Apostolic Fathers

[@seekrighteousness297]

I like how they prayed they did not bow their heads. They looked toward Heaven, hands held up in the air palms up just waiting to recieve the love and blessings of the Holy Spirit and it was more festive less solemn.

[@39Thorns]

As an Orthodox Christian, I feel kinship and continuity with the early Church. I know some Orthodox who were Baptized triple immersion, some with water poured on the head three times. We still fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. The language of the Eucharist is still basically the same. The Orthodox never doubt or feel the need to search for this connection, we take it for granted. If you profess your belief in Christ, you also have faith that He preserved His Church, with no breaks, down to this day.

[@jrother]

Indeed, my greatest hope is for the reunification of eastern Apostolic Christianity and western Apostolic Christianity. May the Church of Christ as soon as possible breathe with both lungs once again.

[@johnmonk9167]

I didn't see any comments on this so I'll quickly point it out. If someone else said it then forgive me. 18:20 you incorrectly said 'love your neighbor' is the greatest commandment. Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with your all" is the greatest.

[@reformedcatholic457]

I love your work Ryan. I think it is important to know church history. Apostolic Fathers and the Protestant Reformation are my favourite subjects. God bless you brother!

[@armymobilityofficer9099]

How can one document put the form of baptism to rest? If anything the didache shows a preference for immersion. If the didache is authority for alternative forms of baptism, then is fasting required of the modern church? Or repetitious prayers? If the didache is viewed as not being divinely inspired, then at best it is one record of early church history. If tradition conflicts or varies from clear teachings in the Bible, we should follow the Bible.

one of the points here, is that whoever he was, he lived in the first century. And believed in jesus the ressurection and carried on the beliefs that Paul believed. Bart Ehrman and other christianity debunkers don't mention Origen, Irenaeus, Clement and Tychicus and Tatian.

[@RyanGalazka]

I am an orthodox christian, thank you for this video. I appreciate it.

[@prisavelin]

I LOVE the visual graphics in your videos, Ryan. They, along with the audio lectures, really enhance the education experience for me. Thanks!

i have to admit. the early christian writers and the early Fathers and the early witnesses to church culture resembled Catholocism, not protestantism or Pentocostalism or Saddleback, or 7th day, or Atheism.

[@dallasmcquarrie1937]

Reeves always does an excellent job. These videos are a real treat!

[@jenna2431]

Thanks for this one, Prof. Reeves. It is simply amazing to me how the early church transitioned so easily away from Paul Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Clearly, Paul's discipleship with Yahshua didn't separate him from the Torah. In their efforts to pry themselves away from the also off-track Talmud and Mishna, the so-called oral traditions, they also distanced themselves away from the only authentic authority--the Torah, Navi'im, and the Ketuvahim. That they were all exercised as to how to do this, how to do that, only is a testament to how off-base they were once they ignored those. (And now today, we have pastors all over the place still marginalizing Scripture, well, except for that whole tithe thing--keep those shekels coming!)

[@jenna2431]

BTW 17:48 proofreading catch. "Jewis" for Jews.

[@jenna2431]

Since you cover the Didache's opinion that the church was "Eucharistic," can you speak to a teacher/talmydim tradition where a "graduation" would be held when a current crop of disciples was deemed well-enough educated to go out and become teachers, in which there were be a dinner with bread and wine? I've seen this pop up as an explanation of the "lord's supper," that this was the disciples' graduation since later that evening Yahshua would be taken hostage and then, of course, crucified. PS. I just shared your channel with my Restoration FB friends.

[@RyanReevesM]

Jenna Caruthers // Thanks! Yeah I have had a whale of a time with typos the last few weeks, most likely due to editing late at night and being overly sleepy! I always debate taking them down and fixing them, but I figure: let the typos stand for now, warts and all. No one is perfect! :)

[@garyschwitz3383]

Another fantastic video and I am making it my hobby to watch 5-8 per day. They are ALL great summaries and I want to thank you for your work.

