The Apostasy That Wasn’t: Early Church History Versus Conspiracy Theories

When Catholics and Protestants discuss Scripture, the conversation can degenerate into "my interpretation" versus "your interpretation.” When such debates fail, it might be time for historical apologetics. A common anti-Catholic narrative posits that early in the life of the Church a "great apostasy" took place. Authentic Christianity, the narrative goes, was restored only sixteen or more centuries later. Does this account of an early falling away from New Testament Christianity bear the scrutiny of history, archeology, and sociology? This talk is an excerpt from the 2019 Catholic Answers Annual Conference.
To learn more about the 2021 Catholic Answers Annual Conference visit:
catholicanswersconference.com

[@Super-chad]

I've never seen a medium so dedicated towards defending the faith of Catholicism so much with great fortitude and aggression. God bless you

[@rc3088]

@YAJUN YUAN you are so sad. Your list is incorrect. Did you copy and paste because you did not research.

[@MarcillaSmith]

Inviting people to pour themselves a glass of whiskey while listening to why there is, and only ever has been one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church has got to be one of the most Catholic things a person can do in this life

[@Super-chad]

Notwithstanding my sidelined position regarding this conversation @YAJUN YUAN as I was not invited, I am curious about the storyline I have seen between yourself and other respondents regarding the authenticity of the scriptural canon confirmed by the Church of Rome. I have made note that not a hint of data surrounds the fact that the other churches that proceeded from the apostles had approved their official canons that included the deuterocanonical and even apocryphal texts in their bibles. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church are just 2 examples of churches that had accepted these books in their canons and from the days of antiquity as well. To be more specific, their canons have more books than the Catholic Church's canon. Hence, I find it ironic that one would refer to the Church's efforts as 'propaganda' when it is obvious that the canons of other churches also regard these books as official. I would like your take on this, as you may know more than I do touching this topic

[@flordelizaguzzan9765]

@@rc3088 An example of a conspiracy theorist, he is.

[@tonyl3762]

@YAJUN YUAN Dude, seriously, you need to read Michuta's two books on this issue. If you don't want to get his books, then find every free video or article that gives details on what he found and wrote in those books, but better to just get the books.

[@robertattaway3119]

Eastern Orthodoxy also believes there was no apostasy. The greatest tragedy in Church history is the Great Schism of 1054 AD. My sincere hope is that it will end ...and that soon.

[@wms72]

Yes, all Catholics and Orthodox should pray for reunion.

[@danielu.4957]

@@wms72 Well, I believe with the recent decision to turn the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, it should be a sign for orthodox to pray for communion with their catholic brothers soon. They should have realized earlier when every patriarchal seat fell under islam: Jerusalem gone, Antioch gone, Alexandria gone, Constantinople was gone actually in 1054, they just realize this now

[@dieselcowboy777]

Both roman catholic and greek orthodox are apostate cults

[@jeremiahong248]

@@dieselcowboy777 Ya right, Satan just doesn't like the Church Jesus founded. Get behind me Satan !

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@danielu.4957 is this the type of propaganda Roman Catholics spread among eachother about the EO? That the 4 great patriarchs “fell under Islam” and therefore is not the true Church? That’s a huge cope for justifying how one patriarch departing from the 5 other ( including Moscow) great patriarchs is somehow the only orthodox and true patriarch left out of Christ’s church. Rather, you guys were the first Protestants

[@dylanarmour6727]

Orthodox here. It’s refreshing to see this topic refuted because the protestants would have the same strawman towards the orthodox.

[@UltraX34]

Love it. Even as a Protestant this argument makes ZERO sense, there never was an apostasy. Folks saying the believe of baptismal Regeneration is the result of the Apostasy is garbage when the earliest church writings post new testament affirm it.

[@silveriorebelo8045]

so, the question is, why are you still protestant? - to recognize what you just said means that you have to adhere to the Catholic Church, or to a Orthodox Church - the Lord will ask you what you have done with your faith, not willing to belong to the way of salvation He gave us in his Church

[@zachpeterson8341]

As does the New Testament itself. Peter is not subtle.

[@reznet2]

Baptism now saves you 👍 yup

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

I am amazed: so many comments here are simply angry protestants who seem not to have listened to the talk at all. Rod is such a charitable presenter, i cannot believe these people have genuine disagreements with him

[@el-sig2249]

He exposed their vanity and psychoanalyzed them with his presentation, that's what makes them more angry :)

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

Tony's a Troll like the rest of them .

[@arvisconti]

Rod Bennett's books The Apostasy That Wasn't and Four Witnesses are fantastic and every Catholic should read them.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Rod, I realize that someone else may have said it, but I said almost exactly that to you at the conference. I wear my shame proudly, sir. Thanks for helping to bring me home.

[@paulhallett1452]

As a cradle Catholic, seeing witnesses to the faith like Rod reminds a.) that charity is persuasive b.) comment sections are not the best place to share the fullness. (Pray for me!)

[@alvinlevy5502]

I'm not a Catholic but I've herd all the so called great Apostecy theories , it's funny how most of the cults make this claim even protestants who realy are just catholic desenters , we know the catholic church is not perfect but it is the historic Apostolic Church.

