This and the documentary on church history (both parts) are extremely well made, interesting and informative. Thank you for all the hard work that went into these documentaries! As a Christian, I love these topics.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 You are obv very ignorant, and a hypocrite to say the least, you say the trinity is a late misinterpretation although even some of the early jews believed in a some what trinity consisted 2 persons. But yet accept a man 600 years later that copied from gnostic, pagan, jewish and christian texts.
@theguyver4934 on the contrary muslim,,Jesus finished ,we are not under the Law,,Jesus said it is done..than 3days Are our Messiah rose from the dead...Gospel Death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid for are sins that we may be righteous enough to be in the presence of God thru faith alone not of works .John3;16 Eph.2;8,9..as for this vidio it's teachings of Catholics who kept the Gospel from everyone for 1500 yrs.. my savior is Jesus Christ who paid for my soul..God bless Muslim pray yall see the truth..Harpoza soon.
Thank you for showing me this Lord Jesus Christ, All glory belong to you . Also thank you for making this, enlightening and reminding people the first Christians served God the way the apostles taught. God bless all who seek the kingdom of God. All glory to the Father and to the Son and to Holy Spirit, One God amen ☦️
The Didache “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1-2 [A.D. 70]
@@jordanmcpherson3794 except those were common practices of that day and it was the Church that called them out as wrong. One of the reasons, at least, that we regard those prohibitions as common sense is because of the Church.
Lord's Supper on earth commanded by Jesus - Luke 22:19 is the precursor of Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Heaven-Revelation 19:6-9 Blessed are those invited. These are the true Words of God.
So there was an advertisement for "Liquid Death", the water company, where they showed a witch conducting some sort of spell over the water in big barrels. I've never bought it again. Seeing this first example is so validating that my instinct as a freshly baptized baby Christian is pretty good. I used to be a "witch." I am so blessed to have found my way.
Hey just want to say keep up the good work here. Even as a reformed Christian i admire the work that you have put out over here especially considering the ignorance of many Christians with our own history
Fasting from the Eastern Orthodox church: We fast on Wednesday and Friday because Wednesday was Jesus betrayal by Judas. Fridays fast is the day HE was crucified. Lord have mercy if I'm incorrect. God bless you all.
Also Eastern Orthodox here, and from what I understand, and according to the Didache as well as several of the early church father's letters (that I can't find right now), we fast on Wednesdays and Fridays so as to differentiate ourselves from the Jews. "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day (Wednesday) and the Preparation (Friday)". I suppose both could be true, but it's interesting.
@@kevin6293 - FYI, There were actually two days of the Passover week on which the meal could have been eaten. The earlier one in the week MIGHT fit the timing of the trial( on the night) >Pilate,> Herod,>Pilate>Cross.
@@josephodoherty7864 that’s interesting about the Passover meal, but all 4 gospels say that Jesus was crucified the day after the last supper, which would be Thursday, Maundy Thursday
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 whatever that history is I'm pretty much sure it is one-sided but Jesus said one thing that nobody can go to the Father except through Him which is why His ministry was to bring back people to God but majority simply didn't accept Him. What do we think those souls who does not accept nor truly believe and worship God? just asking:
This is a great review for a few of the Patristic Fathers (not all are cited herein). The significant redundancy from one segment to the next could be reduced to give more time for those not reviewed. Interesting are the continuing points about church unity, identity of Christ, and Christian morals only skims the surface of each of these Father's writings. Those of the post apostolic age each spoke of many faithful opportunities beyond the witness of this video.
The Christian Church had Readers, subdeacons, deacons, Priests, and Bishops by A.D 90, it is clearly seen in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings. The idea that “heirarchy” was developed later by Constantine or in 300’s is bolognia.
Saw that as well. And a small error on the spelling of Proper mispelled as Poper seen in the last part of that repeated part of the video. "Poper Doctrine" 36:38
Here is an answer of ChatGPT, everyone can draw their own conclusions: Which’s practices and beliefs are closer to those reflected by the Apostolic Fathers, the Catholic’s or the Protestant’s? ChatGPT The beliefs and practices reflected by the Apostolic Fathers are generally considered to be closer to those of the Catholic Church than to Protestant denominations. The Apostolic Fathers were early Christian writers and leaders who lived in the first and second centuries AD and were considered to have a direct connection to the apostles and the early church. Their writings and teachings were influential in shaping Christian doctrine and practice in the early centuries of the church. The Catholic Church traces its origins back to the early Christian church and claims to have maintained continuity with the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Fathers and the early church. Catholicism places a strong emphasis on apostolic succession, the authority of the pope as the successor of Peter, and the sacramental system, which includes baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, marriage, and ordination. Protestant denominations, on the other hand, emerged out of the Reformation in the 16th century and often place a greater emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture, justification by faith alone, and the rejection of certain Catholic practices such as the veneration of saints and the authority of the pope. While there are certainly Protestant denominations that share some beliefs and practices with the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church, as I mentioned in my previous answer, the overall emphasis on apostolic succession, sacraments, and the authority of the church is more closely aligned with Catholicism than with Protestantism.