[@ronaldkaljouw1618]

Deut. 2:4 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

[@Smartsoapsuds]

thank you very much for taking the time to do these videos I wish that one day I would have the chance to study under someone who makes things comprehensive but also without diminishing the history or integrity of belief ευλογίες κυρίου μαζί σάς

[@donnasmith9839]

brother reeves, i do appreciate your videos and have been using them to inform those in Bible study of early church history. i am puzzeled that there is no mention of IRENAUS. was he not an early church father and apologist??

[@MrHeat9]

1st centery B.C.? wpuld it not be 1st centery A.D. ?

[@richunixunix3313]

Always enjoy your lectures, very informative. You keep to the point and avoid the interjection of Christology (regardless of your belief). Keep up the good work..

[@dovidshaw3994]

Job mentions the Pheonix: Job 29:18, Then I thought, ‘I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix.

[@johnb4632]

David Shaw; not sure what bible you are reading; Does not say phoenix in Job 29:18 in the Douay Rheims. And I said: I shall die in my nest, and as a palm tree shall multiply my days. Read DRB Douay Rheims in biblehub.com

[@dovidshaw3994]

It says:" KeChol arbs gamin." Ke means Like Chol often means Sand. So I will multiply my days like sand. But the word Chol in Hebrew can also mean Phoenix. You may find this article of interest taylormarshall.com/2007/06/phoenix-in-scripture-and-tradition.html

[@richardmcpeake7001]

is it possible to get this lecture in PRINT? WHERE? HOW? A great definition in understanding daily language. Great information and lecture!

[@seanthomas2423]

About later fathers citing Tertullian; if you look in Cyprian's small treatise on Prayer, he cites Tertullian's On the Lord's Prayer in the prologue, or introduction.

[@seanthomas2423]

+Sean Thomas I do not mean cite a portion of it, but he (Cyprian) definitely uses the text as a whole to shape his treatise.

[@PathOfAvraham]

11:45, The "wailing" or western wall stands just as strong as, the southern,eastern and northern walls. The southern entrence and miqvot. the eveated plateaus and courtyards. As well as the entire subterranean chamber system...

[@philipbuckley759]

I always thought something was missing, and this seems to be it...the history, of the Church to see what is Biblical and what is tradition...

[@nickymaz05]

Dr. Reeves, truly outstanding lectures, thank you so much for making these videos!

[@cdamauser1963]

"To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant". John Henry Cardinal Newman

[@jrother]

If you want to see how the Roman Christians worshipped, observe the Roman Liturgy that still remains in every Extraordinary Form Mass in many Catholic parishes around he world. You all have been invited.

[@yasmimminsay9279]

marvelous playlist - love your channel - God bless your life dear.

[@tolar9]

That was brilliant. Thanks for that, Professor Reeves, and for all your other vids on Church History, too!. God bless.

[@RyanReevesM]

Thanks, tolar. Glad you liked it! It was one of the funner ones to make thus far.

[@danm7527]

im glad i found your channel. you talk about the exact things that interest me so much. subscribed

[@seekrighteousness297]

It also tells you that prophets and teachers that travel around are to stay only two days and you send them off with food but if they ask for money they are not from God, but if they are collecting for the needy then don't judge. ( But today i would make sure the money goes where the person says. If they are taking your money and driving expensive cars and live in multi million dollar houses your money ain't going to no cause Please give to those who NEED IT just because someone says they come from God we test are to test the spirits. Even the Human ones.

[@thomashunter7040]

Thanks Dr. Reeves for a fine lecture. I was once a member of a church that believed water baptism, and specifically believer (as opposed to infant) baptism by immersion is essential for salvation. It is enlightening to discover that there were other options available shortly after the first century, although baptism by immersion was preferable. I had not heard that baptism was supposed to come from living water if possible, thanks!

