Did church councils give us the Bible?

[@hjc1402]

For everyone wondering This is what the council of Nicea was about: the leading bishops in Christendom at the time unanimously agreed that Jesus was divine. The discussion was not IF Jesus was divine, but HOW. A problem came up with Arius, a senior clergy member of Alexander’s, the archbishop of Alexandria in Egypt. Arius believed that Jesus was the first creation of the Father and then Jesus created all other things, much like Jehovah’s witnesses believe today. Arius was going around teaching this heretic belief and causing divisions among Christians. Constantine was striving for imperial unity and wanted this matter to be settled, not caring about the theological implications. So at the request of Constantine, about 300 bishops came together in Egypt led by Alexander to publicly refute Arius. It was not to discuss and decide upon the belief of Jesus’ identity, but to write down the already unanimous belief. It was also not about choosing the canon. A formal statement was put together and signed by the bishops. Only two bishops of the 300 declined to sign the statement, taking Arius’ side instead. This event was documented in history. It is an established fact. No where in any of the documents or recordings of this event mention anything about choosing the canon. So many myths and rumors circulate about it and people tend to just repeat what they’ve heard without any further research. It’s easy for anyone to just say “oh it was about the canon, or this or that” But for anyone who’s actually studied church history seriously, it’s easy to know this.

[@Issoirre]

It is of more than passing relevance that the Nicene creed proclaimed christ as being the absolute equal of God when Christ himself said he was not.

[@hjc1402]

bradcah1966 the nicene creed is completely based on scripture.

[@jasonclements400]

Nailed it

[@MrSilus2000]

You’re talking with certainty about what they discussed like you were actually there. Just be honest. You’re just trying to sell your opinion and you have no issues with lying in order to do so.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Silus there’s been books written on what they discussed so it’s not something unknown

[@Unknown_Disciple_Of_Christ]

The main reason for the meeting of Nicaea 325 was to discuss the heresy taught by Arius of Alexandria

[@Flagrum3]

@jbraxton11 -But wait, Dan Brown said there was alot more then that! ; )

[@MrSilus2000]

Arius was the good guy. But the church politicians buried him and his work, and sullied his name.

[@Flagrum3]

@Silus - More diabolically ignorant words I have never heard. Arius was a heretic plane and simple, a worker of satan.

[@maferr6404]

@@Flagrum3 Athanasius was the good guy defended again Arius, Appolinarus, and Nestor I believe and maybe the Gnostics too.

[@Flagrum3]

@Mark Ferraiolo - Didn't Jesus once say; No man is good before God?

[@fernandop1]

ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE by Dr. Yattenciy Bonilla Early church fathers such as Clement of Rome & Ignatius of Antioch quote several gospels and epistles in the 1st century (meaning that gospel and letters already existed), but the collection of the Biblical canon begin within the first 2 centuries because there were several books around houses considered inspired without been authorized, and possible heresies could arise such as Marcion did, by which he form part of the first canon by considering inspired the "Gospel of Luke" and "ten Paul's epistles", Marcion didn't want to take the other gospels and other global epistles (including Revelation) because Marcion was angry with Jews thinking that the God of the Old Testament was a revenge God and everything that had Jews influence needs to be discard. Then the early church and holy preachers step in and this scrutinizing process took 6 centuries. Since there were around about 50 books of all sorts to choose from (such as Apollo's epistles, a different gospel of Matthew, Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas, The Diageo Didache was part of the inspired books that didn’t make it into the Bible), it was so complicated that the pilgrimage begun and to find out which books were inspired and which ones weren't, they used 3 different tests in which they end up selecting the 27 books of the New Testament: *1. That they were directly from an apostle or an apostolic origin (eyewitness) or someone that knew an eyewitness. *2. That all the books have a theological consistency or same theological root. *3. That the books had ecclesiastic usage and that it has an authority by the church (that the book was used before as authentic by church fathers (meaning apostle's disciples (2nd generation))). It was such a great scrutinized job by which the first councils only canonize 20 books in the first 4 centuries and 7 didn't qualify yet (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, James & Revelation), Revelation didn't make it until the council of Toledo. The first 20 book are known as the protocanonical books of the New Testament and last 7 books are consider deuterocanonical books of the New Testament. The book of Revelation was a conflicted book to make it because it was hard to understand. The first 20 books already approved by the council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and their files were open to considering the rest of the books since the early church was fascinated by Revelation, by the book of James for the social work, Hebrew for the high priesthood of Christ. So the Hippo council took those as a possibility until the 3rd council of Carthage (397 A.D. (in Africa)) 6 more books were incorporated except Revelation until the 4th council of Carthage (419 A.D) finally made it (and the Alexandrian Canon (73 books) was officially accepted) but discomfort still existing, but those books still stumble until a more radical council, the 4th council of Toledo (633 A.D.) in Spain was presided by a great theologian Isidore of Seville, finally with him the canon was closed and the Alexandrian Canon was accepted, and they state that he who reject Revelation or James, will be considered anathema and will be excommunicated from the church. Then the Orthodox Church (Greek Church) approve it in the Quinisext Council ((Council of Trullo) 692 A.D.) approved the 27 books. The texts were so scrutinized that it went from Rome all the way from the Mediterranean Sea down to the Alexandria Egypt, all agreeing to an infinitesimal degree. That is why we have the Hebrew Canon (66 books) and the Alexandrian canon (73 books). That which some people call Catholic Bible (in reality is call Alexandrian canon) were apocryphal books from "Greek spoken Jews adding to the Tanakh after the council of Jamnia finish it, then conservative Hebrew spoken Jews reject them because they had a Greek influence. But those apocryphal books became the deuterocanonical book (second canon) of the Old Testament because they were really precious books that the deuterocanonical book such as the book Maccabees is consider by Jews not just historical but also a miracle because if Jews didn’t survive the time of Hanukkah, it wouldn’t be Christianity because Greeks were determined to exterminate the Jews and God rise Judas Maccabees and provoke an impressive rebellion, it was a clash between truth and Greek philosophical influence, so any Jews that doesn’t read Maccabees will not understand what is the Hanukkah and there is Spiritual richness among the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Even Peter mention Paul's letters in (2 Peter 3:16) as reliable. But the Bible is the most compelling collection of books from over 1500 years of textual scrutiny with over 5200 pieces of manuscripts, the Bible is not even close to being considered "corrupted". Nicea has NOTHING to do with the origin of the Bible. The only councils involved for the development of the Biblical canon were the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.), the 3rd council of Carthage (397 A.D. (in Africa)), 4th council of Carthage (419 A.D), 4th council of Toledo (633 A.D.) in Spain was presided by a great theologian Isidore of Seville. Then the Orthodox Church (Greek Church) approve it in the Quinisext Council ((Council of Trullo) 692 A.D.).

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

FernandoP1 - Art Zone Productions Thank you for supporting the deuterocanon. They led me to Jesus.

[@dinopad10]

Exactly correct!

[@jerrytang3146]

Therefore the Bible was complied by the Catholic Church. Truth!

[@fernandop1]

@@jerrytang3146 -Of course, but the Orthodox church wasn't as evolved with all these different doctrines as it is nowadays with purgatory, indulgences, immaculate conception, etc. that wasn't part of the early church. I mean, those are not doctrines that will save or condemn a believer, but just unnecessary. Blessings

[@AbsolutelyRatastic]

The council of Jamnia never happened, and even if it did the rabbinic jews were apostates in the eyes of God, they would have no authority for christian biblical canon, as they betrayed christ and persecuted his mystical body on earth, his followers.

[@MarquisFacade88]

Yes, the Catholic Church canonized the books in the council of Hippo then ratified in the council of Carthage.

[@steveparks2976]

I've always thought of the council of Nicea as confirming a lot of what believers already believed. The letters of the apostles had already been spread throughout the churches and were already accepted. The people in Rome, I think, just wanted to put their stamp of approval on it.

[@mosesking2923]

That is incorrect. First, many Church Fathers believed certain books to be canonical (Didache, the letter of Clement, letter of Barnabas, etc.) and many thought that some books were false (Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation were all doubted). Ultimately, no single Church Father has the authority to decide that. Only councils do (Like the Council of Jerusalem deciding on circumcision). As such, the biblical canon was decided in 382 at the council of ROme by Pope Damasus I.

[@MartTLS]

Moses King So if they doubted certain books how did they know that the ones which were accepted were inspired by god ? In other words the only reason those books are in the bible is because men and not a god decided that they were genuine .

[@steveparks2976]

@@mosesking2923 there were churches that existed outside of Rome, friend, and to be honest I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church was the original church.

[@steveparks2976]

@@MartTLS I believe God preserved his word just as he preserves a remnant of his people for every generation. God didn't need the church council of Nicea to prove his word to be true. It was already true.

[@ZeddicusTheMage]

@@mosesking2923 Ah, the kid troll is spreading more nonsense.

[@alexandermuniz6118]

I got a question wasn't the Catholic Church the First Christian Church because all the information that I look and the history says that is the Catholic Church

[@iamservant8016]

Facts.the catholic church is the first Christian church.

[@1smallstep]

No, it was the catholic church It was one body (catholic) under the headship of Christ. Because of geographical separation, a shortage of rail transport, and a hard time getting reception on the cell phone this church was divided up into regions of control; if I recall correctly Jerusalem, Syria, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. After the collapse of the western half of Rome, Justinian's attempts to reconquer the West, plague, wars with Persia, and the Muslims moving into the power vacuum, the first three were gradually weaken and the last two took control. Their respective bishops then began to argue about which one was greater and which groups traditions should be used, leading to the Great Schism of 1054. Now the Roman Catholic Church claims that the early church was them while the Orthodox church claims it was them. Also, note the names - Catholic (we are the whole body) and Orthodox (we are right). Of course, is their any Biblical basis to their claims of authority? Well... no. *Sigh* Now I'm probably going to get screamed at by a bunch of angry Catholics for questioning their authority. Maybe I should make myself some comment response Bingo cards, see how long it takes for them to say the things I suspect they will say.

[@TheB1nary]

@@1smallstep I see what you did there: no Biblical authority for the Orthodox position (which is the oldest claim), but there is for your own ;)

[@1smallstep]

@@TheB1nary And what is my own position? Pretty sure I did not state it since the specific question related to the position of the church. Also what do you mean by Orthodox position? Do you mean the position of the Orthodox church? I'm not trying to be belligerent here; I could take your statement two ways, just as I could take the assertion of O. G.O.D. two ways; is he echoing what I said or is he forgetting to capitalize? Very confusing. This is why I distinguished between Catholic and catholic then moved to saying Roman Catholic Church or RCC for short - so that it was clear whom I was talking about. Clearly that is not the oldest claim. The oldest claim you will see (sort of) is Jerusalem because that is where the Apostles and first elders met in council. After that it passed to the individual churches who would come together in the major city of their district to discuss things but they were not really claiming primacy (which is why I said sort of) because Christ is the head of the church so how could a mere man have primacy? As I understand it, when it was first debated on should Rome or Constantinople be considered prime during one of the attempts to split imperial administration between the two cities both bishops rejected it. Why? Because authority in the church should not hinge on secular authority. It should not be emperor lives in Rome, Roman bishop is prime, emperor lives in Constantinople, Constantinople bishop is prime, emperor moves to Milan or Ravenna, primacy moves. No, Christ is the head of the church and we should seek His will. When there is an area of confusion then His people should come together and discuss it, praying, consulting Scripture, and looking at how God is acting in the situation. This is how it was done in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15; Peter did not say "Hey, I'm an important apostle, we do it my way!" Paul did not say "No, I'm the Apostle to the Gentiles, we do it my way!" and James did not say "No, I'm the half brother of Jesus and the head of the church here in Jerusalem, we do it MY way!" No, Peter gave his testimony, Paul gave his testimony, the Judaizers gave their view, the issue was discussed and prayed over and they let God guide their answer about what God required of the Gentile believers. So I make no claim of authority, I look to what Scripture says. And when my view conflicts with Scripture I'm the one that needs to change which is why I abandoned the position I held for the first 29 years of my life and left the RCC.