[@davekushner5340]

His book, "The Apostasy that Wasn't", is excellent. It reads like a novel rather than a historical account.

[@davekushner5340]

@YAJUN YUAN I'm curious, since you appear to be so well informed regarding the early Church fathers. What is your take on the Eucharist (Lamb's Supper)?

[@davekushner5340]

@YAJUN YUAN I agree that it can be taken that way, however I don't see any contradiction from the teaching of the Real Presence. It has to be somewhat spiritual as it is still under the appearance of bread and wine. But, in order for the Eucharist to be greater than the manna in the desert, of which people ate of it and died, the bread of life must be more than just a symbol. Also, Our Lord's language in John chapter 6 leaves very little room for the bread being a symbol. If it were, why would He allow the majority of His followers to leave over a misunderstanding? Don't you think He would have said it's only a symbol? But no, it was the idea of drinking blood and eating flesh that scared them away. The Eucharist is the point of the sacrifice on calvary. In order to complete any sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb must be eaten. If not eaten, the sacrifice is incomplete. If protestants can turn toward any Catholic teaching, it ought to be the Real Presence of Our Lord in the holy Eucharist. It is so important for any Christian to accept. God Bless!

[@mikelopez8564]

@YAJUN YUAN Yajun, there are problems with your lengthy comment. One example is St Jerome’s view of the deuterocanon. He did question their status while translating them because the Jewish rabbis he worked with told him they were not scripture, but he obeyed the Church (specifically Pope Damasus) and included them in his translation. He also changed his view. The Septuagint is the source quoted in the New Testament in the vast majority (like 4 out of 5) times it is quoted.

[@mikelopez8564]

@YAJUN YUAN YAJ, Tobit is deuterocanon and there were six copies in Qumran. But there were copies of first Enoch and Jubilees too. If the Dead Sea scrolls are your standard of canon , why don’t you have those in YOUR Bible?

[@flordelizaguzzan9765]

@@davekushner5340 his research is almost authentic. But beware of a conspiracy theory.

[@captredbeard]

"which church father would you allow to teach..." That's brilliant. Stealing it.

[@tonyl3762]

@YAJUN YUAN Dude, seriously, you need to read Michuta's two books on this issue. If you don't want to get his books, then find every free video or article that gives details on what he found and wrote in those books, but better to just get the books.

[@tonyl3762]

@YAJUN YUAN Would you let Jerome teach at your Church?? Jerome bowed to the authority of the pope and Church on the issue of the canon. Protestants keep citing him, but won't cite his final verdict/decision which was to accept and translate the deuterocanon. In fact, if you read what Jerome actually says on the subject, you’ll quickly realize that he acknowledged his own view as (a) the minority view, (b) opposed to the Church’s view, and (c) possibly wrong, even sinfully so. The best evidence for this comes in his book Against Rufinus. Here’s the context. St. Jerome translated the Vulgate for the pope, at his request. And Jerome submitted to the pope’s authority, including the entire Deuterocanon along with the rest of Scripture. But in his prefaces for some of the books, he noted criticisms that either he, or Jewish friends of his, had against the Greek versions (since by this time the Jews exclusively used the Hebrew version, and rejected the Deuterocanon). For these prefaces, amongst other things, Rufinus attacked him, and Jerome responded. Jerome gets to his explaination of Daniel, and makes it clear that while he doesn’t like that the Catholic version is based on a heretic’s translation, he’s willing to submit to the “judgment of the churches”: "I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. *The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?* But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be." Nota bene: the important thing, in the end, wasn’t whether the Jews used that version (they didn’t), or whether Jerome’s individual reasoning and experience lead him to that conclusion (it didn’t), or even what the standard Greek Septuagint said, but what the Church said. Understand that point, and the entire Deuterocanonical debate is settled. The Church closed the canon long before the Reformation, and no individual Christian (whether Jerome or Luther) has the authority to overrule Her Holy Spirit-protected judgment.

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

@@tonyl3762 You need to write a book , really , I like fiction .

[@tonyl3762]

@@ronaldeglewski3073 You sure do know how to thoroughly engage an argument without resorting to short dismissive remarks. Good job!

[@roseg1333]

Thank you I really really needed to hear this. I have been trying to understand them for years now. This helps a lot. ty 🙏🏼🕊☺️

[@ronboyd9]

The book is a great springboard into the truth concerning Christianity itself.

[@tonyl3762]

Just finished reading the book with the same title as this video. Fantastic read, especially at Christmas time!!

[@dylangrizzle]

Cool talk and video. Keep up the good work and God bless. 😎👍🙏✝️

[@Vidmr2407]

His book, “The apostasy that wasn’t” is excellent and a page turner also.

[@joecastillo8798]

Proud of your work.

[@AJKPenguin]

A talk best served with your favorite morning beverage and some breakfast at dawn. Can also serve with fried chicken, watermelon, potato salad, and sweet tea at dusk.

[@ilonkastille2993]

The best apologetics are ex protestants.

[@GMAAndy333]

So true. And the most angry Protestants are ex Catholics who were poorly catechized.