[@Matthew24.4]

Michael Nolan Nolan baptism by full immersion is correct but we do not need to be baptized to be saved. You have misinterpreted that verse - the verse does not end with 'don't believe and don't be baptized and you will be condemned' - it says believe not and you will be condemned. One can't ignore the plethora of other verses that clearly state that we are saved by faith/belief alone. Yes we should be baptized and we are told to do so but it plays no part in our salvation. God Bless.

[@johnb4632]

Sure Deal; wrong interpretation. You are not saved by faith alone. You will be judged by your works or your faith is dead. The devil even believes. For example if you have no love; your faith is like a clanging symbol. Love is action....a verb....works. It's like telling a homeless guy have you found Jesus; not giving him some food to eat and saying God Bless you.Christ said what good is that the homeless guy goes away hungary still. Christ said feed the hungary. Read James 2:24-26 You will be judged on your works. Douay Rheims bible DRB biblehub.com Christ said; Do not deceive yourself. Daniel 12::4 knowledge will increase.

[@anivision]

Hi there, I just want to clear up a misconception that I see a lot about the 'saved by faith alone' concept. The belief is that saving faith comes from believing in Christ and repenting of your sins - BUT good works will naturally come from that change of heart if it is sincere. So saying 'saved by faith alone' does not mean some arbitrary belief in Jesus and then you're excused to do whatever you want. I think some people have that misconception because so much emphasis has been placed on belief in some circles and not enough on what true belief looks like in action. But the actual doctrine is clear - we are justified solely by what Jesus did on the cross and saved by repentance and faith in who Christ is and what he did, and the PROOF that you have truly believed in Him is a changed life full of good works. So people who are saved will become more loving and forgiving, will serve others more, and will do their best to get rid of sin in their lives. There are many people who sit in churches both Catholic and Protestant week after week who claim to be believers but live in sin and don't have a relationship with God. These people can do all the good works they want and volunteer every day of their life, even get baptized, and it will mean nothing to Christ if he didn't know you (Matthew 7:21-23).

[@marbanak]

Excellent stuff! At 23:00 you explain the Friday fast tradition of early Christians. I wonder if you checked the Greek text. The wording translated "Friday" was literally "Preparation", indicating a continuation of the 7th Day Sabbath, observed the subsequent day.

[@servaline]

And after nearly 2000 years, the church is still vulnerable.

[@johnb4632]

servaline; Yes the church is weak however Christ is our strenght. That's almost prophetic what you wrote.

[@HHY623]

thanks for this fantastic course. The slides is really great, I guess you must have spent a lot of time to prepare them. Really appreciate this effort! BTW, there is a typo in the last slide, Lightfood should be Lightfoot.

[@Milverton68]

I would like to thank you for these videos. They are fascinating and really informative. Again thank you.

[@jajanesaddictions]

What does fasting actually do to prepare one for the ceremony? I mean, and I'm having a hard time putting what i actually want to ask into words here, are you supposed to feel emptied or clean or weak or free from whatever it is that HE wants you free from? Are you supposed to feel the suffering of hunger? Does one "offer it up"? "Fasting, it's what's for dinner" lol

[@michaelcooksey7232]

Fascinating. I enjoyed this and learned a lot.

[@martinbragalone]

Well done. Very easy to follow

[@ishmaelb5780]

Clement's Phoenix = Jellyfish. An imperfect substitution but Jellyfish have a cyclical pseudo immortal existence.

[@louie115]

THIS IS AWESOME TEACHING!

[@zacharyboni1118]

I'm an atheist, but I like your videos.

[@marklim6452]

+Zachary Boni I am a Catholic, and I LOVE Ryan Reeve's videos

[@SmithsnMoz]

+Mark Lim .. As a Catholic, you might want to give a listen to Steve Ray, former protestant who was brought "kicking and screaming" back to the Catholic faith... His words not mine.. The DVD The Apostolic Father's is GREAT!! GOD LOVE YOU!!

[@Awurabena1]

+SmithsnMoz Who is a Catholic or Protestant? A Christian is better than both for only Christ died for any or any baptized and follow His teachings.