[@timpoiu]

Believers in Jesus Christ were first called Christians at Antioch. The first Gentile church was founded in Antioch, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians Acts 11:19-26. It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys. There was no Roman Christians at this time. So no Roman Catholic Church. At this time they did not pray to mary , have rosarys, do pennace, or buy indulgences from Peter. So the Roman Catholic church of today looks nothing like the original Christianity. But they did believe that salvation was a gift of God , paid for by Jesus on the cross. And that you cannot work for a gift. Read Romans chapter 4

[@Christopher_TheFool]

What is the purpose of councils? Simply to resolve issues. From a theological standpoint are councils bad? No actually, a prime example of a council is mention in acts 15 where the disciples got together and resolved the issue then. So if it’s something the disciples have done, why would it be a problem if the successors of the apostles did the same thing?

[@xander4043]

The issue is that the early church not only officially confirmed the New Testament at early church councils, but also the Old Testament canon in which the seven books that Protestants conflict with were included.

[@TheSonnygandara]

Actually this girl is right. The councils were indeed over the canonization of the Bible. The fact is this professor doesn’t want to admit that it was indeed the Church who determined what books were chosen for the New Testament. It was the Catholic Church. All early church Fathers acted like Catholics if you read there letters you’ll see for yourself. Especially there view on Mary, Salvation, and The Holy Eucharist. In fact this is one of the reasons that led to my conversion to Catholicism. As much as I didn’t want to believe it the truth is it was the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible. Ask any non catholic the question where did we get the Bible and see what kind of answer you will get. The only answer they can give you is “early church fathers “ yes but don’t forget to mention they were all Catholic. And that does make a huge difference. If it wasn’t the Catholic Church then which church was it?

[@xander4043]

I agree with you.

[@zangiefromanov2563]

Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles nor any of the men who penned the scriptures were catholics. Jesus nor the apostles taught catholicism. But they did warn of false apostles, false teachers, false prophets, teaching false doctrines and false gosples entering the church trying to establish themselves as an authority trying to lead Christ followers astray. You say early church fathers, yet Jesus said call no man father. You say they had the same view on Mary and eucharist, isn't that proof of pauls warning that they had already entered into the church and had begun misleading? Antichrist was working to establish himself over Christ's followers, don't you think he would want control over scripture and doctrine? God forbid. If the catholic church was of God why did they burn to death the bible translators, bible readers and all copies of the bible they could find? Why have God fearing, bible reading followers of Jesus been running for their lives from the catholic church and it's murderous zelots for most of christian history? The Most High God gave us the bible, Jesus is The Word, Holy Spirit preserved scripture despite the catholic church's attempts to hide, control, manipulate and destroy it. Praise to the Most High God

[@IAP89]

@@zangiefromanov2563 so how was the canon list put together then?

[@mwanafalsafa3613]

@@IAP89 the texts were already there. The catholics just chose what books to compile together.

[@IAP89]

@@mwanafalsafa3613 I know happen in the council of Rome year 382 canon got put together really wanted zangief to answer that question

[@topseykretts7608]

I have to disagree with Franck a little on this one. Of course he is going to offer up the non-Catholic version of events but he is side-stepping a bit. The early church fathers who agreed on the books of the NT were all CATHOLIC men!!! Now, that doesn't mean the gospels are Catholic books necessarily, but it does mean that Catholics are certainly responsible for the selection and vetting of those 27 books. And the Catholic Church is the authorizing institution that Canonized those books.

[@topseykretts7608]

Correct....protestants like to pretend that the 27 Books of the NT were somehow "always" together as they are now.....and that simply is NOT the case. Pope Damasus the 1st ordered two church counsels in the late 300's to collect the books as canon. St Augustine and St. Athanasius led the two counsels......the sounds pretty Catholic to me.

[@steliosmitr8245]

Topsey Kretts the church didnt make the bible friend. The RCC amd eastern orthodox church only declared the legitimacy of what was already know to be the inspored word of God.

[@topseykretts7608]

Well let me ask a question.....was the letter of Barnabas an inspired work of God? How about the Didache? Or how about the Sheppard of Hermes? There were many writings that Christians used and thought were valid circulating around for the early centuries of Christendom. There were many ,at the time, that had their doubts about the book of Hebrews or even II Peter, or II and III John. So actually you are very wrong.....there WAS much debate among different geographical groups of Christians concerning validity and inspiration of several books. Like it or not, the NT you read today WAS given to you as a vetted and selected group of inspired books by the Holy Catholic Church!!!

[@steliosmitr8245]

Topsey Kretts all the books you mentioned except the letter of Barnabas still contain a summary of what the word of God is. They werent included because it would be redundant to have Didache and Matthew at the same time. It sounds like you are trying to equate your tradition with Scripture. Scripture preexisted before any church organization. The RCC only recognised Scripture. They didnt legitimized it, id be blasphemy to claim that the RCC legitimized the books of the NT because that would put the church above what God said.

[@steliosmitr8245]

Saint Michael Pray for Us okay so are you trying to say that the RCC is greater than the word of God? Are you saying that the word of God needed some council or pope to be legitimized and wasnt already legit? The 7 books you are reffering teach doctrine that would contradict other scripture. Tobit promotes magic and 2 Maccabees promotes almsgiving so the dead can be forgiven.

[@filipinismo7296]

St Ignatius of Antioch (born 50 AD and martyred 117 AD) is whom Turek is referring to. He was also the earliest documented Christian to use the term Catholic in his letters when referring to the true Christian Church.

[@gottruth.1722]

Funnt , it doesnt say that he was born on 50 AD

[@xander4043]

I’m with you and all but from my memory Saint Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in 110 AD in Rome and the word Catholic was used in a letter he wrote on his way there. I’m Catholic, but just telling people that the term Catholic was applied to the one true church in the past really isn’t good enough, I used to do that as well but I’d say it’s more effective to show them the parallels between the early church and the Catholic Church.

[@gottruth.1722]

@@xander4043 Lol no , he died at 1556 july 31 Where are you guys getting these false Claims??

[@richlopez5896]

You are confusing two different Catholic saints. He is speaking of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by apostles St. Peter and St. John. You are confusing him with St. Ignatius of Loyala who was a priest and theologian in the 1500's@@gottruth.1722

[@quesostuff1009]

I really wish people actually studied these councils. Like everyone keeps ignoring Hippo

[@BogartSlap]

This guy is so sharp - I have NEVER heard anyone else make that point about - Hey, you couldn't have the Council of Nicea while Christianity was still a fiercely persecuted and largely underground church.

[@alexmatos4735]

Very interesting. Thank you Frank You are a huge blessing and have helped strengthen my faith and those around me. I love apologetics and I love the lord. God bless

[@SJ-px1ps]

Yes. He is the main reason why I'm a Christian now.🥰💓✝

[@captainmarvel76927]

Frank is terribly wrong...don't trust him.

[@captainmarvel76927]

​@@SJ-px1ps he is a poor teacher and Christopher Hitchens beat him up pretty good.

[@SJ-px1ps]

@@captainmarvel76927 That is called : Pride. Prideful hearts cannot understand Christian Faith or Christ.

[@captainmarvel76927]

@@SJ-px1ps that is a very unrelated response. We are addressing the competency of a man who claims to know the truth but does not know how his holy book is put together. Do u care to answer or do u not know? Please stay on topic.

[@hass1090]

I can’t believe he just compared the council of Nicaea with going to Denver for a conference *facepalm*

[@paulrock4816]

Even the 12 Apostle had some problem with what to do & what to believe. Just read Acts chapter 15. Apostles were still into the Law Apostle Paul said not going to tell that to the Gentiles. They agreed to no legalism/ but a few things to avoid. Paul taught Grace through faith & not of works of the Law.

[@TheB1nary]

I actually squirmed at that too!

[@BrownSoldier96]

I’m ignorant on this matter. Could you explain to me why the comparison is so absurd?

[@megancrager4397]

I didn't perceive it as comparing

[@unam9931]

Well he is a protestant heretic thats the reason for his ignorance

[@jackhank2694]

Once again dude if you don't know say you don't know; he once again speaks on something he has no in-depth knowledge of to make a point that goes along with his overall teaching and that's a problem!

[@jacoblee5796]

Agree, he gave a typical non answer and this woman was smart enough to pick up on that and asked again "so what was the purpose of the council? And again Frank doesn't answer and he even admits he doesn't know anything about it.

[@crw662]

His answer to her second question was off But his first answer was spot on.

[@yansozonov326]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@crw662both of his answers were correct, he just didn’t go in depth about the nicene creed. The purpose of the council of Nicaea was to outline Christianity as a whole and address the issues of the Arianism doctrine that said the Jesus was not divine but a human.

[@markwildt5728]

Just because you disagree, doesn't mean he's wrong.

[@markwildt5728]

​@@jacoblee5796😂 that's not at all what happened... He answered her question, and it lead to a follow up question. You people are dense...

[@jerrytang3146]

Frank, why not tell the lady that it was the original church built by Jesus that compiled the Holy Books that became YOUR Bible. There was only ONE catholic church at that time, Frank. Your sect was non-existent at that time.

[@2mexpesos]

🙄🤦🏻‍♀️ Do you honestly believe the catholic church came up with the bible? not God?! God preserved his word not the false pope church ..

[@calson814]

@@2mexpesos God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The Bible is the Infallible word of God. But The Bible doesn’t have an inspired table of contents. BUT there was a HUGE DISAGREEMENT in Early Church regarding the Canon of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in the Bible. The Church tells us which books are Inspired.

[@xander4043]

@@2mexpesos The Bible doesn’t come with an index, it was composed by the early church and it included the 7 books that Protestants disagree with.

[@Kyle-vb3fz]

Council of Nicea you are referring was over the Heresy of Arius of Alexandria, correct?

[@christianmorales7991]

Absolutely correct , and it went very well. Out of 300 Bishops 298 of them signed in agreement only two sided with Arius

[@juanmmartinez309]

I really like Frank when he talks to atheists or Muslims, he's great evangelist, he always has the best answers, as Catholic I needed to hear what he had to answer on this one, the root of our theological differences, so when he said "I'm not an expert" confirmed that Catholicism is the real deal

[@timpoiu]

A Juan the root of theological differences is What is the truth and then how much of it do we understand. Is the truth found in the Koran, the teachings of the Roman Catholic church or the Bible. So for example The first Chirstians believed that Salvation was a gift that cannot be worked for. Believers in Jesus Christ were first called Christians at Antioch. The first Gentile church was founded in Antioch, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians Acts 11:19-26. It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys. There was no Roman Christians at this time. So no Roman Catholic Church. At this time they did not pray to mary , have rosarys, do pennace, or buy indulgences from Peter. So the Roman Catholic church of today looks nothing like the original Christianity. But they did believe that salvation was a gift of God , paid for by Jesus on the cross. And that you cannot work for a gift. Read Romans chapter 4

[@juanmmartinez309]

@@timpoiu God bless you brother, hopefully one of the 30 thousand plus denominations that you follow have your own remuneration with the Father. We ca go back and forth the Bible, as we had for 500 years trying to convince each other but in fact that I like a lot of protestants, I do believe that many of them have a real gift, but what I call the root of our theological differences is form like 90 CE to about 400s CE, and until you don't study this really hard, (all church Fathers and councils) until then, you won't know put the Bible together, remember you already believe so you're on tne right path, this study woud make you complete because would make you Catholic

[@timpoiu]

@@juanmmartinez309 for some reason not all my comment above would display. Its fixed now , its about salvation being a gift as described in Romans chapter 4 God bless Tim. You are so right about early differences. In about 300's CE Jerome mistranslated the greek "metanoia" as the latin "do pennace". This is in the Catholic latin Vulgate. But metanoia actually means "change how you think" so repent. Around the 1500's CE the printing press was invented and Catholics were able to get a copy of the Greek New Testament. They disovered Jesus did not say "do pennance" He said repent (change how you think). They also discovered that while Jerome said marriage was a sacrament ( in latin ) the Greek said it was a mystery. So some of the Catholics began to say (protest) we should follow what the Bible actually says and not Jeromes mistakes. PS i dont belong to a denomination I belong to GOD.