[@LarryRiedel]

The unfounded and disconcerting polemic against conspiracy theories impugned the content which followed it. The legitimacy of the Catholic Church is resilient to conspiracy theories.

[@EricSaavy]

Every cult begins with their hatred for the Catholic Church, to justify themselves.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

Exactly. It was unnecessary and probably turned a lot of educated seekers away from hearing the second half that is actually interesting.

[@LarryRiedel]

The Reformers were clownshow opportunists and useful idiots, and Papal Infallibility has been used so seldom, and for such innocuous things, that it's never been of any consequence except as a talking point for malcontents and subversives.

[@LarryRiedel]

@Weston S I wasn't hoping to have a discussion. I think you may be referring to what's called Papal "Supremacy" rather than "Infallibility". The main Supremacy issue was about ecclesial authority (in the episcopate), and hasn't been of much consequence in practice as far as dogma, since the Roman and Orthodox churches agree on everything major there.

[@mikelopez8564]

@Christos Kyrios you do know the “reformers” were 400 years before the dogma of papal infallibility was defined, right? Therefore Martin Luther knew nothing of it and not that it would matter, his writings have no authority over Christian belief, with the possible exception of some protestants.

[@MrJoebrooklyn1969]

Ceaser's assassination, Lincoln's assassination, Watergate break in, etc.?

[@OfficialRaddeck]

Such a cool accent! Such a good speech. God bless :-)

[@ironymatt]

The demand for absolute proof is a sign of a guilty mind

[@annakareninnav2427]

2/9 Catholic conference: Present!!! GO BACK TO THE EARLY FATHER AND NAME ONE FATHER THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW TO TEACH IN YOUR CONGREGATION? Taking this with me. Thank you!

[@robca6013]

Clement of Alexandria is considered a heretic by the RCC church but the Eastern church considers him a Saint. . The RCC wouldn't allow Clement of Alexandria to teach at all and likely would have burned him at the stake had the inquisition been going on in his lifetime.

[@michaelt5030]

"He's got an easy accent that'll make you wanna pour a glass of whiskey." *Me, a week into giving up (most) alcohol*: "...*sighs*"

[@RumorHazi]

Good for you!

[@roseg1333]

Praying for you you can do it with God’s help 🙏🏼🕊💕

[@michaelt5030]

@@roseg1333 thanks! I've gotten it much more under control overall now. It was never complete alcoholism, but just a habitual drinking which was noticeably impacting my life. As of now, I mostly just drink at social gatherings, and for special occasions. Not perfect and I can still improve but it's absolutely better. Thank you for your kind words.

[@roseg1333]

@@michaelt5030 No problem 😊 I’m glad things are coming together for you. May God Bless you always 🙏🏼🕊

[@lapacker]

The term "conspiracy theory" in its original, 19th Century usage, was non-pejorative. Today, it's completely used as a pejorative and as a means to ridicule anyone who questions the official story, no matter how ridiculous that story is. So, I looked askance at the first part of this lecture, but decided to persevere. I'm glad I did.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

Agreed. His conclusion is correct about the actual topic of the church, however he is embarrassingly foolish in the first 20minutes.

[@HannahClapham]

Honestly, I thought it was “embarrassingly foolish” all the way through. He wasn’t trying to be serious, was he?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@YAJUN YUAN Hi, Yuan. Thanks for your comment. I'm having trouble working out your underlying thesis, and you might be able to help me. You might be Catholic, challenging your Catholicism as represented in Catholic apologetics. You might be Protestant. You might be Eastern Orthodox. You might be atheist or more broadly a subscriber of a non-Christian worldview. Again, you might be expressing your basis for holding a Canon different from the Catholic Canon, or you might be working to undermine the supposed reasons Catholics are supposed to hold in justification for their subscription of the Catholic Canon, even though the arguments you adduce are not arguments you subscribe as basis for your position.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@YAJUN YUAN Hi, Yuan. Thanks for your reply. I gather from this that your research provided you with reinforcement for the understanding which was already native to you. Having expended such effort, and found such reinforcement, you now seek both to share the fruit of your labours and provide both reinforcement to fellow Protestants and counterarguments to Catholics. Does this accurately represent your position?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@YAJUN YUAN Hi, Yuan. Thanks for your reply. Oh, by the way, my understanding is that the given name in oriental cultures appears after the family name. Feel free to enlighten any misunderstanding I may have in that regard in your case. It's been a while since I have engaged the question of historical arguments related to the canon. Since you have engaged what might be primary research and in any case is certainly secondary research, and have presented your findings in controversy, am I right to suppose that you are also familiar with counterarguments directly challenging your theses, and independent of other lines of argumentation supporting larger canons?

[@aaronadams8166]

This was really good

[@gracianomendoza8671]

Thank you. So beautifully explained. Godbless you brother.

