language-Shelley/dp/0310115965/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bruce+shelley+church+history+in+plain+language&qid=1675117368&sprefix=bruce+shelley%2Caps%2C382&sr=8-1
@@GoreBruce
Thank you. That will be the next book I buy.
@GoreBruce, so I’ve started listening to “On The Incarnation” by Athanasius yesterday. And I know that you ascribe to the author of Hebrews being pinned by Apollos, as do I. But I couldn’t help but wonder if that puts any doubt in your mind in regards to the author of Hebrews when Athanasius mentions the author Paul when citing a few verses from Hebrews. Granted there are still two Paul’s but wouldn’t it seem likely at this point that Athanasius would distinguish one from the other while giving the Apostle Paul the first name preeminence and Paul of Apollos the ladder if he was the author? Since Athanasius knew a guy, who knew a guy, who was the Apostle John, it seems little more plausible when he uses Paul’s name as the author of Hebrews. Who else would his listeners think he was talking about? I think he would have made it clear to his readers if it were Apollos by identifying him as such.
The canonicity of Hebrews was hotly debated in the first few centuries of the Church's history. Hebrews was finally included on the assumption that it had been written by Paul, although there was no clear evidence of that. Athanasius shared that view, though there were always some dissenters. Martin Luther took the view that is was written by Apollos, but of course, no one knows for sure. I have no doubt that it belongs in the canon, for whatever that's worth.
I have no doubt that Hebrews belongs in the canon as well. I was just curious if Athanasius’s closeness to the Apostle John by three generations gave or gives you pause that when he’s saying “Paul” he’s pretty confident in his intent that it was the Apostle he was speaking of in Hebrews and not Apollos. Surly the consistency and authorship of Hebrews would have been maintained as accurate and true being that the years from the Apostle John to Athanasius weren’t all that long. I’m not trying to be dogmatic but to me it’s just a matter of if he said Paul is the author in his book than it’s got a lot more weight than the Kings English going for Apollos.
Athanasius was born around 300 a.d., well outside of 'three generations.'
@@GoreBruce touché brother Bruce, how about 3 to possibly 4 lifetimes😉? Anyways thanks for corresponding back with me. Your labors are always appreciated by me.
As someone with a borderline obsession with learning about history, as well as with all things related to the Bible and Jesus Christ, I _really loooove_ these videos! However, with regard to the statement, around 15:30, that the Scriptures never specifically say anything about "one essence, three persons...", I have to _very_ respectfully disagree... (1 John 5:5-8) _"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? {6} This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. {7} _*_For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one._*_ {8} _*_And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one._*_"_ I can't imagine how it could possibly be made any more clear than that! You also have the following... (John 1:1-5) _"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and _*_the Word was God._*_ {2} The same was in the beginning with God. {3} _*_All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made._* (This seems to refute the notion that He was a created being, as it states _all_ things were created by Him! =P) _{4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."_ (John 10:27-30) _"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: {28} And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. {29} My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. {30} _*_I and my Father are one._*_"_
+Just Because (Jen) Thanks for your kind feedback. I think my comment was that the Bible never uses the specific language, 'one essence, three persons.' I certainly agree with you however that the Bible teaches that concept. You should also be careful about relying too heavily on 1 John 5:7. There is virtually no early textual support for that verse, which was apparently added much later by a well intended copyist. Bottom line - the Bible is Trinitarian. On that we fully agree!
Don`t you just love those well intended copyist`s
Thanks for pointing that out, Jen. I do the old Rev. 22:11 for any who don't accept Holy Writ (their choice what to accept, though I still highly suggest that the naysayers read up a bit before carving out their own "canon of the Scriptures" which is VERY common right now in all places that would call themselves church but are not). ITA that St. John couldn't have made it any clearer, but if one doesn't accept St. John's Gospel and epistles, even then One Holy God Triune is throughout all the main older translations including the Vulgate, the KJV, and even some Westcott & Horts like the NASB, not to mention the LXX. (The newer "feel good translations" of the last hundred or so years, ehh, I treat them as the koran and don't even look, but from Moses and Job and the Prophets, most particularly the Psalms, God is throughout. Our cup overflows in the NT. Holy Writ is definitely there for any who want to read it or hear it unadulterated, even on YT! (Or "especially on UA-cam" which probably grinds corporate gears a bit..) Blessings and Grace!