[@marklim6452]

Awurabena1 But you will not be able to know who Christ really is without the Catholic Church. Protestants on the other hand, made their own personal Christ, they thought they are following Christ, but if you analyze it, they are really following themselves.

[@pwndecaf]

What crap - typical RCC response.

[@pakk3490]

thanks..i like it..it has deepened my understanding of the faith..

[@chessgeek10707]

15:30 Isn't it Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, and not "Epistle of Diognetus"?

[@RyanReevesM]

+Jay Kay // Titles can be shortened and are frequently in historical writing. Same book.

[@pwndecaf]

One can continuously argue with a Roman Catholic, or one can ignore. Free will.

[@lizicadumitru9683]

Hello Dr Reeves. Wanted to thank you for this video series and others. Was wondering if you know whether the apostle Peter made it to Rome to preach, start churches or speak to Jews of Rome about the Messiah? I live it if you could point me to any resources that would show that if any exist? Thanks again.

[@ChefMatthews333]

I am a BIG FAN....I think there may be a very small talk-O (like a type-O but vocal) in the first few seconds of the presentation....I think it says BC instead of AD....if I am wrong I do apologize for posting....but it may be a tiny error to correct unless I missed something. Thank you for your time and thank you so much for all this amazing information!!

[@RyanReevesM]

Victor Matthews // Thanks for the note. And you are correct. The audio is recorded as a live voice-over and there occasionally are these typos. I have a list of them I will eventually go back and clean up. Good eye! :)

[@Bix12]

+Ryan Reeves Your lectures are top shelf, Professor! I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards any of your subscribers/viewers, but I have to say that I can only imagine how you must sometimes feel, when, after putting in so much work and thought and time on one of these outstanding videos, you are called to the carpet for the single minutiae of an ever-so-slight angstrom of a misstep. You must just shake your head and mumble something to the effect of "Are you kidding me?" under your breath.

[@RyanReevesM]

+William L. // Thanks for the kindness! Maybe a younger version of myself would have been grumpy, but the longer you teach and write the more you develop a thick skin over corrections. Besides Jesus and the cross tell me that I'm a sinner and prone to error, so why not embrace it! :) I see helpful comments as 'crowdsourcing' ways to improve my teaching, so it truly doesn't raise my blood pressure ever.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Hello Ryan, I love your work and I have a question for you. With the early church fathers it seems like some of them taught baptismal regeneration, what are your thoughts on that? Blessings.

[@hellcat2435]

I like your video very educational

[@borneandayak6725]

Catholic the real Church, proud to be a Catholic.

[@moorek1967]

+Panglima Dusun Which type of Catholic are you?

[@borneandayak6725]

moorek1967 Roman Catholic.

[@1969cmp]

Panglima Dusun Only the original believers did not believe in purgatory, praying to Mary and nor was the seat of Church authority in Rome. The statue of St Peter in Rome used to be the statue of Jupiter of the old Roman pagan religion. And that is what Roman Catholicism is, a blend of Roman paganism with Christianese attached. Roman Catholicism is inherently idolatrous.

[@borneandayak6725]

1969cmp We'll begin by making clear just what we mean by "Purgatory." The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030). This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It's often called "a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice." It is said to represent "a second-chance theology that is abominable." We get these and many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family member, or co-worker.

[@borneandayak6725]

1969cmp In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26). For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory. This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs. 29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19). Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have [eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, exceptingthese two verses. When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St. Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place and not exclusively in this life.

[@pastorjoseperez]

Ryan, Do you have the videos in Spinish?

[@rasbennie7711]

I didn't know apologetics to be that old, thought it started in the 90s😬

[@moorek1967]

+Ras Bennie It did, 90 AD

[@moorek1967]

I saw a video a few years ago about some people who said they were living according to the Didache, they seemed to be very New Age.