[@gracianomendoza8671]

@YAJUN YUAN doesn't matter all issues with regards to the canon of scripture has been defined by councils not by individuals. Moreover your sources might be biased towards protestant claims. All your attempts to dispute the list has been finally defined so all your or anyone else's accusations may well be just your thoughts. Remember in alk matters the truth and final say is the CHURCH, 1Tim 3:15

[@gracianomendoza8671]

@YAJUN YUAN still it was defined during those councils or synods. When you say council or synod it is the meeting of most bishops and priests or clerics during those times. It was defined in the: 1) Synod of Rome (AD382) headed by Pope Damasus I and St. Jerome. 2) Synod of Carthage (AD397) confirmed by St. Augustine. 3) Because people like you still questioned it it was finally confirmed and declared again in the Council of Trent (1545-1549, 1551-1552, 1562-1563). You know it is only when critics question dogmas or issues does the true church call meetings. So you see it was defined early in AD300s way ahead of your church's existence. So what is the problem there. Your critique doesn't hold water for it is historical that THERE EXISTED A CHURCH WHICH DEFINED ALL THESE AS EARLY AS AD33. Okay! Understood?

[@gracianomendoza8671]

@YAJUN YUAN I still don't understand why you protestants love to look for issues to bash the church. You owe many things to the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic church. The list you showed local or ecumenical all point to a genuine church that has been in existence still you try to defy its authority. Weird really!

[@gracianomendoza8671]

@YAJUN YUANthe Catholic had 22 Church councils. The very first of which was the Council of Jerusalem in AD50, where it was headed by Sts. Peter and Paul. Followed by Council of Nicaea in AD325, Council of Constantinople in AD381. The last waa the Second Vatican Council in AD1962-1965. See there was and a church ever since. That makes all other churches fakes. So what seems to be the problem?

[@gracianomendoza8671]

@YAJUN YUAN how can that be. It seems you have not really read the bible. In Mt 16 Jesus promised He will not desert the church until the end. All AUTHORITY was accorded it to bind and loose. How can it be man-made since to it was sent the advocate, the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, Acts 2. Traditions adhered to by it are church traditions. Human or man-made traditions refer to Mosaic law traditions ar rabbinical traditions which were refuted by Jesus himself. Man-made like offerring bloody sacrifice, circumcision which was changed into baptism, kosher food restrictions, Holy of Holies which was transformed into church sanctuaries and many more. Actually you are the one who have man-made traditions because you follow your pastor's styles. His wrong interpretations and teachings. Those are what you call man-made because they do not have the authority in all these. The church is the bullwark of truth, 1Tim 3:15.

[@TD-bq5bo]

Modern Judaism, what Henry Ford was against, is definitely NOT "Christianity B.C.".

[@rhwinner]

Are y'all bigots or just ignorant? I pray the latter.

[@jerryczarski5991]

"I love you. We will be one. OH! I feel different now. We will divorce." Not what Jesus said! Correction and forgiveness are the ways the Church has developed over the years, and we are still one.

[@Rabbitron]

5:08 I love that

[@romasliv]

What you guys think of eastern orthodoxy, do you guys think it's a true church?

[@koppite9600]

Any church without communion with St Peter's basilica treat it with suspicion.

[@katiedid8192]

Yes the Orthodox Church is part of the true Church. We believe that the church is in schism and hope one day to unite.

[@robca6013]

The eastern church introduced false dogmas just as the Western church introduced their own false dogmas. The iconography, etc. of the eastern church is not "Biblical" and neither is the proclaiming of "saints" that are prayed to , infant baptism , etc. "Biblical" .

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

The Catholic Church recognizes their orders and therefore sacraments as being valid and is trying to reunify with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

[@ronboyd9]

Rod, I think you have a chance of getting at the bottom of all this.

[@kapurtsangma970]

Wow it's beautiful words, then what is Catholicism means, what language is, who named it. because Antioch show Christian not Catholics

[@silveriorebelo8045]

how deep your reasoning!! - I am really amazed by that

[@mikelopez8564]

Catholic is from Greek “Katholikos”, meaning universal or according to the whole. The first time we see it in print is in St Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnians AD 107. Ironically, Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch. He wrote this letter and several others while in custody on his way to Rome to be martyred.

[@kapurtsangma970]

According to your words is insignificant for me and others non Christian who born you told other Christians roughly OK but you not love your neighbors, what Jesus commended

[@derickharman9820]

lol I like sasquatch chronicles also mr bennet😎

[@ryanm6247]

27:00

[@homescholed]

Are you a conspiracy denier? What else would you call it when Judas went to the chief priest to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3-6)?

[@rhwinner]

For such an intelligent speaker he sure attracted a lot of ignoramuses to this comment section...just saying. ;)

[@Nunyadbiz212]

What is it going to take to stop bickering amongst each other and stand up to the common enemy, which is now at our gates?

[@silveriorebelo8045]

any unity with protestants is not possible - protestants don't lose any occasion to charicature and smear the catholic faith, and they don't stop doing it because they have great success at bullying and disparage poor catholics who end up in their chapels of sectarians...

[@mikelopez8564]

If you are ready to quit bickering then come home to the Church, Robert.

[@hennessyblues4576]

21:28 Finally gets to the point of the video. This guy has been rambling on about pointless B.S. for the first 20 minutes, that I was feeling like turning him off. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. It's just that, someone should've walked up there and whispered into the man's ear "Let's move it along here pal, let's give everyone the info they paid to come here for. The horderves in the banquet room are getting cold. " I say this as a fellow Catholic.