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
This one was pretty nice. Thank you for disseminating some of this (which, sadly, many "quick growing" Christians who think unorthodox stuff, such as turning into angels to "Fly!" at the moment of someone's death, _could really use Athanasius and just basic Church history_ so they might go back and reread more than a few cherry-picked verses over and over.) I'm not a Presbyterian, or even know what that is, really (I thought you guys were the Calvinists or something; I can't get it straight... no offense!), but I think to have a learned Protestant as yourself somewhat promoting the study of Church history, and "the cream of the crop" post-first C AD, is a blessing that *might actually save some souls.*
Honestly I've picked up a LOT more myself in your OT lectures, especially (and I mean _especially_ as in "what's going on" in these books) when reading the post-exile Jewish books of Esther, Ezra/Esdras/Nehemiah and Malachi. And maybe Daniel even (though the book of Daniel, and commentaries about it, has served to help me place Babylonian/Mede events properly, I think). Really appreciated series that I can recommend to many.
Thank you for your kind feedback!
It actually helped me see the Church as one organism over time. The pop culture blurs catholic history. And by that their missing like 1500 stories of their building. Yet they pic up scraps from them. Then judge the generation in a blur.
Time?? One day is as a thousand years. Yet going back to getting up night after night for 30 odd years to use the can. Could it be that this amount of "time" is relevant? Hmmm. Wonderful to think about this stuff.
THEOLOGY MATTERS
thank you for setting a table before me in the presence of my enemies.
The following entry is circa your topic.
Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)
Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
I enjoy these. Thanks for them. Just wanted to mention Jews weren't hard monotheists till after Christ.
Two Powers of Heaven and Mike Heiser on youtube show the Jewish Trinity in scripture and 2nd Temple thinking
Yes, the Jewish religion took on more of a hard monotheism as a reaction to Trinity. The earlier view actually allowed for a kind of plurality of deity, as documented quite thoroughly by Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven.
Cool ty
We enjoy your history series.
I listened last year, and decided to relisten to them.
Hope you're well through our Pandmonium of world crisis
Pan must be out and about from Mount Hermon.
Our foundation and Rock was laid at the gate of his rock. 🤷
Have been studying history and beliefs of different cultures for over 30 years and I still find it funny that I am still learning things today that they new back then that is not taught now. This is my synopsis on all the different Sects of Christ even down the line to all the denominations we have today THEY SHOULD ALL be studied each one brought a little truth from The Scriptures that the others did not and they came in an order (Thanks To The Father, Son, and Spirit) that was needed at the time the sect were formed if you look at their teachings and I mean original creeds and testaments of faith you will find not one still practice or believe as they did when they were formed if you study them all today even the people in the denominations do not know what or why their denominations were formed they just go for an hour a week and testify to The Father stuff they do not even understand Please do your own research and Seek all Truth through Love Faith and Righteousness If you say you will die for something it would be intelligent to know where what and why you are doing so The Martyrs of Christ studied the little they had could tell how it was passed down the line They fully understood what they were dying for When you testify to The Father you are saying that you will die for Him since you trust that everything He did was righteous had a purpose and was done out of Love but how can you do that if you do not know the extents that He went through for Us all through history how we know as much about The Father That we do where we get our information can we back up what we say when we are believers for Remember we will stand before The Throne of The Father and have to give an accounting which means we will have to explain the whys and what fors we made our decisions and actions we chose Romans 14:12, Matt. 12:36, James even goes so far in his gospel one step further all of you who profess you are teachers James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers knowing that we will receive a stricter judgement Paul states in 1 Corin 4:2 those who teach must be found trustworthy I can go into this all day but there is enough food for thought May God The Father God The Son and The Holy Spirit Bless you all
Firstly, as according to one of the books about St. Athanasius, Bishop Alexander, who saw the Baptism and the sincerity of the act in the "playing Church" incident, confirmed the Baptisms, as was the custom of the time.
Secondly, St. Nicholas (the original Santa Claus) punched Arius at Nicea 325.
Other than that, good job!
So many stories...so little time. Thank you!