[@dovidshaw3994]

He said "externally follow the Jewish faith.." That means they didn't serve G-d with any inner feeling and sincerity. This is such a bad Christian attitude to Judaism of those days.

[@johnb4632]

David Shaw; the church was just learning to get away from the external hyporical pharisees.Jesus said; unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees you will not enter the kingdom of God.I speak as a testimony to Christ; a witness to his light and as a devout catholic.

[@TheIconodule]

Ignatius dying in Rome for his faith isn't sincere?

[@AndreyKarlovich]

I like how you use Orthodox Icons instead of Roman Catholic style. :)

[@300pzl]

subbed.

[@KenDelloSandro7565]

at that time Corinth could of written to St. John the apostle because he was still alive, but knowing St. Clement was the Pope at that time, they needed his guidance. Doesn't this show the authority of the Bishops of Roma to rule as Christ's vicar?

[@halwag]

'''could have written". How could Clement have been a Pope? There was NO CHURCH at that time, the only church was Imperial Rome.

[@eurosensazion]

Harold thank you I don't understand why people cannot comprehend time and know the makings of Christianity. There was NO singular church when Paul was alive nor could he be Pope in a pagan world where they'd be killed and Imperial Rome existed. Is this confusion from teaching of various Catholic priest today? It seems people just listen to what they are told, and honestly its annoying because every priest and church is so different even if the same modern church faith sometimes.

[@halwag]

c Corinth could have written. (Watch your grammar!). The rest of the sentences don't make much sense to me.

[@halwag]

Euro: Correct grammar: Harold, thanks for your insight. Most Ch. don't know much about ancient Ch, just a Sunday-school, folk-tale account. Most go to church and hear comfort and uplift (G-man is watching over you, serf-jerk.) (It's annoying...).because sermons sound different, event though the basic message is the same.

[@adeedas]

I really love your videos, Ryan! I came across a funny type-o though - around minute 17 it says "desire to distinguish from Jewis and Romans" - I guess the "i" is silent :) Bless you

[@DINKDESIGN]

Ryan, theres a very interesting book and some peer reviewed journal articles by Hennie Stander on some of these topics. Thank you for the great content.

[@1saxonwolf]

Early christians would be pagans in the Roman world. Roman religion certainly isn't pagan in that era.

[@AlkalineDietHealth]

wonderful videos, thank you so much Ryan :-)

[@IMJW1000]

What religion were early Christians? Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Jehovah promised Moses that Israel would become a, "kingdom of priests, and an holy nation", if they, "keep my covenant". John 4:22 You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. Jesus' entire ministry was to Judea, exclusively. At first, one had to be a Jew, in order to become a Christian. Baptism was limited to Jews, as per the promise that God made to Moses that their decedents would be a nation of kings and priests. Acts 24:14, But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets. Christians were Torah practicing Jews who followed, "the Way". They were just Jews, who had accepted Jesus as Messiah. No change in beliefs, yet. Pure Judaism. Unitarian. They followed the law, recited the Shema and met at the synagogue on Shabbat to listen to the Torah being read. Act 10:28, He told them, "You understand how wrong it is for a Jew to associate or visit with a gentile. But God has shown me that I should stop calling anyone common or unclean Then, under inspiration, Peter opened Christianity to the gentiles. Act 15:5, But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The gentiles must be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses." 6 So the apostles and the elders met to look into this claim. Once the gentiles were allowed into Christianity, a problem arose. The Jews were following the law of Moses and the gentiles were not. Remember, the Shema which the Jews recited daily. They understood God, as they still do to be one God of one person. Act 15:28, For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Be prospered. The issue was resolved by the governing body, called the apostles and older men in Jerusalem, by no longer requiring Christians to follow the law of Moses, following the law of Christ, instead. At this point, Christianity became a new and separate religion, distinct from Judaism Hellenistic pagan personalities, holidays and doctrines came later, after the apostasy of the church by heretics, such as Clement.

[@JerettOlson]

which translation of the Didache would you recommend?