[@ST-ov8cm]

The first 20 minutes he was setting up a general understanding of conspiracy theory which was essential to the talk.

[@hennessyblues4576]

@@ST-ov8cm Why was it necessary for him to do that for half of the time of the speech? I can see him spending about five minutes on the moon landing as well as the flat earthers. After that, it should've ended and the point of the speech should've began. Half of the entire video is him talking about conspiracy theories. I think we all get the point. What we want, is the actual point of why we're here. Maybe he promised everyone a near hour speech, and couldn't come up with anything else. So he just used that as a filler.

[@30JLETO]

I agree, he could’ve done it in 10 minutes

[@Mr.mallaer]

I agree that he is one of those who rumble on endlessly. I find this to be the case with most intellectuals, and most books contain 90% rumbling and 10% actual useful content.

[@Mr.mallaer]

I could sum up conspiracy theories in less than two minutes without losing any of the essential content. He kept repeating same idea dozens of times without adding anything new or interesting.

[@30JLETO]

Does he ramble in his book too? I’m hesitant about buying it.

[@John_Fisher]

Hi Devin. As much as I like Bennett, I get the complaint about 'rambling', the first 25 minutes or so just kinda doesn't go anywhere while mentioning various ideas of why many other modern positions don't have history on their side but the Catholic Church does. I can't speak about the more recent book, Scripture Wars, as I haven't read it yet. But I will say, "The Apostasy That Wasn't" and the earlier "Four Witnesses" are two excellent books that don't have this problem - they get straight to the point of walking through history to show how the Church was authentically Catholic from the beginning and never underwent a 'falling away' that needed to be 'restored' by a reformer.

[@helenr.2184]

Book is excellent.

[@tonyl3762]

Books are well organized and worth it.

[@garystanfield2274]

ANY OF YOU WHO THINK THAT YOU ARE GREAT SCHOLARS OUT THERE. REVELATION 12:8 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. ANSWER THIS QUESTION TAKEN FROM THE ABOVE VERSE. WHEN IS THE ONLY TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY THAT SATAN COULD DECEIVE THE WHOLE WORLD? I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER OR ANSWERS.

[@MariaGarcia-el6ph]

I am by no means a biblical scholar. But I would say that Genesis Chapter 3 is about the time the great liar began his battle against mankind.

[@garystanfield2274]

@@MariaGarcia-el6ph The only time in human history that Satan could deceive the whole world is from the 4th century with Constantine who killed off the last of the Elect of Yahweh Messiah with the 11th Roman Emperor persecution to the coming Papacy's 7-Year Peace Plan to end WW3. This is when the truth will be taught again and salvation once again be available to mankind.

[@robca6013]

The narrator would be saying that the original Apostles were "conspiracy theorists" when they told that the original Church was falling apart under both internal and external pressures. Paul for one prophesies of a "Falling Away " which translates to a "civil war" and that is found in among other places as Acts 20 : 29I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them. ... . ... 2 Thessalonians 2 : 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU BY ANY MEANS : FOR THAT DAY SHALL NOT COME, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST , and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; ///// John the Revelator foresaw that an angel would come to RESTORE the Gospel to the earth and so YES there was a Falling Away that was foretold, and that restoration of the Gospel would be brought about by an "angel flying in Heaven". . Revelation 14 : 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. ..... SO whom should we believe.... People that deny aFalling Away/ Great Apostacy has happened or the "Bible" that foretells that both a Falling Away /Great Apostacy would happen ( Paul described it as happening in his lifetime in Acts 20. ) which eventually would be followed by the Gospel being restored before Jesus would return ( "mainline "churches preach that angelic visits and prophets, etc. had ceased with the original Apostles. Ephesians 4 : 11 , etc. shows that Apostles are necessary for the "work of the ministry". Popes and Cardinals ,etc. are NOT mentioned. ) . .

[@ohwhataday7171]

LOL, of course the mention of popes is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible came into existence in the late 300’s AD. Monks, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided to compile writings before all was lost. Scripture does say what Jesus to Peter that he is the rock. Peter was the first pope ( -67). Then Linus (67-76), Anaceltus (76-88), Clement (88-97), Evaristuss (97-105), Alexander I (105-115), Sixtus I (115-125), Telesphorus (125-136), Hyginus (136-140), Pius I (140-155), Anicetus (155-166), Souter (166-175), Eleutherius (175-189), Victor I (189-199), Zephyrinus (199-217), Callistus I (217-222), Urban I (222-230), Pontianak (230-235), Anterus (235-236), Fabian (236-250), Cornelius (251-253), Lucius (253-254), Stephen I (254-257), Sixtus II (257-258), Dionysus (259-268), Felix I (269-274), Eutychian (275-283), Camus (283-296), Marcellinus (296-304), Marcellus I (308-309), Eusebius (309? - 310?), Meltiades (311-314), Sylvester I (314-335), Marcus (336-336), Julius I (337-352), Liberius (352-366), Damascus I (366-384), Siricius (384-399), with 225 additional popes to present day. That’s 2000 years of succession of popes and traditions. Remember in the early church, not everyone knew how to read and write, so teachings were spoken. No other church in the history of the world has what the Catholic has. Remember everything starts with a small beginning.