We shouldn't trust "Apostolic fathers" they're not reliable.Jesus said...' I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND ETERNAL LIFE. IN GOD I TRUST(BELIEVE) ALL OTHERS "APOSTOLIC CHURCH FATHERS" BOW DOWN TO JESUS CHRIST'S SUBMISSION AND AUTHORITY!!!JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK ON WHOM HE BUILT HIS ONLY CHURCH!!
@@lupelo8819 Yes, instead of trusting those who were personally taught the teachings of Christ, we should make up our own beliefs and interpretations leading to over 30,000+ "churches" of those who claim to be following Christ. Endless heresy and schism is what Christ wanted!
Ah yes, ChatGPT, the theologian and historian. Haha Since the earliest churches were home churches, it best fits a more protestant style of gathering. Not this overlay pompous ritualistic idol-filled ceremonial pius nonsense we see in "one true chuch" type icon-centered works-based liturgy run organized systems.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@theguyver4934 line of Ishmael! The bastard son of Abraham which came about from his unfaithfulness of God's promise. Ishmael was an oath and his lineage is of the devil. Historical facts.
How telling you leave out the most important part of St. Ignatius' letter to Polycarp, where he first (in writing) called Jesus' Church the Catholic Church (Katholikós Ecclesia). What else did you leave out? Why? What is your agenda?
@@edward1412 Catholic meaning universal does not negate the fact the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter and the apostles. Your contention is silly.
Excellent video!! The visuals were excellent (J. Warner Wallace and William Lane Craig would approve!). But: lose the music, or turn it WAY down: my 65 y/o hearing had a difficult time listening to the great narrative/narrator vs the background music: probably on the same frequency (4000 Hz), so learning from this most excellent video was difficult! Otherwise, you get a thumbs up and a subscribe from me! Great work! RnMT
In and by the Cross we are delivered from ourselves; not only from our sins, but from ourselves; and being delivered from ourselves we are delivered into the Lord Jesus Christ, and King Jesus Christ becomes far more than we. It is a painful process, but it is a blessed issue. Open Window.
All of these Church Fathers were united under the Catholic Church: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. - St Ignatius of Antioch Amen... God bless
Yeah. I stopped watching after it was clear they weren't going to mention that found in St. Ignatius' letters, where he called Jesus' Church the Catholic Church.
@@jeffscully50613 Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros, Christ Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
@@2394Joseph that's funny. But Now I will tell you the truth so that if you ever repeat that ridiculous story about St. Peter, _you_ know you'll be lying. And God will know you are lying. Lying is a sin. "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor." Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, Jesus called Simon, Kepha (or Cephas), which means Rock. He called him Kepha the very first time they met (John 1:42). Simon had been known as the Rock for three and a half years before Jesus called him the Rock at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus had taken the Apostles on a two-day journey to Caesarea Phillipi for a reason. It was the backdrop of the Gates of Hell--a natural rock formation that was literally thought to be the opening to Hades. It was the location of a giant Rock formation that served as the place of worship for the pagan god Pan. The Greek language is a romance language. All of the nouns in Greek are either masculine or feminine. The word for rock in Greek is feminine. There was no masculine word for rock. When Matthew was writing his Gospel he took the feminine, petra, and gave it a masculine ending, petros. Jesus would not have taken such a serious moment in His ministry, make the Apostles walk two days out of their way, to make a joke and call Simon (Kepha) by a girls name, especially since He had just blessed his chosen Apostle. Peter is named 190 times in the New Testament. The Apostle named the second most is John, 29 times.the Whenever the Apostles were named Peter was *ALWAYS* first. Judas was *ALWAYS* last. The entire New Testament shows Peter to be the leader of the Apostles. He's the first to speak. The first to act. The first to be chastised by Jesus. He performed the first miracle by an Apostle after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Peter decided to replace Judas with Matthias. He decided gentiles could become Christians. He decided the 613 Mosaic Laws were no longer to be imposed on Jewish followers of Christ. He decided circumcision was to be replaced by baptism. Jesus gave Simon (Kepha) the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. In Isaiah 22, we see King David choosing as his chief steward (AL Habayith, in Hebrew--literally means "Over the House")). The Al Habayith was given the keys to the kingdom. Whatever he decided was law. *THAT* is what Jesus did for Peter. Made him His Al Habayith.