[@JJ-cw3nf]

Council of Rome 382.

[@NIC_Pineiro]

Where can i find evidence or explore the topic about the earliest church fathers deliberating the new testament canon?

[@CPATuttle]

Google “disputed books” or “antilegomena” in Greek. Eusebius Caserea in his book written in 325 AD has chapters on this. Also the eastern churches such as Armenian apostolic church history had different scriptures into the 5th century. And Ethiopian Orthodox still today have more books than any other Bible

[@harryallenpearce89]

This is why I’m Catholic. Not only did Ignatius of Antioch quote the New Testament books, he also quotes from the 7 books Luther removed. FYI

[@markgillespie8829]

Amen brother

[@phoenix21studios]

Its not that Luther removed them, its that the Jewish texts didn't include them. The early church pressured Jerome to add them even tho he disagreed. The books didnt meet the criteria to be considered divine text.

[@harryallenpearce89]

@@phoenix21studios Muslims decided what’s in the Muslim Canon. Hindus decided their own scriptures. Jews decided their scriptures, and when it comes to the Catholic Church, Christians decided the Christian Scriptures. But not so for Protestants. You admitted it. The very people that reject both Jesus Christ and the New Testament decided the Protestant canon. My question, why believe them about the Old Testament but disagree with them on the New? Go all the way. Become Jewish. Reject Jesus. Literally, the spirit of Antichrist decided the Protestant canon.

[@kennycouch6135]

God's truth stands forever. Praise God!

[@jimboord927]

subtracted tell Him that when you are facing Him on judgement day.

[@kennycouch6135]

@subtracted I disagree. Lol

[@Issoirre]

@subtracted prove it

[@RedWolf5]

The church indeed gave us the Bible, that being the Catholic Church of course which is the true church.

[@InHisImage999]

Did he really just say I'm not an expert on church history?! He's supposed to be an apologist but doesnt care enough to educate himself on the history of church?? Should that not help support him? I've been skeptical of his responses to people and this just did it for me. I wont be wasting time listening to this man anymore.

[@smoker420la]

Felt like a lie. But why?

[@InHisImage999]

@@smoker420la Because apparently he doesn't know history. And if you don't know history you cant refute it.

[@smoker420la]

@@InHisImage999 be real. He has slide shows (PowerPoint) on every subject. Be honest. I like him lots of great videos but recently I seen one where he cut the young man off and ended the video while clearly he was still talking while the video faded to black. This was his second. That's twice in a week. Idk

[@jacoblee5796]

You guys need to understand what Christian apologetics are. It isn't the study of Christianity, the history of it or the history of the bible. Its learning how to BS the Christian beliefs into existence.

[@krombopulosmicheal2436]

Not an expert, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything. He has time an time again given books and directed people to other people more knowledgeable in other areas. I find your shock and surprise odd.

[@sbmend7207]

The main reason the meeting for the Council of nicaea took place was to discuss what was being taught by Arius Alexandria. To discuss the deity of Jesus and ultimately came out with the trinity. Clearly early followers of Jesus could not decide if Jesus was a deity always, or came to be a deity in the womb of Mary, or became a deity when he was Resurrected. Church Father Tertullian was the one who first came with the term the trinity Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. And that's what became one of the main Christian doctrines. What Frank Turek said that people come together all the time to talk about theology which is true, we do not change or establish a main doctrine of the Christian Foundation.

[@1smallstep]

Well no, it is not that early Christians could not decide, it is that some people who came along later could not or would not understand and confused others. Arius came along in the beginning of the 4th century - well after the Cannon was closed - and decided that Jesus was not eternal. His views were considered in Alexandria where the local church rejected him. They called for a larger council inviting other north African churches to participate and he was rejected and excommunicated. He traveled east to another church to share his message where he got condemned again, then moved east again... seeing a pattern? The bishops then requested a general council be held (this being Nicaea) in order to get ahead of this whole moving around thing where he was roundly rejected yet again. Arius was not the first and he was not the last but like all others while he was able to attract a following by being charismatic or by having a lot of money or by attracting pagans, or by getting government backing they all eventually lost out to the truth.

[@sbmend7207]

@@1smallstep the concept of the Trinity was not known until Church Father Tertullian who gave it, before that they were discussing other possible concepts to understand how God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all God in one. Besides all this, can you tell me where in the Hebrew scriptures do you see the trinity doctrine? Or for that matter Christ dying for the sins of all people? And please dont give me misinterpret scriptures found in Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jeremiah that clearly do not talk about a dying Messiah that was never taught or even hinted at.

[@1smallstep]

@@sbmend7207 No, just because the oldest recorded use of the word 'Trinity' is found in the writing Tertullian it does not follow that he was the first one to come up with the concept. As you admit, the early church was well aware that the Father was God, the Son was God, the Spirit was God - and that there was only one God. Where did they get that idea? They got it from Scripture. Now, it is in our nature to try and understand things, which is good but sometimes when we can't understand a thing we feel the need to make an explanation that we can understand rather accept the is and understand that the how is beyond us. Sometimes this works out, sometimes it falls on its face. Lutheran Satire covered this very issue with what I believe was their first video, "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies." Arius tried to handle this by separating the Godhead into the Father, the created Son, and I'm not sure if he got around to butchering the Spirit. There have also been various forms of modalism. This also is why some at the council balked at the use of the word "homoousios" because it was used by Sabellius in his claims that God was sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit. As for the rest of your questions, how are they Germain to the discussion at hand? I try to avoid doing rabbit trails these days since it generally seems to result in me giving clear, distinct, answers only to have the other person blow them off and head off down another trail. That and you announcing in advance that you will dismiss what I might say as a misinterpretation is not exactly a motivator. But I will point out Luke 24:25-27. Jesus called the two disciples foolish and slow of heart to not believe that Moses and all the Prophets pointed to the things He must endure. Don't you think it a little arrogant on your part to think you understand Scripture better than Jesus? Maybe a little foolish and slow of heart?

[@sbmend7207]

@@1smallstep first off it does relate to the issue at hand. Second I am not saying Jesus misinterpret or is wrong about anything. I blame the authors of the New Testament for that. And so since I'm arrogant and foolish I'm guessing by default you are also saying that all Orthodox Jews are arrogant and foolish as well and do not know or understand their own Bible. Also I asked if you can provide any scriptures regarding a dying Messiah or a suffering Messiah and the concept of the trinity from the Hebrew scriptures you pointed out Luke which is irrelevant.

[@mrsalvatore1234]

the new testament was canonised over time by the Catholic Church, the early church fathers were Catholic

[@xander4043]

Completely agree

[@aderitopaiva5171]

Thanks for this video, please make more videos like this

[@kayvanimthurn2310]

Aderito Paiva Please don't.

[@SpiriOfJoyV2]

Kayvan Imthurn “plEaSe dONt” don’t you have something better to do

[@gabrielpadilla5441]

English Wit lol I really don’t understand those kind of comments 😂 (not yours, but the other)

[@rockandsandapologetics7254]

In my personal studies of early church history, this is said of Polycarp (martyred in 155 AD), "Polycarp’s letter (to the Philippians) includes phrases from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. This is a strong indication that the early church already considered the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles as inspired Scripture." The fact that at the time, around 150 AD, all the Gospels, Acts and epistles of the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul were accepted as inspired Scripture, shows their widespread acceptance at a very early point in history. If they had books, printing presses, and the Internet the world would have had their texts, and the autographs, originals, would have been digitally stored some place. After looking at the evidence, I think losing the original text was the only way to properly maintain in through the opies.

[@phoenix21studios]

Thank you for that information!

[@CPATuttle]

Wikipedia on New Testament says “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”

[@richlopez5896]

The council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. set the canon at 73 books. Pope Siricius would call the Christian canon the "Bible". The councils of Hippo and Carthage III simply reaffirmed the canon. The Ecumenical Council of Trent later reaffirmed the canon in the 1500's infallibly.

[@captainmarvel76927]

Who were these early church father's Frank? What denomination were they? Did they have any bishops aka Presbyters? Did they? And what authority did these "church fathers" have. It's ironic he is "not an authority on church history" it shows.

[@johnsix.51-69]

1:56 "I'm not an expert on these church history issues." That explains why you are a protestant and believe what you want.

[@phoenix21studios]

youre sour. it shows.

[@delgande]

​@@phoenix21studios Prots are prideful and need to humble themselves and accept the God given authority of the Orthodox Church One can say, in an ironic way, that they follow their father the Pope in being the infallible interpreter of Scripture and thinking they can formulate dogma independently

[@SebastianHernandez-gt3rj]

​@@delgande The dogmas are not formulated, they are reaffirmed

[@delgande]

@@SebastianHernandez-gt3rj Sola scriptura is not something reaffirmed, but made up

[@johnsix.51-69]

​@@phoenix21studiosYou can't even attack what I said. The "pastor" refuted himself when he said he is not an expert.

[@PapalSoldier]

The Council of Nicea was the first Ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. It was called by Pope St.Sylvester and Emperor Constantine. It condemned the demonic heretic Arius [A priest from Alexandria in Egypt] who started saying that Jesus was created and that He did not have the same substance as The Father. "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes." [Council of Nicea 325 AD] Catholicism is the only Biblical and historical Christian religion. You cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don't adhere to His Church (St.Matthew. 28:20; St.Matthew. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (St.Matthew.16:18-19) or the Eucharist (St.John 6:53) or Confession (St.John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (St.James 2:24), etc. Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas. They are thus not of Christ. The canon of Scripture was determined and compiled by the Catholic Church at the council of Rome [382 AD] and reaffirmed at the councils of Hippo [393] and Carthage [397]. The Bible is a Catholic book ANYONE who interprets this book contrary to the Catholic church adds unimaginable torments for himself in Hell [2 St.Peter 3:16]. The Judeans in the OT were the pre-catholics, they believed in The Holy Trinity [Genesis 1:26] prayers for the dead [2 Maccabees 12:46] mortal sin [2 Samuel 11, confession to priests [Leviticus 5:1-10] etc... For proof that Protestantism is illogical, man made and demonic see the documentary on youtube called: "Pastor" Steven Anderson Exposed - Documentary uploader is vaticancatholic Pope Leo XIII (1888): "He [Jesus] commanded all nations to hear the voice of the Church, as if it were His own, threatening those who would not hear it with everlasting perdition." (Libertas #26)

[@davidvanwyk2250]

At last some sanity... thank you for the clarity

[@totalityofscripture1001]

PapalSoldier where does the word papacy show up in Matthew 16?? Making these verses a private interpretation to fit your Catholic presuppositions is a big no no. Didn’t you rebuke others for that very thing in this post??