Bruce Gore thank you for these videos. I actually stumbled over these videos on youtube. As i am an avid lover of history and Christ, i have found a new home. Thank you. I look forward to watching many more!
Welcome aboard, my friend. Helpful feedback and suggestions are always appreciated!
Jesus started one church and said it would last FOREVER
The Roman Catholic Church
amen. Jesus is faithful to thaat promise
@@mightyeagle51 Just not through the heresies of Rome. Any body that teaches that Mary is co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, and that she was sinless is distorting the Scriptures. Jesus alone is the only mediator between God and man. The RCC did not encourage people outside of the clergy to learn to read the Bible for themselves and so had complete control over the dissemination of false teachings. Thank the Lord for the bravery of men like Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin and others who directed the Church back to the only source of infallible truth: God's word. The RCC cannot be infallible because people are not infallible, and since the RCC is made up of fallible people, then it is also fallible.
@@douglasmcnay644 The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Queen of heaven and earth. Let us look in the bible for the answer: "And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Revelation 12: 1; I ask you Who where's a crown? And where is she? She is in the heavens with her feet upon the moon. What does this mean? God is the Light(the Sun) and Mary reflects the light upon the earth(the moon). She is a Queen, crown with the stars.
Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you? You brother, sister, someone? Have you said pray for me I'm going to the doctor, of pray for my son, pray for my mom she's got cancer? Or Pray for me and my husband, we are going through a hard time...etc. anything? They would pray for you to God, yes? Now hold that thought. Does Jesus love his mother? If she said help me with dinner, or clean your hands, or help you father, would he not do what she asked? He was the perfect Son, so he would be obedient to his mother and father. So now that they are both in heaven, would he stop loving them? No! So then if you can ask a friend to pray for you, or you can pray for a friend, why not ask Mary to pray for you as well? If Christ Loves her, then he would respect her Pray, and since she is the closes to him, because she is his mother, he would grant her pray! This is Why Catholics ask for Mary to Pray for us.
Why did the common man not read? two reasons: 1st because he did not need to read to do his job, blacksmithing, farming, etc. 2nd, and more importantly, because they couldn't afford to send their sons and daughters to school. They needed them to work in the fields or in the shops.
Another thing, the printing press was not invented until the late 15th century, so every book was hand written, this took weeks to copy any work. So even if they could read, they wouldn't have any books to read. Only monasteries or Churches had any kind of books, or personal libraries.
What is the good of an Infallible Book, if no one can infallibly understand it? Look at how many Christian religions there are, all of them say the bible says something a little different from the next. Why would God, in all His wisdom, allow all this confusion about Himself? There must be a true way of interpreting the Bible, but who has the authority to decide which one is true? It cannot be left up for personal interpretation, there must be an authority that has the power to interpret the bible, otherwise we end up with a million and one different understandings, and all claiming to be right.
The Pope only claims to be infallible by the Power of the Holy Spirit and in union with the magisterium, not by his own doing. Papal authority is in the bible: The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ, he does not claim to be Christ, but rather claims to be a Steward until the Return of the King. This can be seen in the bible when Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter(Matthew 16:19). This is only significant because of the OT, like all the rest of the NT. Read Isaiah 22(namely 22: 20-25) , in which the king(guided by God) gives his steward the keys of the kingdom of Israel, he is the only one who can open the gate, no other key existed. And when the King went away, the steward would be in charge. This is what the Pope claims to be, He has the authority to bind and loss.
This link is very basic, but does a good job explaining.
questions.org/attq/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-gave-peter-the-keys-of-the-kingdom/#:~:text=Peter%20used%20the%20keys%20Christ%20gave%20him%20to,vision%20and%20an%20appeal%20from%20Cornelius%20%28Acts%2010%29.
How did they have the bible in their home back them?
Documents that were eventually assembled into the single volume Bible were widely circulated, and many Christian families of means had copies of some of them.
@@GoreBruce Some with the deuterocanonicals, don't forget it by the way...