[@MariaGarcia-el6ph]

Hi. I would point out that there were many heresies that sprang up against the early church, such as Arianism, Docetism, Gnosticism, etc. There are historical lists that go on an on of all the heresies that came up against the true apostolic teachings. And the Church defended against every one of them and continue teaching and preaching as per the Apostlic teaching and tradition. To this day, sadly, there are countless heretical teachings against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith.

[@paulkiernan2632]

A Protestant church pastor told me Jesus did not found a Spirit led Church. I realise he must assert this in order to deny Catholic appologetics. But isn't the bible very clear on that much? That Jesus founded a Spirit Led Church. Do you know passages that show that Zjedus did indeed promise US A Spirit led Church?

[@dieselcowboy777]

Yea and it was a Pentecostal non trinitarian church that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem.....not in the trinity of titles

[@rightlydividing7607]

Why do Catholics use a Bible to defend their beliefs, when they don’t even believe a perfect inerrant bible exists today?

[@mikelopez8564]

@@dieselcowboy777 Matthew 28:19 are the words of Jesus. 18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. ... [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ... [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Follow Him and not your man made religion leaders.

[@dieselcowboy777]

@@mikelopez8564 yep....and the name of the father, son , and holy ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ.... They early church knew that and that's why they always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

[@Katholikos78]

@@dieselcowboy777 nope. The Church baptized in the name of the Trinity. See the Didache for clarification.

[@warrix8312]

Half of this video is whining about totally unrelated conspiracy theories. We get it.

[@JTCBR]

No.. oriental orthodox doesn't equate other xians with apostasy. Even eastern orthodox for that matter.

[@kolbybrown7722]

If there was no apostasy why are we missing scripture? Such as "the covenant(Ex. 24:7),the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14),Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41),Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29),Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29),Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15),Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13:22), Jehu(2 Chr. 20:34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19), Enoch (Jude 1:14) This is evidence that God had a lot more scripture outside of the Bible and, or, revelations. Why aren't those revelations just as important as what's in the bible? Also, did God fail because we're missing Books? Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it." It sounds like a worldwide apostasy not one during the time of John the Baptist. The Israelites didn't go from sea to Sea seeking the word of the Lord. A prophecy says that there will be an apostasy before Christ comes again, "...THE DAY of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day SHALL NOT COME, except there come a FALLING AWAY FIRST..." (2Thessalonians 2:2-3) "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:-3-4 Revelations 14:6 "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the EVERLASTING GOSPEL to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," John is saying that an angel who had the EVERLASTING GOSPEL, which implies that the fullness of the gospel is not on the earth during his time. The same with Matthew 17-11, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Elija came to Joseph and Oliver Cowdrey who witnessed the event. These verses above have implications of a restoration. Why is there a need for a restoration if there is no apostasy? In these next verses, it is going to use the word 'dispensation' which means, "the act of dealing out to different persons or places...the dealings of God to his creatures..."(1828 Websters Dictionary) "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That IN the DISPENSATION OF THE FULLNESS OF TIME he might gather together, in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." (Ephesians 1:7-10) Now verse 10 above is talking about a period of time when His kingdom will have the fullness of all dispensations at one place in time. Remember, Dispensation: "the act of dealing out to different persons or places " And the verse is obviously talking about the future because He says that "he might gather together," which means it hasn't happened yet. Now all the power and blessings from all those dispensations are now located in one dispensation. That was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. "And speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God...they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore AGAIN the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:3, Acts 1:6-7 If you noticed, it used the word "again" which shows that God has restored his kingdom before. And then he says there is another one. Why is there something to restore if there was no apostasy to come? "he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heavens must receive until the times of RESTITUTION of all things." Why is there a need for a restitution of all things if there is was no apostasy? Acts 3:21

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

Also add in the End Times Book of Enoch directly quoted or alluded to over 200 times in the NT. More than any other Old Testament book.

[@mikelopez8564]

A short answer is the Holy Spirit did not move the Church to include it. The masoretic text doesn’t have it and the Septuagint doesn’t either. Doesn’t mean you can’t read it though

[@silveriorebelo8045]

we didn't go to the moon... his argument about the thousands who worked for the Apollo project is ridiculous...

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

Yeah this [insert not so charitable descriptor here] apparently didn't get the memo that Satan is "the god of this world"...you know, the "father of LIES"....total laughable conspiracy theory though let me tell ya....hyuck, hyuck, hyuck

[@rhwinner]

You're ignorant.

[@francissweeney7318]

So the evil if the catholic inquisitions is a conspiracy theory. God disagrees with catholics, He says so in His Word. Catholism warranted an entire chapter in The Book ot The Revelation of Jesus Christ. In chapter 17, Jesus prophesied the future of catholicism.

[@joecastillo8798]

@francissweeney Francis, You mean your biased interpretations? Remember what our Lord promised: "I am with you always, even to the end of times". I don't see any other time. Do you?

[@francissweeney7318]

@@joecastillo8798 Jesus only deals with His sheep, those who hear His voice. Your loyalty to an apostate organization is evidence that you are best described as a goat. Jesus has different plans for any goats. Ignore His prophesy in chapter 17 and ignore your organzations actions in their Inquistions as you see fit.