[@emmanuelmatogoro9348]

U say the Jews were the preCATHOLICS......mmmh!! This is beyond crazy

[@PapalSoldier]

@@emmanuelmatogoro9348 Please do not confuse the modern day "Jews" with the True Jews of the Old Testament. The Israelites and the true Christians [Catholics] worship the same God. The God of the Old Testament is the same one as the New. Please watch the video i mentioned in my post.

[@emmanuelmatogoro9348]

@@PapalSoldier i know u r talking about the old jews...but for what u worship...and what the old worship...no man u got nothing in common.

[@PatrickSteil]

The Early Church Fathers has the same beliefs as Catholics. We wouldn’t have a Bible if it weren’t for the Catholics. The church was one church until 1500 when 3 men through they knew better than 1500 years of Christianity. Protestantism has failed completely.

[@SossaBear]

Can you go further in depth on your point of view. From my understanding the Catholic Church used and abused there knowledge against the common folk and people like William Tyndall started to realize they are not teaching what the Bible actually said and translated it into different languages. We still have those early manuscripts to go and see what our current day bibles were translated from so I’m confused in why you say the Protestant messed up

[@PatrickSteil]

@@SossaBear "From my understanding the Catholic Church used and abused there knowledge against the common folk and people like William Tyndall started to realize they are not teaching what the Bible actually said and translated it into different languages." Was there (and still is) corruption in "the church" (in any and every church) - yes of course, because men are fallible... did the Church need reform? Yes. But does that pre-suppose that the only way to fix the Church is to split away from her? No! I would say this is anti-biblical - Jesus prayed for the unity of all Christians in John 17 - so that we may be a single witness of God's Truth and Love to the world. The Church - just like all human beings are constantly called to reform - to conversion - away from our sinful desires and back to God. The question I asked when I started my journey in seeking out God's Truth was - well - did the Catholics actually change the teachings over the years or did they preserve it. When you look at God's plan for Salvation, what the Old and New Covenant mean, what the Sacraments are and do, what the early Church believed and taught about Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance (confession), etc - you see that these were all being taught in the early church and their fundamental assertions have not changed. They started with the Apostles - they were handed down as Sacred Tradition and eventually in the 4th Century the Church - through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised canonized the Bible as we know it today. When you look into post Biblical history to see what had been passed down by the Apostles to the very first generation, you see the same teachings of the Catholic Faith. We even see the Church being called Catholic (universal and "of the whole") in the 100's! Protestantism has failed because it says - we don't need the Church - we can just follow the Bible - but the Bible itself is a Sacred Tradition of the Church. It didn't just fall out of the sky. And many Protestants cannot even say they follow "the Bible" because they removed seven books - and oh my, look into that History of how those books were removed - no church council, no gathering of pastors, but in a business meeting of Bible printers. But in fact, all Protestants today still depend on "the Church" - either Catholic or their own "denomination" to help them know how to interpret the Bible. Why wouldn't we all do this as ONE BODY so that we can be ONE WITNESS to the world. It will take great Sacrifice (Love) for men to lose their pride and follow the ONE Church instituted and protected by Jesus for 2000 years.

[@nathanaronsohn8665]

LOllll um you know the great schism? There is something called the Eastern Orthodox Church and oriental Orthodox Church

[@nathanaronsohn8665]

Roman Catholic propaganda 👆

[@PatrickSteil]

@@nathanaronsohn8665 Good arguments... do you not believe that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth and that Jesus gave His Authority to His Church to decide correct doctrine, forgive and retain sins and Baptize in His name?

[@katie6327]

I have a question, How do we know it was accepted early on by church fathers?

[@phoenix21studios]

they would cite certain books in letters they wrote.

[@Urfman]

His answer was dishonest

[@perfectmugwagwa9371]

So the canon of the NT has 25 books if you claim that those were agreed earlier on? How about the other disputed books?

[@richlopez5896]

The NT canon has 27 books

[@perfectmugwagwa9371]

​@@richlopez5896according to who?

[@ExperienceEric]

There are massive amounts of material from 200+ years before the roman councils showing what books the early church fathers considered canon in the New Testament. Not only do we know what books they say as inspired scripture, we have thousands of letters between the early church fathers that typically included entire chapters of NT scripture. You can recreate nearly the entire bible just form those letters alone. Check out Josh McDowell's work or his book "evidence that demands a verdict".

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

Do you really think they kept letters for thousands of years? I mean come on this isn't a soap opera

[@ExperienceEric]

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Its a well documented fact by SECULAR historians. Don;t take my word for it, look it up. Some are by some of the most famous early chruch fathers. We have a ton or\f writings from the early chruch fathers. They are frequently quoted in modern day debates over doctrines.

[@charleslong5489]

Scripture in itself did not change at the council of nicea what did change was pagan traditions that was mingled in to the church

[@el-sig2249]

MAYA EL Yes they did. Remember that most of the New Testament is made up of letters.

[@edinmichael4842]

So are you saying the canon was given to is through tradition?

[@edinmichael4842]

I do agree that Councils came together to argue about lot of stuffs regarding theology and one of them was the Canon of the NT. 25 books don't make the NT canon, 27 does and this was decided at these church councils. If one says that Councils were not needed for fixing the canon and that this was already decided by the church fathers, is not he saying that the canon was decided by tradition. Moreover what authority did the church fathers have to select the books...and didn't the church fathers have an exclusively Catholic faith? eg. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

[@rocsaltjohn]

Peter didn't (at first) believe that Christianity was a form of Judaism. He was wrong....and a disciple. Ignatius wasn't even a disciple. The bread that Jesus broke at the last supper was still bread after he blessed it. It was a symbol of what was to come and a way for the disciples and the world to remember what he would do and did for them. Christ's sacrifice of his human body was necessary to rid the world of sin and our belief in that act makes us saved. Not eating a piece of bread. It was a symbol and God used many symbols to teach his children. Jesus wasn't turning the bread into his flesh - it was still bread that those disciples ate in that room and it's still bread - or a wafer today. Transubstantiation is a religious teaching, it isn't a holy thing. IMHO

[@andrewmedina7588]

Frank Patek gotta ask Frank, then how do you reconcile Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse in John 6:22-59? He calls Himself the living bread.

[@rocsaltjohn]

@@andrewmedina7588 He wasn't literally "bread". There are many times the word "bread" is used figuratively...The word bread is used figuratively in such expressions as "bread of sorrows" ( Psalms 127:2 ), "bread of tears" ( 80:5 ), i.e., sorrow and tears are like one's daily bread, they form so great a part in life. The bread of "wickedness" ( Proverbs 4:17 ) and "of deceit" ( 20:17 ) denote in like manner that wickedness and deceit are a part of the daily life. Jesus was using it the way he had read it in scripture.

[@andrewmedina7588]

Frank Patek oh, I agree. Like how Bethlehem is “House of Bread” and Jesus is born in a manger or trough (your right about figurative language. Usually, when I see Jesus go back to the OT it’s italicized or denoted in my Bible (Douay-Rheims & Jerusalem Bible), but this is such a singular statement by Christ. And wild, when you think about it. So wild, some left him b/c of it. Those that stayed, held to it, which is evidence because it want till the Protestant Revolution, that this became an issue.

[@rocsaltjohn]

@@andrewmedina7588 it's not a issue in the Protestant church. Protestant still do the Last Supper. But there's no magic in it. We do it in remembrance of what Christ did for us and not to forget why he died for us. That's the reason why Christ did it to begin with. Protestants don't literally receive Christ. They receive Christ when they accepted him in their heart when they got saved. The Last Supper is Remembrance ordinance.

[@USMC98]

The REAL answer. The Bible is considered the inspired word of God by the faithful. So you have to wonder: where did it come from? With all the writings floating around the ancient world, who decided which of them rated as sacred enough to be scripture? This question is technically one of canonicity. “Canon” means norm or standard. The term was first applied by St. Athanasius to a collection of Jewish and Christian writings around the year 350. A fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius was a powerhouse. He would later be named “Doctor of Orthodoxy” for his strong defense against heresies of his time. Athanasius attended the all-important Council of Nicaea, from which we get our Nicene Creed. He was a zealous advocate for the divinity of Jesus in an age before the nature of Jesus was uniformly accepted. For all of these reasons, Athanasius was invested in settling the canon of scripture: which books might be counted as the “Word of God”-and which, at best, were just good words. It would have been helpful to him if the apostles had sat down one dull night in the first century and decided this themselves: “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are in. Gospels of Thomas and Judas-out!” It would also have been impossible, since many New Testament texts weren’t written until after that first generation of church leaders had died. Also, strange as it may seem, even the Hebrew scriptures we call the Old Testament had yet to be defined by the Jewish community. While we may think of Jesus carrying around a volume of Genesis through Maccabees in his backpack, neither he nor anyone of his time owned such a collection. What hastened the need to settle the biblical canon was simple practicality. As the Christian community gradually separated from its Jewish roots, it was vital to determine which of the many instructive texts scattered around the Mediterranean region would be binding for each group. The rabbis of Judaism fought their own canon skirmishes around the year 100, but some books written before the time of Jesus that didn’t make their final list had already proven useful to Jewish Christians. Heavy hitters among ancient theologians, such as Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, argued for a shorter canon than Augustine, especially when it came to these Hebrew books. The 27 books Athanasius proposed for the New Testament were not much in dispute and remain standard today. It took the Council of Trent (1545-63) to define the Old Testament canon as inclusive of books that Protestant Reformers removed, including Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, the Maccabees, and others. Today’s Bible owes a debt to these many ancient debates. This article appeared in the April 2012 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 77, No. 4, page 46).

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Well yes, for the New Testament having 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings, one tacitly defers to the authority of late 4th century Catholic Bishops meeting together in synods. This list of books is NOT found in scripture. Sola Scripture FAILS at the table of contents. And these very same 4th c Bishops said the Old Testament was 46 books, not 39. To believe that they error'd on the latter, one should then question their repeated decisions on the former.

[@immortalwarrior4722]

the catholic church give the bible we hold today.

[@damian8354]

Not an expert is right.

[@kdmdlo]

Frank is certainly right that the books of the NT were written very early by eye witnesses (think Matthew) or by people who interviewed eye witnesses (think Luke). There was a general formation of the Canon (as Frank says) between circa A.D. 100-220. This was followed by a period of discussion, circa A.D. 220-367 and, finally, a period of fixation circa A.D. 367-405. It was in this latter period (fixation) where, starting at the Synod of Rome (A.D. 382), followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church formally defined which books made it into the NT (which were divinely inspired).

[@Daniel_Grgic]

I’ve had to confront this question so many times. Where did this myth come from?

[@ChristianSigma]

Don’t know about myth but the early church surely was Catholic

[@deusvult8340]

The councils regularly just made official statements, the canon was extremely debated over before the councils and probably even after, the council of Nicaea, sure it did not define the canon, but the councils of hippo and Carthage did. So the councils officially defined and compiled it, doesn’t mean it was the first.

[@jhake67]

apologist almost always deliberately try to forget that later declared heretic marcion was the father of the new testament canon..