[@OscarSanchez-nk3uw]

A worthy subscribe!

[@benbutler8608]

Whatever happened to the "Epistle To Dippy"? Is that wrong?

[@SandraL024]

Clement of Rome of course was not there to establish a Church! Jesus already established His Church! Clement was the second Pope after Peter the Rock! What I don't understand is if you have studied Church history and the Apostolic Fathers, why are you not Catholic? You need to come Home to the Catholic Church! I'm praying for your conversion to the Catholic Church! :) If indeed you do believe that all your findings and research lead you to believe that the Catholic Church is the one started by Jesus Christ, it is your obligation to actually become Catholic to join in the Church that Jesus established for you and for me, and for every Christian who wants to be part of His Body, the Church. God bless you.

[@Matthew24.4]

Sandra L The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, Acts 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone (Peter). And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6). The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

[@evantolkkinen8725]

I mean, I get what you're saying. But just because lineage can be traced back, you can't assume that there won't be error... especially because the Orthodox Church can be traced even further before Catholics. Either way, you can't expect perfection from humans... we need to look to the Word and Christ as our Church. Just because the Catholics are old doesn't mean they have it right this day

[@Garapetsa]

Sandra L Roman Catholic teaching omits a lot of history (facts). the early Christian Church documented the faith very well. ecumenical minutes were taken too. when the Roman bishop excommunicated Constantinople and they he, he changed a lot of history to substantiate his position in old Rome. Peter is an example. there is no historic evidence Peter was ever in old Rome. Peter was the bishop representative for Jerusalem. Clement was the first bishop rep for old Rome.

[@johnb4632]

Berean Revolution; what 40,000 protestant denomination do you belong too. Wafers.Jesus said; unless you eat his flesh you will not have life in you and you will not enter the kingdom of God. When the Jewish man speaking to Jesus about eating his flesh he walked away and this gesture sealed the fate of the Jews not understanding the bread that came down from heaven. Protestants consider wafers as you call them just a symbolic gesture. In the Catholic faith we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist because we are believers. A catholic priest can do what a thousand men cannot do and that's changing bread and wine to the actual precious body and blood of Christ. This is a great mystery. Of course it does not changed the substance of the bread but completely changes spiritually.

[@johnb4632]

Sure Deal; In scriptures you are talking about; The builders who rejected the stone; did not realize the stone was the cornerstone. Your interpretation is false. Jesus was referring to the Jews as being the builder and the stone was Christ himself who was rejected by the Jews. Peter was purposely singled out above all the other apostles for a reason. Not only was the key of heaven given to Peter but also to build Christ's church. Rome was the capital of the known world. Your assertions that Peter never ended up in Rome is false. There are proof that he was hung upside down on a cross out of respect for Christ. Similar to a pope not taking the name Peter as pope. In the catholic church there are prophecies that say the last pope will name himself Peter of Rome. Although every pope is known as Bishop of Rome. Jesus said; wherever the bishop is; it's where my church is. Your assertion that Peter was not our first pope is incorrect. In some ways you are correct for the church was not organized in a political or religious matter but in church matters and spiritually he was the first pope where literally as Jesus said upon Peter my church will be built.It was not officially established religiously and politically until 325 AD by Constantine. If you go to St.Peter's in the Vatican Rome main altar you can drop a pin and below literally is the tomb and bones of St.Peter.

[@seekrighteousness297]

Most people take the aposolic writers are considered the Ante-Nicece.

[@anitaniuta9187]

How can Harry Potter teach church history when it is satanic and the boundaries between good and evil are removed? Its bad fruit is the the greater interest of the young in occultism, magic.

[@halwag]

What church?

[@MikereMio]

Lovely

[@budyharianto8229]

yes vulnerable also for roman propagandas within its geopolitics ambition.... #creatingChrist#

[@halwag]

No surviving documents until 5th C.ad. Reeves says a contradiction: Didache is impossible to date, but then claims it was from 1-2nd C. ??? A catechism? Whose catechism? c

[@marysylvie2012]

Excellent!

