The Earliest Christians Didn't Have a Bible?

Have you ever heard the claim that the earliest Christians didn't have a Bible? They certainly had the Old Testament, but when was the New Testament considered Scripture?
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, podcast studio gear and other items,
please visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store at www.amazon.com/shop/alisachilders

[@allen4659]

This young lady is awesome source of religous thought and apologetics. Very intelligent n articulate. Blessings! Great Christian singer and pianist. She is actually a former recording artist that toured the USA

[@philblagden]

Very informative and useful. I got a lot out of this presentation.

[@phillip0537]

Fantastic job! Somehow you managed to make it clear concise and compelling all at the same time. Keep up the great work.

[@livingforjesus4539]

This is great! You have a wealth of knowledge regarding church history and apologetics ! Thank you Alisa!

[@Jesusmyhopeofglory]

Great Video Alisa and I’m ordering The Confessions now 🤎 thanks.

[@Cristina_Pavel]

Thanks for this video, Alisa! Suggestion - It would be helpful if we could see the quotes while you read them.

[@ambinintsoahasina]

I really like your videos! I learn so much from them. Only thing that would be more helpful I think is that you could show the quotes on screen when you read it

[@bryanmorrissey1300]

Brilliant and informative video. Thank you.

[@Zumbamom]

Wow great video. I need to go through this again :)

[@chrisj9892]

Thank you for everything, your channel has interesting subject matter. God bless

[@2GunRock]

Thanks Alisa, that was a terrific history lesson, a real blessing.

[@derekjohnson3454]

Thank you for doing this video!!!!

[@marychakkalackal6076]

Thank you Alisa

[@asielchristopher4955]

Thanks a lot for info of so much value..!!

[@tamarascallion6720]

Thank you Alisa, I have found new depths and meanings in your videos. Very helpful for my improving walk with The Father.

[@thepsalmsman]

Love this so much - thank u

[@Peter-kt9iq]

Excellent video sister Alisa!! Praise Jesus Yeshua !

[@salimadjaho3227]

Hello from The Republic of Benin, i started watching your videos this morning, what a blessing

[@louiseleite3866]

Hello from London UK 😊

[@salimadjaho3227]

@@louiseleite3866 I lived 2.5 years in the UK, in Stratford

[@louiseleite3866]

@@salimadjaho3227 Cool. I hope you're doing well.

[@salimadjaho3227]

@@louiseleite3866 yes am blessed and I believe you are aswell

[@louiseleite3866]

@@salimadjaho3227 Yes, all good thanks to Jesus ♡

[@greentree14]

Well done, Alisa Childers. You covered a lot of ground in thirteen minutes!

[@elizabeth.annrose]

Augustine is one of my favourites as well. Thank you for your research.

[@qwaxerty]

Thanks a lot for this theology lesson. Anytime I ask theological questions out loud in front of my sisters, they say that I ask too many Christians and that I might join a sect because i am too curious.

[@abramtillabuild8477]

can you please do a video with the books you are talking about and where to get them? This way I can get them to grow more of my knowledge as I grow in apologetics and as a Christian. Thanks!

[@FeliDomz]

I appreciate what you do so much,Thank you! Did you go to school or did you gain all your knowledge from personal research? I would love to be this equipped

[@sbeallvln]

Thank you ☺️

[@blostin]

Thank you!!

[@richardrice1032]

Another of Alisa's shorter Videos/Podcasts that, in my opinion, is well suited for a Bible Study. I also suggest checking out the topic of a Liturgical year. She has a Closed Caption, CC, button that I did not notice before. (Must be getting old!). Perfect for Pausing!

[@wendysykes608]

Thank you 🙏

[@MrsPPNC]

Useful 👍

[@eddieyoshida9627]

Thank you lady

[@hanswanninger4502]

Very good....thank you

[@Robert-ie8eb]

History records 4 early Councils of the Church with regards to the canon of Scripture: “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). - Council of Rome “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). - Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]). - Council of Carthage "That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books. The New Testament. The Gospels, iv. books.The Acts of the Apostles, j. book. The Epistles of Paul, xiv. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij. The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij. The Epistles of James the Apostle, j. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j. The Revelation of John, j. book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." - Council of Carthage (419)

[@williamfranz6639]

Thank you for taking the time.

[@raybo632]

Do you listen to Rc. WOW! I LOVE the title of the video, surly it will draw plenty of scepticism, however , by the GRACE of God, may they reconsider. Might our LORD bless. You. Keep seeking His RIGHTIOUSNESS.

[@humsterstories9736]

Many situations which have some similarities and might be viewed as one and the same still have discrepancies which prevent us from recognizing them the same, why so?

[@eb9391]

Hi, just querying how can we trust the early church as the ones to decide what is scripture? couldn't it change based on if it was another group of people at another time? so how can we confirm or deny this is what God considered his scripture?

[@gregclift626]

I heard one guy explain it (canonicity) like, "It wasn't that books were excluded with a rubber stamp, or one single vote, they just were simply, not used by the early church. Those books excluded themselves really." And when you talk about the Council of Nicea, I love the legend of St. Nicholas punching Arius the heretic. Nice job Santa!!!

[@blevans3]

Fantastic job. I've used many of your arguments to defend against progressive Christianity. Bravo!

[@mitchellscott1843]

To use Twitter parlance I sense this is a subtweet of your recent conversation with Matt Fradd and potentially other Catholics you've encountered.

[@ODEMUZIC]

What does your logo mean? One vertical line and some diagonal lines below and all out of the middle of the circle?

[@fnjesusfreak]

I suspect it has something to do with "roots".

[@ODEMUZIC]

@@fnjesusfreak Alisa made a video about her logo. I wasn't the only one who asked about it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZ2udZSfd8Z_q9E

[@agape-dikaia]

@Alisa Childers: Can you explain what do you mean by this sentence? “Apostles have the Holy Spirit properly: who have him fully in the operations of prophecy.” "Thus he attached the Holy Spirit's authority to that form of advice TO WHICH he willed us rather to attend; and forthwith it became not an evidence of the Holy Spirit but in consideration of his majesty - a precept." What is the subject of the "TO WHICH" - to you talk about "the authority", "Holy Spirit" or "the form" or "the advice"? The sentence is very confusing and does not make sense to me! Yet what do you mean by "advice" do you mean a) suggestion b) message, notification ?

[@9036164689]

So was the Early Christian Bible with Acropha or without it?

[@danbrown586]

The Apocrypha existed in the 1st Century, and doubtless many in the early church would have been aware of them, but the Jews did not consider them scripture. Augustine erroneously believed that the Jews did consider them as scripture, which is why the Roman Catholic Church does.