[@mikeq5807]

Christianity is the product of Pauline theology. The Gnostics hit the nail on the head. "You will not enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but because you yourselves are full." Gospel of Thomas

[@saenzperspectives]

“THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Several factors seem to have been responsible for the formation of a second “testament” in the church alongside the Old Testament. One factor certainly was the sheer passage of time, as the church needed to discover whatever resources it could to bind it to its past and to guarantee its continuance in the tradition of the faith. Together with the codification of the tradition in creeds and liturgies, as well as the growth of the office of bishop into a monarchical episcopate, the “memoirs of the apostles” were such a resource for continuity. Also responsible for the establishment of the canon was the circulation of writings that bore the names of apostles but did not contain apostolic teaching (as that apostolic teaching was being defined by the church in its creed and enforced by its bishops); as has been noted, some of these rejected writings, notably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip, went underground and have surfaced only in very recent times. The task of sifting through the writings purporting to come from the apostolic generation occupied Christians well into the fourth century. In the early fourth century the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea suggested the following division of these writings: some that were acknowledged almost universally as part of the New Testament; others that were disputed but finally accepted; still others that were considered in one or another part of the church with greater or lesser seriousness but were eventually rejected. ACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS AND DISPUTED BOOKS The earliest pieces of Christian literature to be collected seem to have been the letters of Paul. From the liturgical use of the church at Rome it would appear that the Gospels were the first Christian books to be added to the Old Testament as supplementary Scripture, and that this had happened by the middle of the second century. Also from Rome, and also apparently from the second century, comes the oldest extant list of New Testament writings, the Muratorian fragment, so named because it was first published by Ludovico Muratori in 1740 from an early medieval Latin manuscript that was based on earlier documents. It contains the names of the books that were being read in the church at Rome in about 200 CE. By about that time, as the writings of early Christian authors from Lyons, Carthage, and Alexandria also suggest, the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and some other Epistles were being used as Scripture. From these sources we may gather a list of books on which they all seem to have been agreed. That list would include the following, given in the order now employed in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and 1 John. From these same sources we may also assemble a list of those books that were disputed but that eventually were included in the canon of the New Testament. The Epistle to the Hebrews belongs in this category. It seems to have been accepted in the Eastern section of the church but disputed in the West, for it does not appear in the Muratorian canon and is also questioned by other writers. The Epistle of James was in doubt among even more writers. Although 1 Peter is almost universally acknowledged, it is not listed in the preceding paragraph because of its absence from the Muratorian catalog. Second Peter, on the other hand, was questioned by many early Christian writers who accepted 1 Peter. The Epistle of Jude appears in the Muratorian canon but was rejected elsewhere. Second John and 3 John sometimes were included with 1 John as one book, but they did not receive the universal support that it did. The Book of Revelation probably was the object of more antagonism than any other of the books eventually canonized, partly because apocalypticism acquired a bad name through its association with heretical and schismatic movements very early in Christian history and partly because some did not believe that the same man who had written the Gospel of John was also the author of Revelation. In general, the books that came to be acknowledged as “canonical” were associated in one way or another with the name of an apostle; this helps to explain the inclusion of the Epistle of Jude. On the other hand, the Epistle to the Hebrews does not carry the name of any apostle (the attribution of it to Paul being later, as we have noted); but its sheer power seems to have provided persuasive evidence that if there was to be a normative collection of Christian writings from the generation of the apostles, this book had to be part of it regardless of who composed it. FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON The writings of Eusebius and of his contemporary, Athanasius of Alexandria, make it evident that agreement on the disputed books was approaching by the middle of the fourth century and that the canon of the New Testament which now appears in Christian Bibles was gaining general, if not quite universal, acceptance. That canon appears for the first time in a letter of Athanasius issued in 367 AD. After that letter other traditions held their own for a time. Thus the scholars and theologians of Antioch in general accepted only three Catholic Epistles-James, 1 Peter, and 1 John-while one of its most illustrious representatives, Theodore of Mopsuestia, rejected the whole of this section of the canon. The West followed the lead of Athanasius. In 382 a synod was held at Rome under Pope Damasus, at which the influence of Jerome secured the adoption of a list of books answering to that of Athanasius. This was ratified by Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth century. The same list was confirmed independently for the province of Africa at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 and 419 under the leadership of Augustine of Hippo. The second canon of the Second Trullan Council of 692, known to canon lawyers as the Quinisext, may be taken to have formally closed the process of the formation of the New Testament canon for East and West...”-Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible Is It Anyway

[@TylerMancuso111]

He even says himself that he is not an expert on this. Sometimes the answer is “I’m not sure”. Because his answer was not good at all and misinformed in places.

[@bond3161]

"I'm not an expert on church history" I have a feeling the history will lend light to the authority of the APOSTOLIC churches Who wrote the bible? What are the lineages? What says which books go in?

[@armandosalgado1121]

You forgot to mention the books that were accepted by some Churches, but were eventually rejected by the Councils. So, it was it bit more complicated then what you indicated.

[@ETBrothers]

Thank you!

[@ADMusic1999]

What they argued about affected the future of the Church and Christianity. It wasn't just a matter of opinion, but a matter of heaven or hell. What they argued about and agreed on became the foundation of Christianity which meant that if they agreed on something false, all Christians are now doomed. There is only one truth and if everyone has their own version of truth, how do you know which person is right? Maybe Jesus was the son of God, maybe he was God, maybe he was just a prophet - who knows?

[@edinmichael4842]

That is a very good question to be asked. I hope and pray that you would find the answer soon.

[@AbsolutelyRatastic]

People didn't choose crucifixtion, burning and rabid dogs for the sake of a mere prophet

[@gerard1867]

Didn't know Frank was a tap dancer... cuz he danced around that question well enough. Yes most NT books were recognised early, but so were a lot of other books...If you wanna say the canon of the NT is infallible then the decision to put those books in the bible must have been infallible too. And that was done at Catholic councils.

[@michaelborg5798]

What other books are you referring to????? Go ahead I’ll wait.

[@steliosmitr8245]

the catholic church was created in 1054 during the schism.

[@gerard1867]

@@michaelborg5798 The didache,the epistles of Clement, shepherd of Hermas epistles of Barnabas and so on;some of these were read in the churches 100s of years after the apostles died. There were many more as well. There were also books that we now have that weren't recognized by some of the early Christians ... like the book of Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John and 2nd Peter. It wasn't until the the 4th century that it was finally decided what books would make up the NT, after that there were no more disagreements and every bible since then has had those books.

[@gerard1867]

@@steliosmitr8245 Ummm, no

[@michaelborg5798]

Gerard there was about 5 books of the New Testament that were questioned about that is correct and those were answered. The other books may have been read by some in different local places but that doesn’t prove anything the high majority were in consensus about which ones were authentic. They are some books that were held in high regard but that doesn’t mean it was holy, in fact how did they come defend their claims??? By appealing to the scriptures ! The council is about the divinity of Christ and other issues.

[@rions7260]

The council got together to choose the dates of Easter. Watch 'truth Unedited' on youtube. The video is called 'Histroy of Religion'

[@charleslong5489]

Their are better people to watch than Truth unedited

[@charleslong5489]

But you are correct that traditions are what changed at the council of nicea

[@Christopher_TheFool]

The first council of Nicaea discuss three things. 1. The divinity of Jesus. 2. The dating of pascha 3. The creed. They also made 20 church canons.

[@rions7260]

@John Le If you watched the channel, you would know that it is not, it is about Jesus being the only way to heaven. Sadly, your speaking out of ignorance.

[@rions7260]

@John Le John, I am going to forgive you. Just remember Jesus is the way the truth and the light. This conversation end here. Amen

[@BogartSlap]

By the way, reading about the various councils in the first few centuries is not only enlightening but quite entertaining, and sometimes theologically reassuring. For instance, the church had a council made up of "the best and brightest" assigned to the task of clarifying the doctrine of the Trinity - they met several times over several years - and in the end, what they concluded was, "It's a mystery". :) I appreciate that level of intellectual honesty - I mean, they COULD have scribbled down a pile of stuff to make themselves look smart and wise...but instead, they just went with stark honesty: "It's a mystery". Indeed it is.

[@orangejuice4734]

Emperor Constantine mixed Paganism with Christianity, the concept of trinity is commonly found in many pagan religions, in fact, if you worshipped Jesus as god before the council of nicea, you would have been burned to death by Christians as a heretic, Isaac Newton believed that there is one god and that Jesus is just a messenger of god, he used logic, if Jesus is dead that means that god is dead, Jesus used to pray, he didn't pray to himself, but to god, the trinity is illogical, but you can continue to lie to yourself.

[@BogartSlap]

@@orangejuice4734 I would say that it's paradoxical rather than illogical. And, respectfully, you're mistaken in saying "if you worshipped Jesus as god before the council of nicea, you would have been burned to death by Christians as a heretic". From the very beginning, following the resurrection, Christians acknowledged Jesus as God. The Gospel of John opens with such a declaration: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...No one has ever seen God except for the one and only Son, who is himself God." You can't get a much more clear and definitive statement of Jesus' divinity than that.

[@orangejuice4734]

@@BogartSlap You are taking the bible as a fact when there are hundreds of versions and the original texts of the bible are unknown, Jesus also got killed, I doubt that god would "die" for your sins, Adam was also created, worship Adam as well, David has been mentioned as the son of god in the bible and that he worships his father, I'm amazed that 2 billion people think Jesus is god, he is a human, like me and you, I believe that there is one god not that Jesus is god and that god is dead.

[@BogartSlap]

@@orangejuice4734 Yes, I believe the Bible is reliable as far as accurately presenting God's message. We do not have the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible, true, but we do have numerous copies of each book, and in the case of the Gospels and the New Testament, we have numerous copies that were made close in time to the original manuscripts. We can rely on the fact that we have accurate copies of the original because none of the copies evidences any substantial differences - nothing in any of the thousands of copies we have contradicts any basic doctrine of Christianity. The New Testament has, in fact, been preserved in more manuscripts than any other piece of literature from the ancient world - with over 5,000 partial or complete manuscripts just in Greek, and many more in Latin. So, yes, there are lots of different versions and translations, but none of them presents any fundamental differences from the others as far as the essence of what the Bible teaches. For example, there's nothing in any of the copies we have that suggests that Jesus died in an avalanche rather than being executed on the cross. "I doubt that god would "die" for your sins" Well, of course you're free to hold that opinion, to believe what you choose to believe. I believe that Jesus did choose to die for my sins, as the Bible teaches. "Adam was also created, worship Adam as well" I don't know what your point is there - the Bible doesn't teach that there's anything inherently worshipful about someone just because they're created. "David has been mentioned as the son of god in the bible" God does, indeed, refer to David as his "son", but I don't know of anyone who understands that reference as being a literal one - it's commonly understood to be a figure of speech. In contrast, Jesus is specifically referred to as God's "only BEGOTTEN son" (emphasis added), complete with the story detailing the fact that he came into the world by way of Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit - there's no corresponding birth origin story about David, or about anyone else, that would indicate that they are to be viewed as being God's son in the same way that Jesus is. "I believe that there is one god" Me, too. We differ in that I believe that the one God does exist in tripartite form - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - and that Jesus is, as stated in the Nicene Creed, "begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father". Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@orangejuice4734]

@@BogartSlap Thanks for giving me your point of view and sorry if I offended you, have a good day!

[@jonahcharles3492]

What about st. Jerome’s Latin vulgate?

[@richlopez5896]

His had all 73 books in it. 46 OT books and 27 NT books

[@vincentandrews6230]

I wonder if he knows about the African influence of the Council of Nicea..and Athanasius..

[@davidlafleche1142]

None of the so-called "councils" decided anything.

[@Unknown_Disciple_Of_Christ]

You are correct, Arius was proven wrong by an African Athanasius

[@johnhaslett6714]

Please explain. I am very curious.

[@davidlafleche1142]

@@johnhaslett6714 The Holy Spirit already decided what was in the Bible. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13, KJV). Real Christians already knew all the books of the Bible, long before any bogus "council" said anything.

[@johnhaslett6714]

@@davidlafleche1142 I wanted hear the part about Africa. How did the church in Africa decide on the books and which ones? Just curious. We don't have all the books if you think 66 is it. You would have to look at the Septuagint and also books that were mention in the Bible like the book of Enoch that was mentioned in Jude and the book of Jasher that was mentioned in the book of Joshua. Yep. You are missing a lot.