[@jacobcarpenter3744]

Dr. Reeves, the earliest Christians held to the doctrines of grace, though some were more robust than others. Papists, which I use in the archaic term, will do anything to twist context and Scripture. "Catholic" means universal, and we Protestants know it refers Jesus Christ's followers. The woman crowned with stars in Revelation is symbolic. Faith alone in our Lord's once for all sacrifice 2, 018 years ago, to the glory of Him alone. Christ heads the Church! The Bible is God's breathed revelation on history and the true Christian life.

[@sueanwittmeier441]

It says in the bible to call no man on earth Father

[@mikha007]

there are 7 churches in character and the roman catholics appear to be like to nicolaitans

[@mitzvahgolem8366]

Mathew 10:5-6, Mathew 5:17 and James Acts 15:19 and 12:17. It is apparent Paul and the Greco romans usurped Jesus his brother James 2::8-24 was written out of church history it seems. Therefore Christians today are actually following "Paulianity" with Nicene Creeds. This was done to quickly and easily convert all the pagan gentiles into a new religion for all against what Jesus said in Mathew 5:11 and 19 as well as mathew 15:24. Paul calls laws of God a "curse"? Not to listen to Jesus or James? Bizarre....first time I have read your NT . No wonder there are 30,000 different churches today.

[@thecoffeyfamily7998]

When did the church start prayer to Mary and to saints?

[@nicholasvogt2524]

Jeff Coffey Uh... We never did buddy.

[@marklim6452]

eversince

[@hilarykurungtiem8102]

when disdi the church staretd using the bible alone

[@marklim6452]

Bear Man Yup, you and your 20th century groupie did not pray to her because you are not a Christian. Contained within the larger version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a fragment of the fresco from the catacomb of Priscilla in Rome dating from the Third Century which is one of many ancient images of the Blessed Virgin. The oldest hymn to her is contained is called in Latin the " Sub Tuum Praesidium" (Under Thy Protection) and dates to the Third Century. It is also found in Greek and Church Slavonic and begins with these words:"We fly to your patronage, O holy Theotokos; despise not our petition in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O ever-glorious and blessed Virgin." That's the earliest preserved evidence (3rd century). It does not mean Christians did not pray to her ever since

[@marklim6452]

Bear Man And If you do not believe the Church in Rome (Catholic Church), asked the other Ancient Church (the Orthodox Church) about intercessory prayer to Mary. I do not expect you to know this because you belong to a 20th century groupie. You are not one of us.

[@coreycollins9620]

will you stop mixing truth with magic?

[@Matthew24.4]

If the Didache was authoritative and inspired by God it would be in the bible. The New Testament tells us that false doctrine had already crept in to the church while the apostles were alive. The bible is the final authority - when the teachings of the Didache are not found in the bible we should not be using it to create or support doctrine eg Eucharist and sprinkling by water baptisms. The origins of the Eucharist trace back to Mithraism which 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/Catholic communion/Eucharist. 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. The Didache seems to have documented, and supported the Mithraic pagan practise of sacrificial meals as it infiltrated the early Church. There is a reason the Didache didn't end up in the bible and we should never forget that. God promised to preserve his word for all generations and out of nowhere this document appears in the 1870's. Satan the Great deceiver mixes truth with lies. I would ignore the Didache when it comes to doctrine and stick to the bible.

[@donnasmith9839]

i guess the gates of hell did overpower the church.

[@mxl1994]

Yep, right off the bat Jesus forgets about His promise. This is happening in the 1st century and Jesus has already gone amnesic. I wonder if these people even think about the implications of their assertions.