[@9036164689]

@@danbrown586 But the Catholic Church claims that their Old Testament was based on the Greek Septuagint. Which circulated among the Jew diaspora. The Church also actually claims that it's Old Testament aka The Septuagint is what Jesus referred to as scripture. That is because the Church claims to have found that more than 300+ references, Jesus made was from the Septuagint. From the light thrown by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls & the Essien community. It truly does not seem that even the Jews had a closed canon during Jesus's time. That's why some scholars tend to point to the Council of Jamnia as a definitive event. And let's not forget that Jerusalem was raided by the Romans during the end of the 1st Century. And regarding Augustine's error, how can one be sure. He was so close to the teachings of the Apostles themselves, so he'd know from where they teaching him from. And one can be sure also that the Rabbi's & High Priest of the time will do their best to prove that Jesus was not who he really claimed to be. Because for them one cannot comprehend their King to be crucified. So how are we to take at face value. That they truthfully defined the Canon and not so that it looked too much like the Christians. If they did not have done so, then we would not have Jews presently still awaiting their messiah. And from the likes of it, it does not even seem that all the Jews even followed the same calendar. They had Two: One being the Old & the other being the one they used at the time. The reason why the timeline for the events of the Passover also differ in the Synoptic Gospel with that of the Gospel of John.

[@fnjesusfreak]

I suggested, perhaps controversially, that for Scripture to be inspired, the canon must also be inspired, by which I mean the 66-book canon, and that it was not established by men but recognized as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[@bhcatanach]

St Polycarp, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus bishop of Lyon, St Pope Clement of Rome, St Augustine bishop of Hippo, St Ignatius bishop of Antioch: you fail to mention that these early fathers are filial sons of the Catholic Church.

[@TheMeefive]

When I say that the early Christians didn't have the bible I'm talking about the original Christians. The people in the Upper Room didn't have Paul's writings, the gospels, Peter's writings, Luke's writings etc. The first Pauline letter is dated 50ad, which puts it 17 years after the early Christians. I'm not saying there were no written scriptures before that. Acts 15 tells us that a letter was sent to Antioch to the Gentile Christians absolving them from following Jewish laws with the exceptions eating polluted meat, fornication strangled meat and meat with blood in it. Also they didn't have the bible implies that they didn't have what we call the bible today.

[@doctorlove1112]

Matthew 22:37 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your 'm i n d'..."! Alisa is becoming a powerful soldier for the faith! May God richly bless her ministry!!!

[@richardrice1032]

Agreed! Isaiah 1:1-18 came to mind as well. "Come now let us reason together..." A different context to be sure, but the same concept. Even earlier than that, check-out Deuteronomy 11:19.

[@Catholic101A.]

Christians didn’t have all the scrolls of the letters all at ones like she implying Thessalonians was the first letters written of the N.T. 30+ years after our Lord Passion, First it was the spoken Tradition, you can verify this With the beginning of the Gospel of Luke. If they had the N.T. Scripture why then was there a need for asking the Christians what had happened . And she forgot to mention not by omission i hope that which Church and Pope called the council.

[@jaredwilliams1031]

Yeah there is a lot of historical revision in this video.

[@Rob-mr1vk]

I was trying to find out if this lady is a Catholic because he quoted the Father who were bishops in the Catholic Church in the first century. I wonder why she didn't quote St Ignatius for his 5 letters to different churches in his time in the first century!

[@philblagden]

Catholics aren't the only ones who read the church fathers ;). She is part of a group called the gospel coalition and they are Reformed. www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/#confessional-statement

[@9036164689]

Actually she is reading Reformed scholars take on the Church Fathers. Not the work of the Church Fathers themselves. It seems she is on a journey & hopefully she will be pleasantly surprised by reading them herself.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@9036164689 How do you know shes reading someone elses take on the ecfs? I have them in my library too. Shes citing them verbatim. I also have Dr. Krugers book but she doesn't need that to cite the ecfs.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

There were no roman catholic bishops in the first century, or second.....

[@jaredwilliams1031]

​@@ContendingEarnestly The letters to Timothy and other epistles have references to Bishops, there absolutely were Bishops in the early church.

[@carlmorde7901]

Such crucial info for these days....Bible is the "Word of God". Trust it and believe it for therein lies eternal life. Sharp, short and sweet presentation by a sharp lady.

[@humsterstories9736]

So, philosophers and historians decide which books are scriptures??

[@samknobeloch503]

It's a shame so few of us as Christians know such critical information about the formation of the church! It has strengthened my faith so much to learn these things. Such information demonstrates legitimacy of our scriptures and refutes common lies and misconceptions of skeptics. Let us all spread this knowledge to others!

[@ginadanaher8568]

I have that same opinion of and attachment to Augustine. I loved Confessions.

[@CB-fb5mi]

1. Some say the early Christians didn't have a Bible...because they didn't. What most people are talking about when they make this point is that early Christians (and every Christian until pretty recently) did not have a personal copy of the Bible to read and quote all the time. However, it is also true that the concept of 'canon' did not come into play until the 4th century. Alisa's idea that there was some sort of distinction between canonical books and non canonical books for spiritual edification in the 1-3 centuries has no basis. If you are interested in this subject check out this podcast called 'Where Did the New Testament Come From?': www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-bible-for-normal-people/e/54019644 2. Some say Inerrancy is a modern conservative Protestant invention....because it is. Early Church Fathers talking about scripture not having falsehood would fall under the concept of 'infalibility' (the Bible will not lead you astray from the spiritual truth God wishes to convey) and not 'inerrancy' (the Bible is 100% historically and scientifically accurate about everything it speaks to). The concept of inerrancy did not come into play until the 18th/19th centuries for the simple reason that no one writing or reading spiritual literature before then thought about science and history the way we do now. To say any pre-enlightenment Christian believed in 'inerrancy' is anachronistic. 3. For all the talk about the 'Bible' being decided at Nicaea, when you look at what was actually discussed, formalizing the canon of scripture was barely an afterthought. Nicaea really had nothing to do with 'picking the books of the bible', it was about the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Yes early Church fathers studied and quoted scripture often, but determining what was and was not 'biblical' was not their top concern at all. Evangelicals who obsess about 'what does the Bible have to say' about everything would do well to note that their spiritual ancestors conspicuously did not do this for the first 15 centuries of the faith. You would think that if the primary task of the Christian is to discern 'what the BIble says', then determining what should and should not be in the Bible would have been of paramount importance in the first centuries. It was not. 3.5 Bringing up Dan Brown was a cheap shot, mainstream scholars and Progressive Christians don't take him seriously. 4. MInor quibble. The majority of New Testament scholars don't think 1 Timothy was written by Paul and they do not know when it was written, could have been well into the 2nd century. And basically every mainstream scholar (the ones that don't teach at bible colleges) agrees that 2nd Peter was not written by Peter, and could have been written as late as 130. So you cannot use them as evidence for anything about what the 1st or 2nd generation of Christians thought.

[@juancarlosaliba4866]

Progressive Christian spotted They quote the New Testament you know. Infallibility and inerrancy are just one and the same thing. Also, there is no basis that 2 Peter was written in the second century AD. The New Testament were written in the years 50 to 100 AD. The Fathers used to quote this all the time alongside the Old Testament with the Septuagint. They even call this the memoirs of the Apostles. Paul even quoted Luke's Gospel plus Deuteronomy as Scripture. Even Paul's letters were used by Peter as Scripture.