[@smoker420la]

I feel bad for her how he REDIRECTED untol her brother instead of answering her questions.

[@jesuschristbiblebiblestudy]

The Bible is God’s Word Jesus is the Word of God, God’s ultimate and fullest revelation. The Bible is the divinely inspired record of God’s revelation to us in Jesus. The Bible not only records God’s revelation in history, to the prophets and in Jesus. The Bible itself is God’s Word. Because the Bible is God’s Word it reflects God’s own character. Psalm 19:7-9 says: "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether." Because God is perfect, trustworthy, right and sure so the Bible is also perfect, trustworthy, right and sure. The Bible is radiant - it gives light to our eyes, it shows us the way. And the Bible endures for ever - it never goes out of date; it is always contemporary. The Bible is still a human book written by real people, reflecting their style and backgrounds. But the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Without the humanity of the Bible being compromised, God ensured that it was 100 per cent his word. ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correctionand for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3:16). Every word of the Bible is God breathed. How about opening the Bible, and read for yourself. Amen

[@smokedbbq8053]

This video is miss leading a little, the council had several Christian views and argued over the different books. An example would be much like today you have the Baptist, Pentecostal, 7th-day Adventist all mainly believe the same thing. But in the case of the Council of Nicea, they had their own version of the books of the new testament.

[@thomasfitzherbert2982]

Dead Sea scrolls predate the Bible and everything is still matches up.

[@minatoarisato2012]

A lot of the dead sea scrolls are nonsense. The bible is good enough already.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Saint Michael Pray for Us “are not Christian documents”?? As in not NT manuscripts but OT ones?? If that is what you’re saying then I agree. There were OT manuscripts found at Qumran and Christianity accepts the OT as part of the canon. I believe most if not all of the OT was found here. Are you sure you’re not thinking of Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic manuscripts?? I think you may be mixed up here. No offense.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Saint Michael Pray for Us ok but this comment is vastly different than your initial one which makes me wonder why you made the initial statement the way you did. To say they are not Christian is just flat out false and the questions were to see why you said what you said. It was very odd to say the least. Were you trying to mislead someone intentionally and got caught?? Why would you say they are not Christian texts?? Are you a NT only Christian or what?? For the record I am more of a NT only person but I do not deny that the OT is still Christian in origin and history. I’m not trying to bust your balls here but I’d really like to know beyond the textbook reply since we know the whole OT which some of the Apocrypha was found at Qumran.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Saint Michael Pray for Us when a Christian is asked how many books are in the Bible the answers begin with 66 and go up from there to 80. Our inspired Canon contains the OT and therefore if the DSS has the OT manuscripts then they are Christian. We do not divide the Bible Canon up into the Injil and the Torah like the Muslims try to do. Sorry but you’re making a categorical mistake here. The OT may not be our covenant but it’s in our Canon. Had you said that the DSS has no NT canon then you would be correct but there’s a difference here.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Saint Michael Pray for Us does from 66 to 80 cover all the numbers between them or not?? I know the Catholic Canon number that’s why I made the statement the way I did to include all those differing opinions but evidently you might not know the Protestant Canon. The 1611 had 80 books and all the way into 1769 you could get one with 80. Cambridge may even offer it still with 80. The Geneva has the Apocrypha so don’t say they threw them out. Do they look at them differently?? Sure but not all Protestants do. They didn’t back then and some still look at them more along the Catholic lines

[@jastv]

Saying ' Oh that didn't happen...' is all well and good but where is the evidence the council did not pick the final Canon ???

[@hjc1402]

This is what the council of Nicea was about: All the leading bishops unanimously agreed that Jesus was divine. The discussion was not IF Jesus was divine, but HOW. A problem came up with Arius, a senior clergy member of Alexander’s, the archbishop of Alexandria in Egypt. Arius believed that Jesus was the first creation of the Father and then Jesus created all other things, much like Jehovah’s witnesses believe today. Arius was going around teaching this heretic belief and causing divisions among Christians. Constantine was striving for imperial unity and wanted this matter to be settled, not caring about the theological implications. So at the request of Constantine, about 300 bishops came together in Egypt led by Alexander to publicly refute Arius. It was not to discuss and decide upon the belief of Jesus’ identity, but to write down the already unanimous belief. A formal statement was put together and signed by the bishops. Only two bishops of the 300 declined to sign the statement, taking Arius’ side instead. This event was documented in history. It is an established fact. No where in any of the documents or recordings of this event mention anything about choosing the canon. So many myths and rumors circulate about it and people tend to just repeat what they’ve heard without any further research. Like you said it’s easy for anyone to just say “oh it was about the canon, or this or that” But for anyone who’s actually studied church history seriously, it’s easy to know this.

[@jastv]

@@hjc1402 thanks for your reply to my question. Where is the evidence this is actually what happened? I have been searching for the historic documents you speak of but can't find them. Any references or links to these records would be really helpful.

[@charleslong5489]

@@hjc1402 you are correct as to scripture but it was the mingling of pagan traditions that started at the council Nicea

[@hjc1402]

Michael Angel I took a class in college on the church history but I don’t have any of the resources from that class, sorry! It’s all easily accessible though if you put in the time and effort to research it properly. The only difficult part about it is discerning scholars works from ‘internet scholars’. There’s countless books on church history, the councils, the early church fathers, etc.

[@hjc1402]

Charles Long I’m not sure what you mean by that

[@mojomahojo8253]

Basically subjects like trinity whether if god is one in body or 3 seperates type things were voted down to approval.

[@mojomahojo8253]

@Orthodoxy or Death! !!! you know better?

[@mojomahojo8253]

@Orthodoxy or Death! !!! the day of the pentecost

[@marknovetske4738]

He claims not to know church history, but then tells us the church didn't define the cannon of the Bible. The chuch (catholic) did give and define cannon. Whatever the initial reason for convening a council, the council did address other topics as well! So where the holy spirit lead the councils in their decision making and on what topics (including what books were and were not to be regarded as scripture) were decided at these councils...ie the council of Carthage.

[@charleslong5489]

There wasn't a change to scripture during the council of nicea but it was a mingling of pagan traditions that started to enter the church there but some would say try to christianize pagans but in truth it was pagans converting Christians into their traditions

[@edinmichael4842]

So you are saying Christ is a liar?

[@rocsaltjohn]

...starting the Roman Catholic Church. allowing heresy in to satisfy others until Luther "protested" and the Protestant Reformation began.

[@edinmichael4842]

@@rocsaltjohn What pagan traditions was brought into the Catholic Church after Constantine legalised Christianity?

[@rocsaltjohn]

@@edinmichael4842 Mary worship, praying to the dead, etc, etc. The true church are those of us who believe that Christ and Christ alone is our true atonement for sin. 1 Tim 2:5: For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. No Peter, no pope, no church of any kind, Christ and Christ alone.

[@edinmichael4842]

@@rocsaltjohn We don't worship Mary. Praying to Mary (asking for her intercession) was already there, even before Constantine. So, which pagan practices are you talking about. I can give you one: use of rings during weddings. That was a pagan practice that has been adopted into Christianity. Only Christ can atone for our sins: I do agree that. I also agree on the usage of 1 Tim 2:5 to atonement of sins.

[@CHEKPNT]

Obviously this guy is not an expert in Church history... but at least he knows a few things about apostolic fathers

[@jasonbabilonia3037]

CHECKPNT this man would run circles around u.

[@CHEKPNT]

Jason Babilonia it’s possible but it’s also possible he can’t.

[@jasonbabilonia3037]

CHECKPNT my money is on frank lol

[@CHEKPNT]

Lol you can put your money on him and believe what ever you want. I’ll put my money and belief in God’s one only truth. Lol

[@jasonbabilonia3037]

CHECKPNT amen brother I'm just playing good to see you have a sense of humor, lets pray for david Lynn who got arrested last week for preaching in a Lgbtq community.

[@bennjanja2382]

catholic church compiled the bible

[@narrowisthewaytoeternity]

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows: (1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship. (2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete. (3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities. (4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine (AD 272-337) and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors-Pontifex Maximus. Pope Gregory I, ruling from 590-604, is usually considered the first bishop to truly wield papal authority. Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word. Second Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

[@mosesking2923]

Please leave your false, manmade Protestant religion which was created by a cult in the 1600's. Join the Catholic Church, the church founded by Jesus Christ and the only church which is 2000 years old. Repent of your heresies and submit to the Pope and you may have a chance of being saved.

[@TomaszKapuscinski]

@@mosesking2923 Are You just kidding or what?

[@mosesking2923]

@@TomaszKapuscinski Not kidding at all. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ himself with a history going back 2000 years old. As such, the Catholic Church alone is the true church. The Protestant churches are cults created by men with no connection to the first century apostolic church. Prove me wrong.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Moses King Western Christianity attacked Eastern Christianity declaring war on them in the 4th Crusade. What we see historically is Rome left the true church officially in 1054. If there’s one church then it’s the Eastern Church...and for the record I’m not Orthodox I’m just stating it as it is.

[@TomaszKapuscinski]

@@mosesking2923 Catholic (common) Church was founded by Christ indeed, but roman-catholic pagan sect? No way ;) Submit to pope? Don't be silly! Better for him to be born-again first... I don't care about all that protestants vs romans war. The only One I have to submit unto is my Lord Jesus Christ. I don't have to prove You wrong because You're just blinded by religion. Just open Your eyes and pray for truth and you will be freed from it very fast :D Bless ;)

[@pioprukop8352]

the catholic or protestant canon?

[@timjansen7694]

The video goes off the rails when he starts talking about eyewitness testimony and his stating that there is strong evidence suggesting that what the New Testament says is really true. What the New Testament says is anywhere from secondhand eyewitness testimony, to mythology, depending on what is specifically cited.

[@narrowisthewaytoeternity]

Tim Jansen Mythology?

[@maow9240]

Eyewitnesses were around when the gospels were being written

[@randallanderson1632]

@Tim Jansen I would say that most of the NT is mythology, including the secondhand accounts. What would not be mythology and is generally accepted would be that Jesus is based on a real-life person, probably a traveling preacher who spoke of hope and inspiration to crowds. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he was anything other than a mere mortal who could not perform miracles.

[@timjansen7694]

@willie No, firsthand eyewitnesses were not there when the Gospels were being written.

[@MartTLS]

willie Name some .

[@totalityofscripture1001]

You can thank Dan Brown for this idea about the Council of Nicea

[@neoneherefrom5836]

Lmao the concept of the Catholic Church compiling the Bible predates some 21st century Hollywood flick by a long shot.

[@totalityofscripture1001]

@@neoneherefrom5836 yes that’s true. What I meant is that the current popularized view of it has been influenced by Dan Browns novels and movies. I find that most who spout this claim do so from this position and not an actual historical perspective.

[@neoneherefrom5836]

@@totalityofscripture1001 I hope for our sake that you’re wrong but I suppose I underestimate the power of pop culture since I tend to avoid it. God help us all. :)

[@totalityofscripture1001]

@@neoneherefrom5836 I wish I was but unfortunately the influence is overwhelming. I’ll give you one that even Christians fall for in the vast majority. You may even fall into this trap. I hope not. What’s the name of the woman caught in the act of adultery? Many will reply Mary Magdalene. Where does this idea come from because it’s not found in the Bible. It comes from a movie most watch every Easter since 1965. The Greatest Story Ever Told portrayed them as one and the same person. Is there an older belief in this idea probably but most that believe this didn’t come to this conclusion through study. They’ve watched the movie for 30yrs and it becomes ingrained as true.