[@joecastillo8798]

@@francissweeney7318 Francis, First, you must believe our Lord's promise: MATHEW 16:17-18 17. And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. How long would Jesus remain with His Church? ▪︎MATTHEW 28:20 20. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even TO THE END OF THE AGE." Guess who is the only Church that has been in the world for 2,000 years? Let's see what a reputable independent organization says in their research: THIS IS WHAT THE BBC SAYS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ▪︎The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. It can trace its history back almost 2000 years. Today there are more than a billion Catholics in the world, spread across all five continents with particular concentrations in southern Europe, the United States, the Philippines and the countries of Central and South America. What binds this diverse group of people together is their faith in Jesus Christ and their obedience to the papacy. Catholics believe that the Pope, based in Rome, is the successor to Saint Peter whom Christ appointed as the first head of His church. He therefore stands in what Catholicism calls the apostolic succession, an unbroken line back to Peter and his supreme authority. Popes can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals but, in practice, do so rarely. So far, our Lord has been with His Catholic Church since 33AD for almost 2,000 years and counting. You might as well believe the facts. Don't you think? May God bless your discernment.

[@Mr.mallaer]

What’s with all the comedy?

[@RumorHazi]

Rod Bennett is brilliant and you should read his books.

[@charnelallan7159]

Stop trying to rewrite history

[@GuyEndore]

Luther and Calvin were not conspiracy theorists.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Luther said things like that he is the enemy of the Book of James and had writings that said things like Jesus committed adultery with Mary Magdalene. Madness

[@annelid4728]

Shame on you for attacking Henry Ford. He was right.

[@rhwinner]

I pray you're not Catholic

[@annelid4728]

@@rhwinner Your prayers have been heard. I am a recovering neoprotestant looking for a church that is willing to take me, catholic or orthodox, both fine for me. I will have to keep my ideas to myself because of your ilk. Unless I am asked about them, in which case I will truthfully answer. Henry Ford was right. And you are wrong. Probably an ok person wishing to do what is right, but still wrong.

[@sevenswords8781]

15 minutes and I've had enough bye

[@RumorHazi]

Bye

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

Thank God there will no Catholics nor Protestants in Heaven……….only true believers in Christ Jesus, who fill their hearts with Gods Word and not with arguments and striving about religious orders……..the only thing that will matter is what did u do with Jesus.

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

@@TempleHolyFathercm like I said only one thing matters do u know God.......

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

@@TempleHolyFathercm cults usually have robes , hierarchies exclusivities , errors, secrets , false claims, and a top dog that has his ring kissed by all his followers........there is so much more.........that's why for the sake of your soul you had better be sure you know God and that He knows you.........

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

@@TempleHolyFathercm Nobody said anything about those things but… The true predictions are in the book of Revelation where the harlot who sits on many waters and has a golden cup in her hand who sits on a city on seven hills [is that Rome?] whose priests wear scarlet.......that should give u much to consider if u r a true seeker and not blind and drunk with the wine of the harlot......Rev 17 & 18. Your screen name.....there is only one that is Holy and to be addressed as Father and He is God and not a man. What do woman and prostitute mean in scripture.....or waters......it should be rather simple to an avid reader like you. I pray u make it to the resurrection of the rightoues.

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

@@TempleHolyFathercm you tell me what my references mean ......

[@theendofallthingsisuponus1575]

@@TempleHolyFathercm he who is so confident he stands beware lest he fall.......1 cor. 10.12. You have deflected all I have said. ...not giving it any real consideration.......waste of my time.......all u care to do is defend your religious order .....u r not looking for truth....u already think u know it all and have arrived. U want to argue..... Sayonara.

[@HannahClapham]

I would pretty much let every single one of the Apostolic Fathers preach at my church. There’s absolutely NOTHING distinctively Roman Catholic in any of them. (Many, many Protestants accept the Real Presence. Many accept baptismal regeneration. So those are not RC distinctives. What you WON’T find in the AF is any example of purgatory or the papacy or Marian devotion or the invocation of saints. Not one.

[@fantasia55]

Apostolic Fathers were Catholic priests. Would you let them celebrate Mass at your church?

[@hanssvineklev648]

⁠@@fantasia55. The Apostolic Fathers were basically Catholic, yes…though orthodoxy wasn’t totally fixed and communications between them was hit or miss. But they were CATHOLIC-not Roman Catholic-and, as far as we can tell, they didn’t believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Magisterial Protestantism is also Catholic (and we say as much). We believe we are actually MORE Catholic than Roman Catholics, not less. From my studies of the early church, I’d say we are FAR more Catholic. You guys are also-rans!

[@fantasia55]

@@hanssvineklev648 The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants, as an insult.

[@hanssvineklev648]

@@fantasia55 1. Plenty of Roman Catholics use it themselves, so it must not be terribly derogatory. I have seen literally hundreds of parishes that are labeled “St. So-and-So’s Roman Catholic Church.” 2. What would you rather I title the Roman-centered church? I still use “Catholic” in order to be nice (though your church is clearly NOT catholic nor holy…nor apostolic…nor one.)