[@CB-fb5mi]

Juan Carlo Saliba Simply repeating the claims of conservative Biblicists does not make them true. Do some research about inerrancy vs infallibility, mainstream biblical scholarship on 2nd Peter and the relationship between Paul, Peter and the gospels, and then get back to me. And by mainstream scholarship, I mean “anyone who would not get fired from their job for saying the Bible is not infallible or inerrant.” Ask yourself, who taught me what I believe about the Bible? Did they work for a church or college where they would lose their job if they did not have certain theological conclusions about the text? Spend some time learning about the Bible from scholars who are not required to believe anything in particular about it...

[@juancarlosaliba4866]

I do disagree on your dating of 2 Peter though. And yes, I don't use these mainstream scholarship you speak of. I used the dating of the Patristics on these documents. What I do agree with you is that it did take years of debate before finally coming up with 27 New Testament books and that Nicaea never decided on the Canon but on the Trinity and divinity of Christ. The Canon came much later and yet Athanasius said there were 27 New Testament books. Jerome doubts that the Deuterocanonicals shouldn't be included and yet Augustine said they should be. The Pope eventually made a decree in favor of both Athanasius and Augustine. Athanasius used Scripture to refute the heretic Arius. The Fathers used the New Testament to refute heresies especially when you read the number of times they quote Scripture. You need to look at internal evidence to see how the language of 1 Timotby and 2 Peter does resemble a first century AD instead of 100 plus AD. I think the issue of authorship is the problem here. And yes, the Fathers did have an issue with Revelation I admit that. It took a Papal authority to decide on the issue of the Canon yet Irenaus had a copy of the book of Revelation and even used this in their readings in Christian churches. The way you argue, it seems to me, is from a presupposition that the Bible cannot be trusted in any way when this book is actually the most well attested source in ancient history. BTW I was once a skeptic and I used to believe those findings that are too biased against the New Testament.

[@kareneaton4052]

Dear Mx. Childers. Thank you for this video. May the Lord bless you. I am confused about something that you said. You said that the early Christians had the Gospel of Thomas in the category of heretical writings. In my studies I have seen that one of the main reasons the Gospel of Thomas is not reliable is because it was not written until sometime in the 1600s at the earliest.

[@sorelyanlie2784]

I haven't actually read the gospel of Thomas, but I expect that based on the name, it is determined to be heretical because it claims to be written by the same Thomas as was one of the twelve disciples to Christ Jesus. Obviously, being written over a thousand years after the death of Christ, that could not possibly be true, making it completely illegitimate and not a candidate to be included in the canonical writings.

[@RandyTheGrit]

What needs to be understood is the difference between scripture and tradition . When Christians accepted some books and disputed others that is called tradition. When church fathers asserted things about the scriptures that is called tradition. A consensus developed in the early church and was later formally recognized by the magisterium. That is how tradition gives us trustworthy teaching. Tradition gets promoted to sacred tradition when the church solemnly declares it to be true. This video documents this. Great job. It is worth pointing out that this process of tradition developing over time and eventually being solemnized into sacred tradition is the way the church arrived at all its teachings. The teachings about bishops and sacraments and justification and Mary and on and on. Protestants said later that this process of tradition developing into sacred tradition was not acceptable. It was error prone. But that is precisely the method used to arrive at the New Testament canon. Why is this method trustworthy for setting the canon but not trustworthy for anything else?

[@Tariphilip]

Hello, I think it's because scripture already exists and it can be objectively viewed. What I mean is for example, perhaps the early church fathers read the passage about Christ washing the feets of the disciples and they start washing the feet of the new converts and everyone picks it up, then it becomes tradition for the leader of a parish to wash the feet of others.. That can be seen and traced to a direct practice in the bible. Now, I can't speak for all the other topics you mentioned but for the adoration of Mary, a direct pratice is not seen in the bible. The two often cited passages are the wedding of canaan and the death of Jesus where Jesus commits her into thr hands of John. In both of these situations, no one is commiting their souls or spiritual well being into the hands of Mary. Or take the rosary too. There is nothing like that in the scripture. Second, just because the church elders make something into tradition doesn't make it right. Proper understanding of scripture is important. Take the example above of Jesus washing feet. He says in John 13: 13-15 "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done for you." It's easy to take this and run with the literal meaning that Christ wants us to wash the feet of other Christians. Yes. But what he really means is for us, layman or bishop, to serve one another. Another example would be where Jesus says, "Greater love has no man than to lay down his lofe for another." Again, laying down your life can mean dying the thr place of another (as Christ did) and ir can mean putting aside our interests and needs to serve the needs of others. It can mean putting aside your baseball game to take care of a sick friend. One more thing about tradition. We need to be careful with the traditions of men as Jesus said to te Pharisees when they complained about the disciples not washing their hands. He tells them by following the traditions of God, they make the word of God to non effect. They abandoned the commandments of God and followed after the traditions of men. And worshipped God in vain. This, I believe, is the most important reason why not all church traditions should receive a full pass. And traditions should not be held as more sacred than scripture. In essence: Out lives should not dictate scripture but scripture should dictate out lives." Thank you.

[@cancer4free155]

First off, the fact that there was dispute over even a handful of NT books disproves Sola Scriptura and shows the need for ONE authoritative church. Secondly, even if there wasn't dispute over ANY NT book before it was established by the magisterium, that still doesn't prove the Bible is the only authority for Christians. As you pointed out, there was dispute over a handful of NT books. If the Church was just some ethereal Church with leaders who didn't fall under the authority of one church and one pope, then you very likely would have multiple canons. You don't automatically get the 66 books of the Bible that every protestant today will blindly presume as being the one infallible canon.

[@samueltopping7812]

The tradition of holy scripture is much more ancient than that of a single pope figure. The idea of one human authority does not solve devision in the church, just makes it worse. It is a worldly idea of unity. Not the unity of the spirit

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Your post shows you don't understand sola scriptura. There is no papacy in the n.t. And, while some books took longer to be considered canonical, it took the rcc 1500 years to elevate apocryphal books to canonical status. Something they had no authority to do.

[@jaredwilliams1031]

@@samueltopping7812 'Holy Scripture?' Like, the Aramaic texts? Sure. You know that the events in the Gospels had to ACTUALLY HAPPEN before they were written down, right? Like I believe in God's Eternal Will, too, but humans had to have the Truth revealed to them in time and space.

[@cancer4free155]

@@ContendingEarnestly Thanks for your response. If your argument is that the deuterocanon is not Scripture because it took a certain amount of time, then what time limit should books meet in order to be considered Scripture? The handful of disputed books weren't largely accepted until the fourth century, such as Revelation, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc. So 1500 years makes it apocryphal, but 300 years is ok based on what standard? Second of all, The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the deuterocanonical books in response to the reformation and added anathema to them. The 73 book canon was established far earlier at the synod of Rome in 382, and affirmed by a number of following councils. That just concerns the OT though. Without the Church, you have a real dilemma on your hands of finding out what the divine criteria is for putting together Scripture. Scripture isn't Scripture because people believe it is, it is Scripture because the Church that Christ established, the pillar and foundation of truth,(1 Tim. 3:15) declares it to be so. Yes, the word "Pope" isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, although there is plenty of Biblical evidence for Peter's primacy. You're operating on the presumption that Scripture alone explicitly provides the fullness of Christian truth. The word Trinity never appears in the Bible, neither does the word "Bible." If you think that Scripture does explicitly provide all of Christian truth, I'd be very curious to see what someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity would conclude after reading the Bible. Would they arrive at the concrete and essential doctrine of the Trinity? Would they arrive at the doctrine of hypostatic union of Christ? Would they know if they need to get baptized or not? Would they really be 100 percent sure of how to be saved?