[@neoneherefrom5836]

@@totalityofscripture1001 excellent example my friend. The concept of Mary Magadalene as a Jezebel took great hold.

[@jaden3560]

He quoted "Ignatius of Antioch" in the video. Well, St Ignatius spoke of the word "Catholic" in greek. 🤪🤪🤪🤪

[@kg6120]

You really don't even need the NT. to recognize the divinity of Jesus. It is all thru the OT as well...

[@itswheetie9898]

The scarlet thread!

[@TheB1nary]

Which the early Church Fathers spoke of often! Read Behr's "Way to Nicea."

[@miselemondele]

I get the impression these people in the video are evengelicals and they are discussing council's of the Holy Roman Catholic Church without acknowledgement of the Authority granted by Christ to the Church to continue His work on Earth. Without recognizing the universe altering power of the Holy Mass, they cannot understand the role that the Bible is meant to play in Salvation. It's certainly not the way it's being used now. The Bible is part of the package of the Catholic Church. You can't separate the two and if you try you only end up chasing lies invented in your own mind believing that the Spirit is guiding you. The third person of the Holy Trinity also doesn't work outside the Catholic Church. The Church and the Mass are the vehicles of the New Covenant which Christ established with the human race. Everything about it parallels the Covenants God estaBlished with the Patriarchs of Israel. However Christ opens His covenant to the whole world. All you must do is become Catholic through baptism and participate in the Holy Mass which is the only form Of worship instituted by Christ and acceptible To Him. Why would we try to come up with our own version of Church service when our Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer already laid it all out for us?

[@christianmorales7991]

Ya know , there are half truths in that statement but only half truths unfortunately

[@andrewmedina7588]

Our Separated Brethren have to take the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise that “it would be with always till the end of the age,” out to justify their claims. Can’t really argue with third person of the Trinity now can you? If they say, the Catholic Church doesn’t have it, then they’re much like LDS, who claim an Apostasy and Jesus’ death and promise wasn’t enough to sustain the Church.

[@christianmorales7991]

@@andrewmedina7588 are you Roman Catholic?

[@christianmorales7991]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us well I agree that many protestants are very um flimsy with God good thing I'm not a protestant , but I always love when people generalize others just by what they say. In your case every person who doesn't agree with you on scripture might as well be a protestant , but you'll grow out of it

[@miselemondele]

@@andrewmedina7588 the Apostasy currently unfolding in the Catholic Church may very well be the prophecy of St. Paul in 2nd Thessalonians or even in the Catechism that came out during JP2. It only further adds to the evidence that the Catholic Church is the saving Ark that without which all is lost.

[@gabrielfranco1899]

Kinda of weak answer how about the books that got taken out and things that got change during this council

[@totalityofscripture1001]

Gabriel Franco what books got taken out?? Can you provide a list of them please?? Also, what things got changed in those books??

[@sammygoodnight]

I agree that Frank's answer could've been stronger. He admits that he's not an expert on Church history. That said, his basic point stands. The council of Nicea was not convened to discuss the canon of scripture, but other issues. The canon was formed by consensus and use over the first few centuries, not at any council. I've read that, even if we had no surviving copies of the New Testament, we would be able to reconstruct all but a few verses using the quotations by the Church Fathers of the first 3 centuries. The same is not true of the so-called Gnostic gospels, which I assume your comment was referring to.

[@gabrielfranco1899]

@@sammygoodnight see thats what i dont understand why do they call it gnostic if the bible itself mentions them at leas two of them that i know

[@trench01]

As he said he does not understand Christian Orthodoxy and does not know the history stuff. Christ said he came to make the church not the bible. The Greek Orthodox Church made the bible by putting together the books they verified and collected. Others want to use it for money and power and maybe some might be saved, which is a gamble which is also a sin. Orthodox liturgy is the same now since the early church.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

Turek is wrong/ lying. There was much controversy about the authenticity and inclusion of many of the books. Luther even thought Hebrews was heretical. Notice he doesn't even get near the Old Testament. He admits late in the answer he doesn't even know what he's talking about and his fumbling about makes that clear. If you're not an expert, don't answer the question.

[@edinmichael4842]

It wasn't just Hebrews...but also James, Jude and Revelations. He kept these in a seperate index just the same way he kept the 7 OT books in a seperate one.

[@Issoirre]

you are correct. Turek threw up all over himself here. he is badly lacking lately

[@smoker420la]

I saw it as well

[@saenzperspectives]

"The Orthodox faith in the Incarnation is summed up in the refrain to the Christmas hymn by St Romanos the Melodist: “A new-born child, God before the ages”. 5 Contained in this short phrase are three assertions: 1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely God. 2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely man. 3. Jesus Christ is not two persons but one. This is spelt out in great detail by the Ecumenical Councils. Just as the first two among the seven were concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity (see p. 29), so the last five were concerned with that of the Incarnation. The third Council (Ephesus, 431) stated that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, “Godbearer” or “Mother of God”. Implicit in this title is an affirmation, not primarily about the Virgin, but about Christ: God was born. The Virgin is Mother, not of a human person united to the divine person of the Logos, but of a single, undivided person who is God and man at once. The fourth Council (Chalcedon, 451) proclaimed that there are in Jesus Christ two natures, the one divine and the other human. According to his divine nature Christ is “one in essence” (homoousios) with God the Father; according to his human nature he is homoousios with us men. According to his divine nature, that is to say, he is fully and completely God: he is the second person of the Trinity, the unique “only-begotten” and eternal Son of the eternal Father, born from the Father before all ages. According to his human nature he is fully and completely man: born in Bethlehem as a human child from the Virgin Mary, he has not only a human body like ours, but a human soul and intellect. Yet though the incarnate Christ exists “in two natures”, he is one person, single and undivided, and not two persons coexisting in the same body. The fifth Council (Constantinople, 553), developing what was said by the third, taught that “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”. Just as it is legitimate to say that God was born, so we are entitled to assert that God died. In each case, of course, we specify that it is God-made-man of whom this is said. God in his transcendence is subject neither to birth nor to death, but these things are indeed undergone by the Logos incarnate. The sixth Council (Constantinople, 680-1), taking up what was said by the fourth, affirmed that, just as there are in Christ two natures, divine and human, so there is in Christ not only a divine will but also a human will; for if Christ did not have a human will like ours, he would not be truly a man as we are. Yet these two wills are not contrary and opposed to each other, for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine. The seventh Council (Nicaea, 787), setting the seal on the four that went before, proclaimed that, since Christ became true man, it is legitimate to depict his face upon the holy ikons; and, since Christ is one person and not two, these ikons do not just show us his humanity in separation from his divinity, but they show us the one person of the eternal Logos incarnate. There is thus a contrast in technical formulation between the doctrine of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation. In the case of the Trinity, we affirm one single, specific essence or nature in three persons; and by virtue of this specific unity of essence the three persons have only a single will or energy. In the case of the incarnate Christ, on the other hand, there are two natures, the one divine and the other human, but there is only a single person, the eternal Logos who has become man. And whereas the three divine persons of the Trinity have only a single will and energy, the one person of the Incarnate Christ has two wills and energies, depending respectively upon his two natures. Yet, although there are in the incarnate Christ two natures and two wills, this does not destroy the unity of his person: everything in the Gospels that is spoken, performed or suffered by Christ is to be ascribed to one and the same personal subject, the eternal Son of God who has now been born as man within space and time. Underlying the conciliar definitions about Christ as God and man, there are two basic principles concerning our salvation. First, only God can save us. A prophet or teacher of righteousness cannot be the redeemer of the world. If, then, Christ is to be our Saviour, he must be fully and completely God. Secondly, salvation must reach the point of human need. Only if Christ is fully and completely a man as we are, can we men share in what he has done for us. It would therefore be fatal to the doctrine of our salvation if we were to regard Christ in the way that the Arians did, as a kind of demi-God situated in a shadowy intermediate region between humanity and divinity. The Christian doctrine of our salvation demands that we shall be maximalists. We are not to think of him as “half-in-half”. Jesus Christ is not fifty per cent God and fifty per cent man, but one hundred per cent God and one hundred per cent man. In the epigrammatic phrase of St Leo the Great, he is totus in suis, totus in nostris, “complete in what is his own, complete in what is ours”. 6 Complete in what is his own: Jesus Christ is our window into the divine realm, showing us what God is. “No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known to us” (John 1: 18). Complete in what is ours: Jesus Christ is the second Adam, showing us the true character of our own human personhood. God alone is the perfect man. Who is God? Who am I? To both these questions Jesus Christ gives us the answer."-The Orthodox Way, Kallistos Ware

[@saenzperspectives]

“The Importance of the Ecumenical Councils Thus, the Church met and overcame several important challenges to its Faith during the age of the Ecumenical Councils. First the Church had to defend the divinity of Christ in response to Arianism. Then the Church had to defend the differences, but also the unity, of the two natures of Christ, human and divine by rejecting the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Nestorianism fell into error by dividing the two natures of Christ in a way that failed to recognize the reality of the Incarnation in which God the Word became flesh in Christ. Monophysitism fell into the opposite error by failing to recognize that although Christ is one person, He also has two natures, human and divine. Instead they so emphasized the unity of the two natures that they denied the reality of the human nature of Christ. Thus, the Church steered a moderate course between the two extremes and thereby protected the teaching that Christ is one person with two natures. The Church protected the integrity of the human nature of Christ by rejecting Monothelitism and insisting that Christ has both a divine and a human will. Finally, the Church emphasized its recognition of the Incarnation of Christ as man by insisting on the veneration of icons which portray the Incarnate Christ. Unfortunately, these two heresies caused the first schismatic movements that still exist today, the Assyrian Church from Nestorianism, the Oriental Orthodox from Monopohysitism, and finally, the Maronites from Monothelitism. It is true that the debates became heated at times, but with the exception of the violence used by and against the Monophysites in Alexandria, they were relatively free from violence by either side. Indeed, the debates that raged in the Church during the age of the Seven Ecumenical Councils are tame and insignificant compared to the bloodshed that ravaged Europe during the wars between the Protestants and Catholics. The Seven Councils did not burn anyone at the stake as did the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With the exception of the revolt and suppression of the Monophysites in Egypt there were no religious wars. Although some emperors attempted to force the Church to change its teachings, these efforts were unsuccessful. Every time that the emperor tried to force the Church to change its beliefs, the Church prevailed and demanded that the ruler accept the authority of the Church to define its own doctrine. Even all the power of the iconoclastic Emperors could not pressure the Church to abandon its icons. It was proper that the Church should reach its conclusions on these important matters after a healthy debate. According to Orthodox doctrine, no council is automatically infallible or ecumenical. A council rises to the level of infallibility and becomes an Ecumenical Council only after the Church, including clergy and laity, recognize that its decisions express the Holy Tradition of the Church. Thus meetings like the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449 or the iconoclastic councils are not Ecumenical Councils, because in time the Church rejected their conclusions. The Council of Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council because with the exception of those who went into schism, the Body of Believers recognized its decisions as an expression of the Faith taught by Christ and His Apostles and preserved by the Church. Orthodox theologians call this process of making decisions by councils subject to the acceptance of the Church “sobornost.” The concept of “sobornost” expresses the conciliarity of the Church. 304 Thus, the councils were not external authorities over the Church, but were themselves ways by which the Church worked out its doctrine in a conciliar fashion. The Councils did not invent or develop new doctrine. They defended and, at times, refined the teachings of the Church in response to those whose teachings differed from the deposit of beliefs inherited from Christ and His Apostles. Of all the various Christian groups that exist today, the Orthodox Church has preserved most perfectly the teachings of the Church at the close of the Age of the Ecumenical Councils. The papacy as of modern Roman Catholicism did not exist during the age of the Ecumenical Councils. At that time, the Bishop of Rome, like every other Bishop, was expected to yield to the collective wisdom of the Church reached by the Councils. The Church did not embrace medieval Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and Indulgences. All Christians used the text of the Creed as approved by the first two Ecumenical Councils. However, neither was the ancient Church of the Ecumenical Councils Protestant. The Church recognized the authority of Bishops in Apostolic Succession. Its worship remained faithful to the traditions inherited from the Temple and the Synagogue where Christ and His Apostles worshiped. All Christians recognized the saving grace received through the Sacraments. The Church recognized the infallibility and authority of the Holy Scriptures, but did not divorce the sacred writings from their proper context within the rest of the Holy Tradition inherited from Christ and His Apostles.”-Historian & Archpriest John W. Morris

[@wintermoonomen]

Why are they still arguing over 'stuff'? It's moment like me that reenforces my beliefs that the Bible is a man made book inspired from many outside sources such as the Sumerians and many others.