@@heinrich3088 actually the only Ola Testament canonavailable included the deuterovanonicals
If I compare what early theologians like Irenaeus or Tertullian wrote with both Arius and Athanasius, they may have been uneasy with both of them. They certainly would not be confident with calling Jesus a "creation" like Arius, but they thought, like him, that Christ had a beginning and that "there was a time when Jesus was not". On the other hand, unlike Athanasius, they only called the Father "truly God", the Word was only Deuteros Theos or Alius Deus, obviously a lesser divine being, though in constant unity with God.
You are quite correct. In the second century the church's language describing Christ had not become nearly as precise is was necessary later in the controversies culminating the Nicaea. Tertullian gave the church the term 'trinity' which was very helpful, but his explanation of the meaning of the term was later found to be quite inadequate. Similar observations might be made of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, and others.
Their theology was certainly simpler. But also different, that's my point. They did not believe that God is a Trinity, not even Tertullianus. If you do not believe that the Word is co-eternal with God, you have a very different Christology than the post-Nicean church. My personal term for their Christology is "deuterotheistic" (I'm proud of that term :-)), because that's what the Logos was for them, a deuteros theos. That's actually fairly "precise".
The only ones far into the 4th century who spoke about God as a kind of "trinity" or trias were the "antitrinitarian" Monarchianists, but a trinity in 3 modi, not in 3 persons. I think about the later trinitarian Christianity as formulated by the Cappadocians as a kind of synthesis between what I call Deuterotheistic and Monarchianistic Christology. Or, nearer in time, between Eusebian and Kryptosabellian Homoousianism.
@@georgspengler3573 that was a mouthful at the end 🤣
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11
9The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, 10and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, BECAUSE they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, 12in order that judgment may come upon all who have DISBELIEVED the truth and DELIGHTED in wickedness.
With respect to the Arian belief that only god is everlasting, and not the spirit, Socrates argued otherwise, in the speech to Phaedrus set out by Plato.
Socrates argued from the principles of thermodynamics, claiming that which moved due to external influence must have a beginning and end, but that which moved due to its own influence, such as life, must be eternal and indestructible. His reasoning was that all things decay over time (entropy), whereas the life force, the soul, did not, and fashioned its own movement from its divine will. The logic of the matter, to his mind, was that the soul cannot have a beginning or end, because if it did then it would not be self propelled, and capable of creating order from a relentless march towards disorder.
Personally, I'm with Socrates on this one. The soul, and the holy spirit, must be eternal and everlasting, because life contradicts thermodynamic laws, and only god, and that which is of god, can do that.
Are you Protestant or Catholic or orthodox?
Presbyterian
Bruce you are so good at explaining history, have you thought about doing a series on the founding of Islam and the 4 caliphs following Mohammed? Just a rundown of their history the same way you’ve done here and maybe you could compare the historical evidence of the Bible to that of the Quran? (You’ll find their is no evidence that Mohammed or the 4 caliphs ever existed). There is zero contemporary historical or archaeological evidence for Mohammed and his next four successors. It’s very interesting and since Islam claims the Quran in essence, to be the third book in Gods trilogy, why not do a study?
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it some thought!
318 bishops wow!
To me, Christ "is" God. Christ "is" the resurrected Son (because He had a mom) in order that He "is" a human. For some reason, I believe that God did not understand what it is to "be" human, so He came to dwell among us. Getting up in the middle of winter to go use the outhouse for 30 odd years? To mash a finger while building a chair, and the associated callouses, to be walking across a room and stub his toe on a table leg. Just the odds and ends of being an average Joe upon earth. God did not "need" Mary to create Christ... yet in order for Christ to be human He had to have a mom. Simple.
Interesting you leave out that Constantine was baptized by an Arian.
Sorry, but I think Athanasious was wrong.
thats fine, but in the end it does not matter what you think, but what is the truth
There is One God, right thru the OT. The concept of a Trinity, not even a Trinity it was the divinity of Jesus Christ that was discussed, the Holy Spirit or power of the One God had not even addressed. This time was the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic system as they had left the simple teaching of the Apostles of the first century (as Paul warned). Jesus Christ’s message was the coming Kingdom of God on earth. Airies was right, Jesus Christ is not God. Mohammed plagerised the OT & the God of the OT is One. There were no Popes in Rome but Bishops until 606 AD.
I thought the Jury has been out since the 4th century whethwr Constantine was truly regenerated ?