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@cancer4free155 *If your argument is that the deuterocanon is not Scripture because it took a certain amount of time, then what time limit should books meet in order to be considered Scripture? The handful of disputed books weren't largely accepted until the fourth century, such as Revelation, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc. So 1500 years makes it apocryphal, but 300 years is ok based on what standard?* Thats not my argument. The apocrypha isn't inspired because its apocrypha, not because of time. Again, while those 7 books and others were in the LXX and the vulgate they were not considered canonical or inspired but rather relegated to ecclesiastical status. *Second of all, The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the deuterocanonical books in response to the reformation and added anathema to them. The 73 book canon was established far earlier at the synod of Rome in 382, and affirmed by a number of following councils.* Trent 'reaffirmed' with an anathema! Which makes it dogmatic. "On April 8 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15 with 16 abstentions, a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) was issued in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by anathema." So reaffirmation or not, trent made it a dogma. And Rome 382, Hippo and Carthage were all local councils not binding on the church as a whole. Other lists were popular as well that predate Rome 382. *That just concerns the OT though. Without the Church, you have a real dilemma on your hands of finding out what the divine criteria is for putting together Scripture. Scripture isn't Scripture because people believe it is, it is Scripture because the Church that Christ established, the pillar and foundation of truth,(1 Tim. **3:15**) declares it to be so.* Thats just pure arrogance on your part. First, the rcc isn't 'the' church born at pentecost so it has zero authority to declare anything. Secondly, scripture is from God and revealed to His people. Saying your church 'declared it to be so' is not only sinfully proud but arrogant and condescending all at the same time. Gods written word doesn't need your churches approval before it becomes Gods inspired word. It already was. If your church can't get it right when it elevated apocryphal works at trent how in the world can they tell what n.t. books are inspired? They can't. *Yes, the word "Pope" isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, although there is plenty of Biblical evidence for Peter's primacy.* That has never been my only argument. Of course the word isn't there but the rcc keeps trying to claim its biblical by referring to verses that have nothing to do with a papacy. And its often called an office. Okay, where in the pastorals does Paul ever detail this office? He doesn't yet he can give details on the lowest office right, deacon. Deacon gets ink in the bible but the allegedly highest office in all of christendom doesn't? *You're operating on the presumption that Scripture alone explicitly provides the fullness of Christian truth. The word Trinity never appears in the Bible, neither does the word "Bible."* The bible isn't silent on things like church structure is it? Just your churches structure. The word trinity doesn't appear but the bible from Gen 1 to Rev 22 is full of verses regarding Gods character, attributes and nature. And the greek word biblion means scroll. *If you think that Scripture does explicitly provide all of Christian truth, I'd be very curious to see what someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity would conclude after reading the Bible. Would they arrive at the concrete and essential doctrine of the Trinity? Would they arrive at the doctrine of hypostatic union of Christ? Would they know if they need to get baptized or not? Would they really be 100 percent sure of how to be saved?* The Holy Spirit convicts. One reading Gods word can certainly see the gospel within its pages and be saved. The Gideons place bibles in hotel rooms. How many people have opened a drawer and pulled on out and been saved? We won't know until we are there in heaven. But you under estimate Gods power and the power of His word. And we also have teachers for that very reason, to be equipped and built up.

[@jflock63]

Excellent video! I love church history. I wish churches would teach church history as it would stop heresy.

[@13kimosabi13]

No it wouldn’t…..since all men are fallen…..and 100% of all believers are still sinners, it’s impossible at this time. Gotta call BS on your fallible and heretical ideology. I’d say nice try….but it wasn’t.

[@GR65330]

I love the teachings of the Church fathers as well and yes, they had a great love for the scriptures. We also find they had a great love for the Eucharist, the authority of the Church and holy tradition. I think that Irenaeaus said it quite eloquently when he stated: "It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth". - Ireneaus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4:26:2, 180 AD

[@tonyyelverton92]

Stay Alisa...

[@jembenjamin]

Augustin is a very important church father. Here is a quote from him regarding more specifics of what constitutes holy scripture. --ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave; one of Judges; one little book that is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon. . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras. . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called “of Solomon” because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority deservedly accredited to them [Christian Doctrine 2:8:13 (A.D. 397)].

[@amsterdamG2G]

I just don't like the term ' church fathers'....

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Jason Miller Salam / Peace. I'm a Muslim. With all due respect. The Church Fathers went so far as to MUTILATE the testimony of Jesus in their writings and preaching and the results are right in front of you that a BILLION+ Christians made a falsehood preacher (I've avoided the more obvious term) of Jesus. Jesus gave the testimony that THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD but the Christians testify that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Trinity) is the true God. The clear and emphatic, TRINITY-DESTROYING, unitarian monotheism of John 17:3 gave so much trouble to the Church as we see in the writings of early patristic authorities as they encounter the verse. One such patristic figure was the Doctor of the Church*** Augustine. He just could not digest the explicit and emphatic Trinity-Destroying testimony of Jesus Christ in John 17:3 that he attempted to MUTILATE the whole thing completely so that it would place Jesus side by side with the Father and together they would be declared “the only true God.” Dissatisfied with what John 17:3 says, Augustine writes the following in Tractate 105 of his Homilies on the Gospel of John: “But this, saith He, is life eternal, that they may know Thee [the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent. The [proper] order of the words is: “That Thee [the Father] and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, they may know to be the only true God.” The clear and emphatic unitarian message of John 17:3 was far too disagreeable to Augustine that he was willing to completely MUTILATE what was there in the scripture. And he was not alone in such an irresponsible enterprise. THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER - exposes such kind and destroys such abominations that Christians attribute to HIM and Jesus.