[@Issoirre]

Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon in 367 AD

[@Redeemed_Supplanter]

Well... actually, not that he's the final authority on this anyways, but Athanasius did not recognize them as part of the canon. In fact, the book of Esther wasn't even counted. He said they were good for reading but not part of the canon. "But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings..." ~Athanasius in his thirty-ninth festal epistle

[@JJ-cw3nf]

Yes he had great influence and worked with Pope Damasus in determining the books of the new testament cannon in the 382 Council of Rome.

[@todbeard8118]

The Council of Nicea in 325 CE decided that Jesus was God eternal. The Council of Rome in 389 CE decided what books would comprise the NT canon.

[@todbeard8118]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us You're very ignorant of the history of Christianity. There were many different beliefs from the 1st through the 3rd centuries that Christians had. Many of them thought he had human parents and was exalted at the resurrection. There were several at the Council of Nicea who thought the same thing. Thai's whyn the Council of Nicea was held. Before you comment on something you know nothing about, study the history. You won't find that in the bible

[@todbeard8118]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us When you start denying recorded history you lose. Would you like for me to type out what Britannica says about the Convention of Nicea? I doubt it. I doubt you even read the history. This is something you'll put your fingers in your ears and squeeze your eyes tight to.

[@todbeard8118]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us Ever notice how a majority of the time someone's religion is the religion of their parents and they all think their religion is the right religion?

[@todbeard8118]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us I already know. It appears you don't.

[@todbeard8118]

@Saint Michael Pray for Us The key word is majority. You'll find exceptions everywhere. My parents were and still are die hard Christians. I was for 35 years until I actually read the bible, researched biblical history and the history of the Levant The majority of people practice the same religion as their parents.If your were born in India, chances are you'd be Hindu, like your parents if they were from there. If you were born in Iran, chances are that you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would've worshiped Zeus and Apollo.

[@theodore8178]

No biblical canon was decided at nicea. There are 6 different biblical canons in use today. Some of those were determined by local not ecumenical councils. The Latin get their canon from local councils hippo and Carthage and later ratified at their counter reformation councils. I'm orthodox our nt canon was decided by Athanasius' paschal letter and the local council of laodecia. We use the entire lxx as our other. This was ratified at the council of Jerusalem which is dogmatic and binding but I don't think it counts as an ecumenical council since it wasn't imperial.

[@dinopad10]

He's not exactly correct. There were LOTS of books that were considered "gospels" and there were too many heretical issues coming up because people weren't using the same books, and even more "bad" books were making their way into teachings. So, the councils were put together to solidify and DEFINE which books were inspired and therefore, scriptural. There were TONS of books that were scrutinized against the original teachings of Jesus, and later, the Apostles, along with Traditions that were handed down since then. Lots of what people were taught was from Oral Tradition, and there needed to be an authority on what was correct and what wasn't. This, by the way, is why Arianism arose, because they were using "bad scriptures" that denied the deity of Christ. No, the councils did not "write" the scriptures, but they did intensively scrutinize the available writings, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, were able to put together the Bible for everyone to use, Universally. This is VERY different from the "fighting" we do today, that Frank mentions. Lots of the "fighting" we have over scriptures is from that loss of authority, and the REASON those scriptures made it into the Bible. Protestants try to focus on their own interpretations, calling this "sola scriptura" and literally become their own personal "pope" with their own personal "authority" to read and interpret scriptures. How do people expect to understand scripture the same way today as the Apostles did? or the Church Fathers? Or the officials at the Councils? It's VERY arrogant to think that any random person, living in 2019, can pick up a Bible, and comprehend everything the same way as John, or Paul, or or St. Ignatius, or Tertullian! Cultural differences, language differences, even time differences are HUGE obstacles in understanding scripture fully, and therefore, we need a central authority to help us to understand it! There is a REASON Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, which the Apostles in turn handed down to their successors! Why do Protestants continue to deny the basic setup that Jesus gave us? Why do Protestants constantly avoid things like Acts 8:31, and 1 Cor 11:2, and 2 Thes 2:15? This is one of the few places where Frank really disappoints me in his meager answer.

[@xander4043]

100% agree with everything you said.

[@savedbymylovegodthelordjes8394]

praise the Lord and God bless you

[@JPLMONEY23]

God gave us The Word.

[@neoneherefrom5836]

Stuttering after a question is a bad look.

[@GGM20000]

You have Council of Jerusalem in 60 AD

[@grandpaje4734]

Yes, there is problem if people hold the council about Christ but they don't have the authority or they are not apostles nor prophet: Amos 3 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; Eph 3 KJV 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1

[@TexasHoosier3118]

Are you a prophet or an apostle, since you are discussing/debating religious topics?

[@rslproduction]

Who is Soter, wasn't Ptolemy the first was he called Christ. We are no longer asleep, Juda is waking up

[@gonzalopde6916]

All the early "church fathers" were all catholic and recognized the authority of the Pope in Rome. St. Ignacius of Antiquia (ordered bishop by St. John) was the fist one to name the church of Christ "Catholic" (universal in Greek) in the year 102. Today all the dozens of thousands of Protestant Religions believe that the Bible is the written word of God because the Pope Damasus I (38th Pope) said so in the Council of Hypona in 393. Later on in 1226, another catholic, Stephen Langton, bishop of Canterbury. Yet, another catholic, Robert Estienne divided the bible in versicles in 1551. Finally, In 1592, Pope Clement VIII approved the versicles of the bible and made them oficial. Thus, the protestants have the bible and believe it is the word of God thanks to the Catholic Church. What Luther did is take out 7 books from the old testment and that's it.

[@steliosmitr8245]

no, protestants believe that the Bible is the written word of God because it says so IN THE BIBLE . 2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. The books within the bible werent canonised by any church. The scripture were considered canon way way before that.

[@rocsaltjohn]

@@steliosmitr8245 Yes, where does He think the pope who declared it got if from?

[@kgxxx10]

@@steliosmitr8245 Just because a book says it is inspired does not make it so. BTW this verse does not tell you which books make up scripture. So it really does not say what you want it to say.

[@sierraclark6129]

“If you declare with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Now is the time to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Obey His commands and repent of your sins because Jesus is coming back soon. Tomorrow isn’t promised.

[@John14-6...]

Lol. As soon as Frank shot down the Council of Nicaea being when Christians decided what to follow, you see an exodus of students.

[@jenex5608]

Frank Turek needs to really study his stuff

[@CPATuttle]

It seems Turek is purposely delusional about the Catholic Church. That’s the best non-answer he could give. He said” Ignatius recognized 25 of the 27 books” as his answer

[@jenex5608]

@@CPATuttle The Roman Catholic Church didn't give us the scripture

[@CPATuttle]

@@jenex5608 This isn’t true. Wikipedia New Testament “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”

[@jenex5608]

@@CPATuttle If u read council before Council of Carthage Rome and Hippo. The council document always reffered to Scripture. Take for example Council of Nicea, it says "and he ressurected on the third day and is coming to judge the earth, in accordance to **Scripture **". The 4 gospels and majority of Paul's letter was already considered scripture further councils discussed on books like 1 Peter, Revelation, Hebrews. Now back to my statement. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exists during the canonizatioj of Bible. Because the East West Schism didn't happen. It was just the one apostlic catholic (here meaning universal) church. No organization as the Rome Catholic Church, No papacy existed back then. Saying Roman Catholic are responsible for scripture is pseudo history. The term "Roman Catholic" was coined after the reformation to seperate Protestant (who still called themselves as part of the catholic (universal) church '). Before the reformation it was simply the Western Church, or Western Catholic Church as opposed to its east rivals the Eastern Orthdox Catholic Church.

[@CPATuttle]

@@jenex5608 “scripture” and “bible” are two different things. Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church can trace the bishop of Rome from Pope Francis to the first bishop of Rome Peter to Jesus Christ. There’s no interruption. You really need to read Ireneaus who says Sheperd of Hermes is scripture. That are not in todays bible. And then he lists the first 12 bishops of Rome and explicitly states the papacy in 180 AD. If you Google disputed books or antilegomena you can see the books disputed as scripture by Eusebius of Caserea’a writings. And look up Armenian Apostolic church who didn’t have Revelations in their scripture until the 5th century. There’s so many examples to show there was no closed cannon for centuries in the beginning of Christianity

[@TeeJ577]

Lol...He actually compared him getting together to argue to them getting together just to argue 🤣 When you do it you will have no authority to take out anything or change anything will you? They on the other hand had authority to declare what shall be and what shall not be. Now who gave them that authority? Were they good men that can be trusted or men that once thought sex with boys was a right of passage 😡 Who in their right mind believes these men 😡

[@phoenix21studios]

holy scripture is a collection of authorized text, not an authorized collection of text.

[@brianellison18]

Bishop Arius had a very large following even after 325 C.E.

[@MarvelGamer2023]

With all due respect my Catholic brothers, your church fathers or your bishops did not write my Bible. The Bible was written by Prophets of God and Apostles of Christ long before the Catholic Church came into existence. So when you claim that the church gave us the Bible, you’re equating the church with God.

[@Issoirre]

Wow, just Wow, frank either lied deliberately in this video or he is astonishing ignorant of he council of Nicea. At this point I would have to say Frank is actually damaging apologetics and needs to stop for awhile. This was bad.

[@Issoirre]

@Augy No it was not. Furthermore he was wrong or lied about when the biblical books were assembled into canon and why they were assembled. So in short shut up or smarten up. Your brand of ignorance does not further the faith

[@totalityofscripture1001]

bradcah1966 when was the list finalized into canon??

[@Issoirre]

@Augy history

[@Issoirre]

@@totalityofscripture1001 Hello and thanks for your response :) This is a tricky question because there are some outliers, but as far as the New Testament, the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) is the first complete list of the books broadly accepted in the New Testament by Christians. If you read Michael Kruger he has some interesting ideas regarding canon :) Have a great day. Brad

[@totalityofscripture1001]

bradcah1966 yes Athanasius had a list but Revelation was not agreed upon until the Council of Carthage or Rome. Very late like 395 and later. Athanasius pretty much pushed it through. The Syriac Peshitta did not include it until the 6th or 9th Century. The Orthodox Church still does not use Revelation in their liturgy to this day. What we can tell from history is that each Church see had the flexibility to read certain books that the others may not use. Were there the common ones? Sure but they were not as dogmatic about it in the East as we have become in the West. This should be taken into deep consideration. Many used the Apocalypse of Peter over that of John for centuries. Some rejected both. Some accepted both. This is a complex issue with much nuance.

[@HermesAnubis]

They were biased and took out a bunch of books in the bible along with writings