[@fantasia55]

@@hanssvineklev648 Protestants invented the term to deny the universality claimed by the word Catholic.

[@dieselcowboy777]

The majority of Christian churches in early history were non trinitarians.....not trinitarians Most of the early Christian martyrs were non trinitarians

[@dieselcowboy777]

@Prasanth Thomas and just like all trinitarians you don't understand matthew 28:19.....you are misinterpreting matthew 28:19... Jesus christ did not intend for you to take his words literally and baptize in the trinity of titles nonsense... Jesus christ said to baptize in the Name of.... Father and Son and holy ghost are not names and it is not the Name Jesus Christ wanted you to be baptized in.... The name of the Father is the Lord Jesus Christ and the name of the Son is the Lord Jesus Christ and the name of the holy ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ.... The disciples understood this and that is why they obeyed matthew 28:19 by always baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ not in the trinity of titles hogwash....

[@dieselcowboy777]

@Prasanth Thomas that is true.....tertulian said that the majority of the Christian churches in the west were non trinitarians.... And origen of Alexandria said the majority of Christian churches in the east were non trinitarians.... This was 200 years after ....but because of the antichrists known as tertulian and hypolytus and origen of Alexandria....they began to change the view of godhead to the trinitarian lie Most of the non trinitarians held to their Christian faith of non trinity even in the face of martyrdom by catholic trinitarian demons

[@dieselcowboy777]

@Prasanth Thomas early church history is just as warped as all the false catholic teachings.... They wrote history to deceive you to think their garbage is true....wake up... God sent mass Pentecostal revivals during the 1940s and 50s and 60s so we could see what the genuine church looked like.....God restored the church and truth that Catholicism corrupted for the past 1700 years.... God founded at Pentecostal non trinitarian church that baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ and follows the way of holiness in Jerusalem....that's why we had a Pentecostal non trinitarian church that baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ and follows the way of holiness here at the end time similar to the first....

[@dieselcowboy777]

@Prasanth Thomas because you will never become born again by being baptized in the trinity of titles....you will remain dead in your trespasses and sins and never have them remitted.... The only way to have your sins remitted and become born again is by obeying being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.....

[@dieselcowboy777]

@Prasanth Thomas and it's not modalism....it's called the godhead which you obviously never will understand... Modalism was a scarecrow term conchocted by false catholic trinitarians

[@rightlydividing7607]

The facts and evidence provided in the book Babylon Mystery Religion, destroys all of this man’s opinions.

[@robertlehnert4148]

And of course, you'll say author Ralph Woodrow was forced by the Catholic Church OR secretly became Catholic, when after a Lutheran reader pointed out the Historical nonsense of Alexander Hislop's _The Two Babylons_ (which _Babylon Mystery Religion_ was a modern and better written representation) Woodrow did far better research than before, stopped publication of the very popular BMR and wrote another book, _The Babylon Connection?_ refuting his first book and Hislop in detail all while remaining an Evangelical Protestant. But you have, like any conspiracist, have your dismissal of those facts already in place.

[@rightlydividing7607]

@Prasanth Thomas Deuteronomy 8:3 + Matthew 4:4 + Luke 4:4 ___________ 16:11 A.V KJB Revelation 17:3-5 King James Version 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. Who’s the only country, kingdom, institution, etc in the world that exalts a woman and is represented by a golden cup?

[@rightlydividing7607]

@Prasanth Thomas Since Jesus is the word and y’all put him in bread, y’all deny his word. Isaiah 44:15 King James Version 15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

[@rightlydividing7607]

@Prasanth Thomas John 6:63 King James Version 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. The priest forgot to show you the context. If you’re honest, you know the bread Jesus had in his hands wasn’t his physical literal body because he was still physically literally in front of them.

[@rightlydividing7607]

@Prasanth Thomas When two priests simultaneously proclaim to have the physical literal body of Christ, which one truly has it? Can’t be both because there’s no schism in the body. 1 Corinthians 12:25-27 King James Version 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Since I’m saved and part of His body, how do I taste? Jesus never found the Catholic Church because the church is his body. Ephesians 1:22-23 King James Version 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

[@antiscientism3665]

I am a devout catholic and flat earther(not flat earth society)because the holy bible is flat earth book, and because of speaker mockery 👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼

[@michaelbaumert4501]

When Elon makes space travel affordable, you should test your theory out. You may come a-round.

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

Yes. Correct. The Bible IS a flat earth book. There's no way around it. The entire idea of a flat earth model CAME FROM THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES! Even the ancient Hebrews illustrated the flat earth model proving they didn't take the Scriptures figuratively but literally when the Bible is describing the earth.

[@mikelopez8564]

@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 that is just your interpretation. Since your interpretation is at odds with demonstrable fact, you may want to consider viewing the text in a different way.

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

@@mikelopez8564 This is also the interpretation of all the Church fathers so "my" interpretation is actually theirs.

[@Katholikos78]

@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 nope. The Greeks knew Earth was spherical before Jesus was even born. All the earliest Fathers spoke Greek and knew this as well. 🤦‍♂️