[@bradleyperry1735]

Faisal Siraj You have no place here.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@@bradleyperry1735 You didn't like the expose of the falsehoods which the Christians, misguided by false teachers, attribute to Jesus. You think that you people would associate abominations to Jesus and there will be none for his side. You're sorely mistaken. THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER has left the previous scriptures in such a state to back up HIS true believers - The Muslim - the TRUE defenders of the true honor and status and doctrine of Jesus AGAINST the falsehoods which UNFORTUNATELY, misguided by false teachers, Christians attribute to Jesus. It's the Brotherhood of Prophethood which the scriptures honor and protect against the lies of the transgressors. And on the Brotherhood of Prophethood, the chain of Prophethood: EVEN as per the NT, Jews awaited the arrival of three distinct luminaries. NO WONDER they inquired of John the Baptist: 👉 Are you Elijah? 👉 Are you Christ? 👉 Are you the Prophet? 1) Elijah 👉 John the Baptist (peace be upon him), NOT an incarnation of Prophet Elijah (peace be upon him) BUT in the spirit and authority of Prophet Elijah (peace be upon him) 2) Christ 👉 Jesus (peace be upon him) 3) The Prophet 👉 The Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 V 18-19 Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER has left the previous scriptures with an inbuilt system for course correction or destruction depending upon what someone chooses. Of course the scriptures admonish the deniers who see it right in front but yet deny.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@@bradleyperry1735 Jesus and THE FATHER and the Muslim are on the same side. UNFORTUNATELY, you're AGAINST. The scriptures are the testament. “And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom YOU have sent.” John 17:3 Jesus gave the testimony that the Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. ********* Jesus himself said in John 12:49-50 “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, HE GAVE ME A COMMANDMENT, WHAT I SHOULD SAY, AND WHAT I SHOULD SPEAK. And I know that HIS COMMANDMENT is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak” *********** Jesus himself said in John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, my doctrine is not mine, BUT HIS THAT SENT ME. ********** Jesus himself said in John 14:24 He that loveth me NOT keepeth NOT my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

[@grahammyers3197]

The disciples had Jesus who is THE WORD

[@maxiomburrows2099]

Rev 19:13 "The Word of God"

[@hiddengun8158]

well as we all know that the Bible has been translated from the original language to English. also yeshua that has been translated to Jesus in English. however, that translation led to misrepresentation in real words and meanings as well as many new interpolations happened which some of them removed and some are still exist. for instance the word (father) which litterally does not mean that, and it means (God) . Jesus said ( ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’) *Gospel of John 20:17*. as when Jesus was praying (‘he continued all night in prayer to God.’ ) *Luke **6:12* and he said (‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ ) *Luke 11:2* . Our Father that means Our God. Jesus said in *John **6:57* (I live because of the Father) which I live because of the God and he said in *Gospel of John 17:3* (‘that they might know you, *the only true God* ) and also the word (Son) which does not mean that litterally, and it means slave and servant of God. (‘Adam, which was the son of God.’ ) *Luke 3:38*. as in *Romans **8:14* ( For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. ) as everyone who follows the commandmnts and worship the only true God will be called son of god which means servant of god. just like Adam and Jesus and all prophets peace be upon them were. I don't wanna make it long So at the end we should be careful when reading the bible carefuly to understand and to not be cheated and deceived by people or church and just believe what they say. we should read to find the truth. and of course while reading you may find many contradictions as we mentioned before that because of translation and interpolation happened throughout the years.

[@humsterstories9736]

Check luk 1, no hand of god, but memories

[@sarapujols350]

What about the Book of Maccabee?

[@julieelizabeth4856]

It was part of all Bibles until Luther threw it (along with others) out because it didn't agree with his theology.

[@fnjesusfreak]

1 Maccabees is important for historical record, but it was written during the wrong period of time, when the voice of God was silent, and in the wrong language.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@fnjesusfreak But who decided it was the wrong language? Luther? The Jews? There wasn't actually a single sect of Judaism at the time of Jesus so there wasn't a single Jewish canon. One sect overcame all the others and then they closed their canon 100 years after Christ's death. By then it was irrelevant what they did. God's "400 silent years" is just a copout to justify removing books that were part of the Bible for 1500 years. Luther didn't even have a problem with all of those books, but used the language difference to justify throwing out the few he really didn't like. He tried to chop apart the New Testament too. The New Testament was written in Greek so if it was the "wrong language" it should have stayed the "wrong language" and the whole New Testament should be "wrong" too. "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin above Jesus on the cross. Truth is truth, no matter the language.

[@fnjesusfreak]

@@julieelizabeth4856 They were part of a divergent version of the Bible, and were properly discarded over time. Also, Luther had some messed-up beliefs.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@fnjesusfreak Who has the authority to say they were "part of a divergent version of the Bible"? We only had one version from the 4th Century (when the canon was officially closed) until the 16th Century. Luther's messed-up beliefs began the splintering (and weakening) of Christianity. Our culture is now considered "post-Christian" because its influence on people is now weak.

[@tonyshumway7652]

2 Timothy Chapter 4 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. 6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. 9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: 10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: 15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. 16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. 17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. 18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. 21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. 22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. (The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.)

[@tonyshumway7652]

2 Timothy Chapter 3 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[@tonyshumway7652]

2 Timothy Chapter 2 1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. 7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

[@charliethompson6883]

The apostle John turned over his manuscripts were handed over to the waldensien church. The scriptures of the new testament are what we know of the textus receptus. And the old testament came from the masoretic text. Thus, the king James bible came into being.

[@mrsimon8682]

Bible didn't say about Cross, Christmas and Santa Claus

[@jaredwilliams1031]

We know for a fact that the earliest Christians did not have the Bible because none of the twelve apostles were writing down the events described in the Gospels immediately after they happened. Even if we are extremely generous to those who espouse Sola Scriptura, it would have been close to 100 years after the Resurrection that everything was written down, let alone compiled.

[@tonyshumway7652]

2 Timothy Chapter 1 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; 4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; 5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. 6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. 12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. 15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: 17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

[@kenobi4582]

This is a clapback to Matt Fradd

[@shooterdownunder]

This goes against what Jay Dyer is telling his audience

[@Nachowz]

Jay Dyer has me absolutely twisted right now. :'( I'm hoping this video will help.

[@philblagden]

Jay Dyer is a smart, well educated guy. He is also dishonest at times and uses his knowledge of the church fathers to try to argue against scriptural teachings. He has gone all in with the Orthodox Church and is bound to try to justify his decision to walk away from evangelicalism.

[@shooterdownunder]

@@philblagden that's true. He's also incredibly obnoxious. I tried watching some of his videos and the way he speaks always ends up putting me off.

[@Nachowz]

@@philblagden He started off Baptist, went RC, then settled (after much study) on Greek Orthodox. I know he can be rough, but I haven't seen him be particularly hateful, vicious, or manipulative..but I could be wrong. However, the Greek Orthodox position seems to have solid arguments and questions for Protestants. Like: How can we read the same Bible but come to different conclusions about certain topics? If the Reformation was divinely inspired, why has it led to the state we're in? (many denominations, disagreements, etc) Why would the change in the Church happen so late in the game (last 100-500yrs)? Those are some questions that plague me recently. :(

[@philblagden]

@@Nachowz The central issues are apostolic succession versus sola scriptura and justification by faith alone versus justification by faith and works. Only one apostle was replaced (Judas) in the new testament. There had to be 1 apostle for each of the tribes of Israel and 1 for the gentiles. If you read the criteria for the selection of Judas replacement they had to have been there from the start of Jesus ministry (so that they had heard his teaching firsthand) and they had to be an eye witness to the resurrection. James the son of Zebedee died early on and was never replaced. Neither Paul or Peter ever hinted at a replacement for him. Paul said the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. You don't lay a foundation over and over. Apostles had a special calling to write scripture. Nobody after them could do that so the office ended. Apostolic succession is an excuse for the church to make it's own rules and traditions instead of the doctrines laid down in the bible. Paul clearly said in 2nd Timothy that scripture makes us wise for salvation, it is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching and training in righteousness, so that the man of God is complete and fully equipped for every good work. Catholics and Orthodox Christians deny that scripture leaves us complete and fully equipped for anything God might call us to do. They say "it's not enough, we need these oral traditions". Paul clearly taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that scripture is enough for salvation, for doctrine and discipleship, and anything else that God asks us to do. Fully equipped means fully equipped. Most traditions of Orthodoxy and Catholicism cannot be traced back to the first century. Some of their main traditions are much later. You can trust in God's word.