[@brianingram4709]

Yes and the promise that Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13)was false, and the scripture 1st Timothy 3:15 which states "the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth." is false or that the Church which is the House of the living God (again 3:15) was overcome by the devil which proves that the devil is stronger than Christ because as scripture says (Mark 3:21) no one can enter a strong man's house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man's house. Of course those who assert that it did, promote the theory that a Proto- Protestantism always existed as the hidden true Church. Which beggars the question which one of the 5000 different sects and their offshoots is the one. 'Sure deal' asserts that scripture is the final authority, which is contrary to what it says (Corinthian 6:1)that the Church is. If we agree that scripture is the final authority why is their so much dissension with in Protestantism on what scripture is telling them?

[@1969cmp]

Carlos 1994 Only those herecies didn't snare everyone and therefore 'The Church' continued on in The Word and in the faith that they were birthed into. There has always been a remnant through the ages that have remained solo scriptura.

[@mxl1994]

1969cmp can you provide a historical reference from the 1st century that supports sola scriptura? As far as I know this is a proposition from the 16 th century and we all know its autor. Also, which Church among the thousands denominatios continued on in the Word and in the Faith? Can We identify it in this big mess we have now? Remember the Faith is only one and Jesus founded only one Church. The early Christians didn't practice sola scriptura, they didn't have a Bible to begin with. They were taught the doctrine orally from the Apostles and their disciples. The doctrine precedes the Bible, without it the Bible could have not come to be. I'll be waiting for that reference. I'll read it. Blessings!

[@armymobilityofficer9099]

The Didache is not scripture. There were false teachers in the 1st century, but we must accept as spiritual fact this document. No reference to dipping in the Bible.

[@halwag]

Ryan has a PhD. and does know a lot of history, but his version has been filtered by his seminary to be the correct doctrine .

[@RyanReevesM]

Think you're overestimating the power of a seminary to do this filtering.

[@Garapetsa]

I bet the Roman Catholic Church doesn't like this vid. yes... Clement was first old Rome Bishop Pope. there were others who succeed. for 1000 years CHRISTIANITY flourished from Constantinople. that's a lot of successions. Roman Catholic ignore this part of history.

[@Jesusandbible]

The stupid anachronism of the "original Catholic Apostolic church" fragmenting into the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church, is first of all that ALL the bible evidence is that the original church was identical to the Evangelical born again house group movement today, and, secondly, when asked to define the beliefs of the "original Catholic Apostolic church" the Roman Catholics describe it as doctrinally identical to them, and the Orthodox doctrinally identical to them, yet both claim ALL the historical evidence supports their two contradictory stances.

[@halwag]

Clement a Pope? Come on, no real Church in those days. Painting shows C. in a big Roman cathedral in first c.. Come on! St. Peter's basilica was built centuries later. Why doesn't Ryan understand that early Ch. absorbed customs from Mithraism, Gnosticism, Stoicism, Roman/Greek mystery religions,etc. So those apostolic guys were pagan also, right? . Muslims and Jews and progressive churches don't accept the idea of JC being a divine messiah--no more than Mohammad was.

[@insanisstultitia3119]

I am an Atheist.

[@catholicmilitantUSA]

I came to watch this video but it's apparently infected by heresy :'(

[@mikha007]

why do you say palestine when you know it was an insulting name to Israel?

[@halwag]

Mr. Reeves is not showing history, but a kind of mytho-legend account. There was no Church in the first 5 centuries, only a collection of pagan cults, some of whom followed a Jesus cult. some of whom were Jewish. Paul's message was in conflict with the J. cult, who did not agree with his depiction of JC as a celestial messiah. Often Paul was driven out of the towns he preached in--something RR never mentions. Paul called them 'brothers' not Ch. Paul never met JC, did not speak his language, was an epileptic Roman. Why would he persecute an obscure Jewish-JC cult? The Church began in 3-5th C. ad (CE). Clement of Alexandria was a Greek-speaking Father who wrote in defense of Ch. orthodox doctrine, and influenced the Council of Nicea (325ad). RR is sermonizing, not teaching.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"There was no Church in the first 5 centuries' Harold, and you know this how? What does scripture itself say?

[@halwag]

No documents, just oral stories.No literacy,only legends.