[@TheMirabillis]

In the New Testament itself, there was No official New Testament Canon. The Gospels were believed to have been written 40 - 60 years after the events that were written in the Gospels. Moreover, there is No scripture where Paul nor any of the other Apostles stated that what they were writing would be a part of any Canon. The New Testament is mostly made up of letters that were written to Churches. There is no where in the Old Testament where it says a Messiah will raise up to life after being crucified or after being killed. Basically, a Christian has to believe that people outside and external to the Bible were sovereignly guided by God to bring and put certain writings together to make up the New Testament. It all comes down to faith. Christians are believing what people ( who were supposed to have lived two thousand years ago ) believed. And that is Faith.

[@jamestrotter3162]

You say that there is no where in the Old Testament where it says that a Messiah will raise up to life after being crucified or after being killed. " Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know- Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him: " I foresaw the LORD always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence."-Psalm 16: 8-11, Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, " The LORD said to my Lord, ' Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies Your footstool."-Psalm 110:1, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."- Acts 2; 22-36. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, and he was speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He used the Old Testament book of Psalms to preach Christ. The Old Testament definitely teaches that the Christ( Messiah) would die and be raised from the dead.Psalm 22 is a prophetic Psalm depicting the crucifixion of Christ.It was written nearly a thousand years before crucifixion even existed. John quoted from it in John 19: 24, while Jesus was hanging on the cross. Jesus Himself quoted from it while He was on the cross. Paul quoted from Psalm 16: 10 when preaching to the Jews and Gentiles in Acts 13. Remember that in the early church, the only Bible they had was the Old Testament, because none of the New Testament had been written yet. The entire fifty third chapter of Isaiah is a prophecy of the death and resurrection of the Messiah. John quotes from it in John 12: 38.

[@TheMirabillis]

@@jamestrotter3162 It does not actually say that there will be a Messiah who will be put to death and then be raised from the dead. Rather, you have people in the New Testament interpreting what they believed Old Testament verses meant.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@TheMirabillis Those New Testament writers were writing and preaching and teaching by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of the Old Testament. So when they quoted the Old Testament prophecies in their teaching and preaching they also interpreted those prophecies with the correct interpretation given by the Holy Spirit. As I said, their Bible was the Old Testament and even the scribes of their day were familiar with the prophecies concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah. The difference was that the Apostles were guided in their understanding of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. The scribes and Pharisees weren't. In Luke 24, when Jesus appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus, He said to them in verse 27, " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself." In verse 32 it reads," And they said to one another, Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures?" In verses 44-45 of that same chapter it reads," And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." So according to Jesus Christ himself, the Old Testament does teach very clearly that the Christ(Messiah) would suffer, and die, and be raised from the dead. He should know, since he is the one who inspired all of it by the Holy Spirit.

[@TheMirabillis]

@@jamestrotter3162 You are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. Just because person X says that they were preaching by the Holy Spirit it does not logically follow that they they really were. begging the question You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good. Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question ---- As I wrote in my first post, " A Christian has to believe that people outside and external to the Bible were sovereignly guided by God to bring and put certain writings together to make up the New Testament. It all comes down to faith. Christians are believing what people ( who were supposed to have lived two thousand years ago ) believed. And that is Faith. "

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@TheMirabillis So, are you saying that the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is himself God, was wrong when He said that Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms were writing about Him? " Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life."- John 5: 39-40. Then He said in verses 45-47," Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?"Jesus validated the writings of the Old Testament as being the written word of God. You seem to have the same problem that the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees had. They didn't believe the scriptures were the written, inspired, word of God. They were lost, and didn't know God. Paul was once a Pharisee. He knew the scriptures, but he didn't understand them until he was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. In 1st Cor. 2: 12-16, he wrote," Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged by no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." The only ones who can rightly understand the scriptures, Old Testament and New Testament, are those who have been born again and have the Holy Spirit within them who illuminates their mind to understand the word of God. The truth of the scriptures cannot be grasped and understood with the human mind alone. You must have the Holy Spirit within you, and the only ones who have the Spirit are those who have been born again by the Spirit.

[@davidsarkar6668]

All thanks and praise be to Jesus, Amen !

[@gerardmiller7364]

Yes, however the bible was only a book of history. This was back in the days of Jesus. As Jesus read a part of the old testament, when he was on earth. The rest of the scripter was, written in the Hebrew or Arabic language. And king James had the bible translated, from those languages to all the different languages. And king James lived around 400 to 500 years ago. And a lit of the book's that were called history, from early scriptures, such as Enoch, whom lived before the flood and was the grandfather of Noah. He wrote in more detail about the beginning. Thanks.

[@rockandsandapologetics7254]

While I have never doubted the Bible and it''s being the inspired Word of God totally without error, I found this video tremendously insightful. BTW I have Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians and his martyrdom on my shelf at home, as well as the movie Polycarp. At one point in the move Germanicus, a boy Polycarp had adopted as his son, ran off when he was threatened by the Proconsul of Smyrna. He came back ashamed that he ran when he should have stood up for his faith. Polycarp assures him that he deals with fear a lot. The boy looks at him and asks, "You?" Polycarp replies, "Of course. Why do you think about God's perfect love so much? Because perfect love casteth out all fear." Germanicus is later arrested, tried and found guilty of treason against Rome. He is put in the stadium to face the lions. Later Polycarp, although being warned, is captured in Ephesus, brought back to Smyrna, where he too is tried. One of his responses in his defense was Romans 14:8, "For if we live, we live unto the Lord, and if we die, we die unto the Lord. So either way, we are the Lord's." According to eyewitness accounts he was tied to a stake in the stadium and dry branches were placed beneath him. Given a time to pray he THANKED Jesus that he was counted worthy to share in His sufferering, "and I do look forward to seeing You face to face." Then the branches were lit, but the fire billowed out away from his body, so they had to stab him with a javelin to kill him. May God grant to us the grace given to Polycarp and Justin Martyr when we face tribulation and persecution so that the end result will be a testimony that no one can eradicate, and our address changes from this world to His.

[@QuestionThingsUseLogic]

Go another step and research 2 Peter...It was not written by Peter! Also, Paul is a false apostle and has caused the falling away of believers from Messiah's words to KEEP THE COMMANMENTS, ie. TORAH. Only those with a quest for truth will be willing to research this and find the truth. But it is worth it!

[@al-jmely-9696]

﴿كَمَثَلِ الشَّيطانِ إِذ قالَ لِلإِنسانِ اكفُر فَلَمّا كَفَرَ قالَ إِنّي بَريءٌ مِنكَ إِنّي أَخافُ اللَّهَ رَبَّ العالَمينَ﴾ [الحشر: ١٦] [The hypocrites are] like the example of Satan when he says to man, "Disbelieve." But when he disbelieves, he says, "Indeed, I am disassociated from you. Indeed, I fear Allāh, Lord of the worlds." - Saheeh International ﴿فَكانَ عاقِبَتَهُما أَنَّهُما فِي النّارِ خالِدَينِ فيها وَذلِكَ جَزاءُ الظّالِمينَ﴾ [الحشر: ١٧] So the outcome for both of them is that they will be in the Fire, abiding eternally therein. And that is the recompense of the wrongdoers. - Saheeh International ﴿يا أَيُّهَا الَّذينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلتَنظُر نَفسٌ ما قَدَّمَت لِغَدٍ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبيرٌ بِما تَعمَلونَ﴾ [الحشر: ١٨] O you who have believed, fear Allāh. And let every soul look to what it has put forth for tomorrow - and fear Allāh. Indeed, Allāh is Aware of what you do. - Saheeh International ﴿وَلا تَكونوا كَالَّذينَ نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَأَنساهُم أَنفُسَهُم أُولئِكَ هُمُ الفاسِقونَ﴾ [الحشر: ١٩] And be not like those who forgot Allāh, so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient. - Saheeh International ﴿لا يَستَوي أَصحابُ النّارِ وَأَصحابُ الجَنَّةِ أَصحابُ الجَنَّةِ هُمُ الفائِزونَ﴾ [الحشر: ٢٠] Not equal are the companions of the Fire and the companions of Paradise. The companions of Paradise - they are the attainers [of success]. - Saheeh International

[@varghessmith2985]

* Historical Critique Quran Origins * kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJ-lgGmglpWSiLc Welcome to the year 2020!

[@vitobaleinadogo8973]

Aramic,Hebrew and Greek probably were the languages of the Bible. most people misinterpret and translate the Bible to suit themselves and their causes. W should learn the original languages of the Bible to get the truth

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Vito Baleinadogo I agree with you. I'm a Muslim. There is reason why the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Bibles which MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Christians hold in their hands, do not come with Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts alongside. It's a GAME going on to trick people. The Church knows that IF the masses get access to the language of the scriptures, it's G.A.M.E O.V.E.R for its deception.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Vito Baleinadogo Your comment reflects that you're a sincere seeker of truth.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Vito Baleinadogo Notice the same two words el gibor and the difference in translations with Ezekiel 32:21 Ezekiel 32:21 MIGHTY LEADERS Isaiah 9:6 MIGHTY GOD From within the realm of the dead the MIGHTY LEADERS will say of Egypt and her allies, 'They have come down and they lie with the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.' The fact that Christians / Trinitarian translators the Hebrew word el to be convenient to their man-made doctrine illustrates that their so-called evidence is no evidence at all but a personal desire to promote their doctrine by dishonest means wherever they think they can get away with it.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Vito Baleinadogo I request you to PLEASE heed the serious warning given in the scriptures which you profess to uphold. It's a very serious warning on lack of knowledge and on rejecting knowledge. You must heed this warning. It's from the very scripture which you profess to uphold. It's for your own BENEFIT that such warning is given. Hosea 4:6 My people are DESTROYED for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE: because thou hast REJECTED KNOWLEDGE, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. ********* The consequence of the warning of the very verse you have already seen and this will continue to show up right in front of you.

[@faisalsiraj9423]

@Vito Baleinadogo Now for your benefit and knowledge I even deal with Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 7:14 in one go. I'll keep the Christian / Trinitarian (deceptive) translation *Mighty God* I'll keep it. No worries. Isaiah 9:6 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. ****************** Although this passage in its context is talking about someone other than Jesus. King Hezekiah. BUT for the sake of argument I say Ok let's say even if we take out King Hezekiah and assume that it is about Jesus. Don't worry I am dealing with it. 😊. I'll keep that it's for Jesus. ****************** Let us read the Verse again: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME SHALL BE CALLED Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God (EL Gibor), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." It is quite unfortunate that in the old Jewish culture, people used to be named "Godly" names. This is quite misleading to the Christians who lack the knowledge.******* Let's look at an important example. Jesus ALLEGEDLY implored his God: Eli, Eli Lama sabachthani”, meaning “MY GOD, MY GOD, why have YOU forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)? See! "Eli, Eli...." Well, this is again a Jewish name in old Jewish culture. So Jesus was crying out to a Jew and taking that Jew as his God?!?!? Here is the proof: We find this name Eli in 1 Samuel 1-3 [see especially 3] 1 Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: 2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. 3 And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of *Eli* , Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there. *************** So was Jesus Christ crying out to a Jew and taking that Jew as his God? Why not? Where is the consistency? Why the double standards? 🤔 So you see! *Jews had these godly names and titles but that did not make them God. It's the system of their language. NOTHING special for Jesus. Jew walking around, doing labor, hearding cattle and his wife calls him "Eli, Eli, clean the cattle poop" meaning "MY GOD, MY GOD, clean the cattle poop"* *By the Christian position it is God cleaning the cattle poop* 🙄🤔😬 *So take heed on the warning regarding lack of knowledge and on rejecting knowledge* Important Note: The "Yahweh" in many Hebrew names is shortened because it apparently makes the name much easier to pronounce since it is used often. It is very similar to our shortened names today such as: 1- Michael shortened for Mike. 2- Samuel shortened for Sam. More examples: *** Jerusalem was called "The LORD our Righteousness". "In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness (Yahweh tsidkenû).' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 33:16)" *** Abraham called a mountain "The LORD will Provide" (Yahweh Jireh). "So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide (Yahweh Jireh). And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 22:14)" *** EzekiEL means "Strong God". It also means "Yahweh is Strong God". Same word EL as that of Mighty God EL Gibor. *** Elijah. This name is short for EliJehovah or "Eli Yahweh". Eli means my GOD, and Yahweh is the name and title of GOD Almighty in the Bible. Does "Eli Yahweh" or Elijah mean that the person is Jehovah Himself? *** IsraELmeans "Challenge God", "he struggles with God", or "fight with God". It also means "Defeat God". *** GabriEL also means "Strong God". *** Isaiah or Jesaiah, which is short for "Jesa Yahweh" means "Salvation from Yahweh". It could also mean "Salvation". *** Joshua, which is short for "Josh Yahweh" means "Yahweh Saves". *** Immanuel, Emanuel, Emmanuel, Immanuel, or Imanuel are the SAME NAME and are another name for Jesus, means "With us is God". This name is also common for men before and after Jesus. [[[[[ [Let me also settle here, the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah :-) Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, AND SHALL CALL his name Immanuel. Can you show me a single verse in the Bible where Jesus is CALLED by the NAME "Immanuel" by Mary. You can't show me because there is NONE. So, unfulfilled prophecy. :-) Regardless, Immanuel is just a name :-) ]]]]] Now back to the names *** Eliab means "my God is Father". *** Eliakim means "God raises". *** Elisha means "God is Salvation". *** Judah or Yahawdah means "Praised". It generally means "Praised by Yahweh". *** Mattithiah means "Gift of Jehovah". *** Michael (nick name "Mike") means "who is like God". Yet we know that NONE is like Him - The Almighty. See Exodus 8:10. In the above examples, we clearly see that the old Jewish culture gave "Godly" titles to people who are not in anyway divine. Notice that in Isaiah 9:6, it clearly says "and his NAME shall be...." This clearly proves that these names are just names given to the coming Prophet (Jesus). Since these are just a name, this also clearly proves other people in the old Jewish culture were named that name before, even if they're not mentioned in the current Bible. Psalm 82:6 God calling some people God. I SAID, YE ARE GODS; AND ALL OF YOU ARE CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH." The word in Hebrew used for GODS here is ELOHIM. The same word used for GOD in Genesis 1:1 :-) So Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 7:14 do not hold water. Are refuted with proof.

[@champjanz3887]

What do you think of evolution? 98% of scientists agree with evolution, and the vast majority with macro-evolution. It is one of the greatest intellectual issues for Christianity today.

[@gregclift626]

Micro evolution, sure. I love the science we learned (actually observed) when it comes to Mt. St. Helens. It's hard to argue that canyons and massive layers were formed in less than a day or two. We see the same evidence in other places around the world and say it took millions of years.

[@dellaruedunne9269]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/noXTdHh5jJZ8gs0

[@champjanz3887]

@@dellaruedunne9269 This was very interesting to me, thanks for the tip

[@dellaruedunne9269]

Champ Janz Awesome, I’m glad it peaked your interest. If you ever have time you should watch her three part series Mind Game and her documentary An Inconvenient History. They are lengthy, but very well researched and helpful.

[@champjanz3887]

@@dellaruedunne9269 Thanks.

[@13kimosabi13]

Sadly, this lady makes so many mistakes, she really ought to take this podcast down and make a better one. Calling OT believers Christians is just false and nothing more than a bald faced lie. Acting like gentiles and the majority of humans alive at the time of Jesus were literate and had canon is laughable. Acting like the 12 disciples much less anyone else knew about the death, burial and resurrection => is so completely false it proves neither she nor many other so called Christian’s even read their Bibles and really understand anything they’re reading => so even being literate and having access shows her utter contempt for any real truth. So many other false narratives are presented, it’s just best to set fire to this…..then study until you actually get a clue before proceeding again.

[@amsterdamG2G]

Why do we call them church fathers? Did not Jesus say call nobody father but our Father in heaven?

[@corneliuschristian6547]

So you don't call your biological father, dad? Jesus was clearly talking about not putting anyone above God. After all, Paul said, "I have fathered you in Christ."

[@hiddengun8158]

well as we all know that the Bible has been translated from the original language to English. also yeshua that has been translated to Jesus in English. however, that translation led to misrepresentation in real words and meanings as well as many new interpolations happened which some of them removed and some are still exist. for instance the word (father) which litterally does not mean that, and it means (God) . Jesus said ( ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’) *Gospel of John 20:17*. as when Jesus was praying (‘he continued all night in prayer to God.’ ) *Luke **6:12* and he said (‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ ) *Luke 11:2* . Our Father that means Our God. Jesus said in *John **6:57* (I live because of the Father) which I live because of the God and he said in *Gospel of John 17:3* (‘that they might know you, *the only true God* ) and also the word (Son) which does not mean that litterally, and it means slave and servant of God. (‘Adam, which was the son of God.’ ) *Luke 3:38*. as in *Romans **8:14* ( For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. ) as everyone who follows the commandmnts and worship the only true God will be called son of god which means servant of god. just like Adam and Jesus and all prophets peace be upon them were. I don't wanna make it long So at the end we should be careful when reading the bible carefuly to understand and to not be cheated and deceived by people or church and just believe what they say. we should read to find the truth. and of course while reading you may find many contradictions as we mentioned before that because of translation and interpolation happened throughout the years.

[@Robert-ie8eb]

"....For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." - 1 Corinthians 4:15

[@hiddengun8158]

@@Robert-ie8eb *the one talking in that verse is Paul who says outright that he became their "father" when he led them to faith in Jesus by preaching the gospel to them. We should note that Paul is not asking to be referred to by that title, or any title (Matthew 23:8-12). His intent here is to explain his role in their spiritual life, not to take on an office or job description. Paul often describes himself as a spiritual father to those who trust in Christ as a result of his ministry.* *So Father in that context brother does not mean God, Paul uses this metaphor both to describe his love for those under his care and to claim some amount of responsibility and authority in their lives.* the same thing with the word *Lord* which not always means *God*, It depends on the context, for instance: Jesus said: *The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; *The Lord our God is one Lord*) Mark 12:29 *Roman authorities were called Lord* (Matt. 27:63) So brother be careful while reading the bible, and try to understand the context to not have or be saying contradictions. if you understood the verse you said as what you wanted to mean, it will be like you are saying bible contains so many contradictions. anyway hope God guides us all to the truth brother, keep searching for reality to know the real truth not just listening to what church says or people who have ever read or even understand the bible. as Jesus said in *John **8:32* *and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”* hope you all the best, keep going.

[@Robert-ie8eb]

@@hiddengun8158 I am in no way equating 1 Corinthians 4:15's word of "father" with "God". Not sure what made you think that's what I was getting at.

[@Blackgrass1]

The early Christians weren't Christians. They were just called so by the world. They were Jews. And so are we.

[@ronmortimer252]

There's one mistake the early church fathers made when putting together the New Testament canon. It is the Book of Revelation. The whole Bible culminates in the gospel of Christ and I'm saying the Book of Revelation is not part of that gospel. It was not written by an apostle, seen by an apostle, or approved by an apostle. If you believe that book you do not have a strong enough foundation in the gospel of our Lord. It is a false prophecy, false gospel and full of false doctrine. It is the back door through which Satan introduces a multitude of conspiracy theories. Don't go outside the parameters of the gospel of Christ - which is all the books from Matthew to Jude. This is my revelation from the Holy Spirit.

[@jessicaottis6127]

I highly recommend listening to Doug Wilson and/or Jeff Durbin on the book of Revelation. Very helpful and informative. :)

[@christianuniversalist]

I don’t take Scriptural counsel from Calvinists like Durbin and others.

[@ronmortimer252]

@@christianuniversalist Neither do I.

[@ronmortimer252]

@@jessicaottis6127 Jessica, I highly recommend not doing that. Because if I were to do it I would be committing spiritual adultery against the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel. For the record I have read, studied and accepted Rev for 45 years before the Lord opened my eyes to what it is.

[@jessicaottis6127]

@@christianuniversalist I guess you'll have to avoid Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield. Not saying everyone who is a Calvinist is worth listening to (there are some who honestly aren't imo), but it's ridiculous to consider everyone who believes in the doctrines of grace as not worth your time.