@Jeff Scully I don't need your Papist propaganda. Please keep your Popish heresies all to yourself. It is Christ alone for me. I do not need any other mediator between myself and my God other than Jesus Christ alone. If you want to believe lies, that's up to you. However, there are eternal consequences for that. As it is written, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling "
@@2394Joseph you're funny. What lies did I tell? Or is it the fact that you're being shown what people have purposely hidden from you your entire life has you confused? Jesus established the Catholic Church in AD 33. He chose St. Peter to lead His one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. It's history. It happened. People there at the time wrote about it. We have proof. We know the names and dates of every pope from Pope Francis all the way back to St. Peter. It's an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession. Every single year is accounted for. The Catholic Church is 1,990 years old. The oldest Protestant denomination is 505 years old. Which one has been there since the beginning? Jesus established ONE Church. He promised the Apostles and us that He would be with His Church forever. How could have have promised He would be with the Apostles AND His Church forever, if that Church wouldn't exist until 1,400+ years AFTER the last Apostle died? Every Protestant denomination was/is _invented by a human being who has no authority from God. Only Jesus' Church: _the Catholic Church_ has God's authority.
This article definitely blows the doors off of the comment. There is no difference in religions. “We all love the same God “ this defines God’s intent and the entire purpose for Jesus’ coming to earth; his death and resurrection..
I am wondering if I have found an error in this presentation: At the 13:22 mark a statement is made that no city had existed in the area of Antioch until the Greeks conquered the area in 4 AD, "Hellenized" the area, and built up the city. Subsequently, at the 13:55 mark, a seemingly contradictory statement is presented that Roman General Pompey captured the city of Antioch from the Greeks in 64 BC. I am thinking that the date of 4 AD provided as the date the Greeks established Antioch must surely be in error.
Oliver, why do you mention Protestantism? I didn't. You claim that Catholicism is true Christianity? Surely true Christianity focuses on Christ as saviour and sole mediator and redeemer? How can Catholicism make this claim when it abounds with idol worship and worship of the Queen of Heaven? Mystery Babylon indeed!
@@geordiewishart1683 a simple google search refutes your claim, "Question: Does the Catholic Bible say to worship Mary?" "Answer: The phrase "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" demonstrates that Catholics view Mary not as a goddess to be worshipped, but as a helpful ally in the life-long struggle against sin and temptation. In all of the Marian prayers offered by Catholics, there is not a single claim of Mary's divinity"
And how wrong he was. What is written in the very early Christian writings is NOTHING like what the False Catholic Church presents itself as and preaches today. I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The more you learn the way of the Apostles in Scripture and the Apostolic Church Fathers that came after, you will learn that what ROME eventually began to teach was far from what Christ and His Apostles called His sheep to do.
I wonder if the cardinal ever owned a Bible and considered that it was written roughly between 1500BC and 90AD. That by definition would be deep in history.
@@dfacedagame WHEN YOU SAID "nothing like what the false Catholic Church presents itself as and preaches today" The APOSTOLIC FATHERS which are bishops in the early church never even mentioned as to how the catholic church should represent the church in the future(today). However, they laid hands on them their successors to promulgate laws concerning the church especially in proclaiming the word of God which is preaching. If we attribute error to the church we attribute error to the Bible because the bible is a catholic book. The Catholic church alone can trace its lineage back to the early church fathers. Jesus Christ himself said that he will be with his church until the end of the days, Jesus gave his authority to the church so much so that in 1st Timothy 3:15 said that "the pillars and foundations of truth is in the church". Not anything else that pops up out of the blue.
@@jasonlewis5350 the bible was canonized in the early 3rd century by Pope Damascus. And the cardinal wasn't a Cardinal then, he was a former Anglican priest converted to catholic. He wasn't born during the time when the bible compiled so common sense dictates that when he converted he learned the bible which is a catholic book.
The Early Christian Church Fathers' by Henry Bettenson. Page 14."Irenaeus followed the example of the Apologists in seeking expound Christian teaching in terms acceptable to Greek thought. Thus contributing to what Harnack termed the dilution of Christianity by Hellenism." This is an honest admission of the motivation in much of the pro 'trinitarian' ideas and essays they contributed to the eventual formulation of both the trinity, immortal soul, succession of saints, hell & purgatory teachings that eventually became the mainstay of 'orthodoxy'.
Very good presentation. Thank you immensely for uploading and sharing this wonderful memorial event of God freely given to be as an advice of teaching program.
Yes. Music is a total distraction. Sort of amazing that Someone would out so much good intention and intelligence into something and then smear it with distractive music that sounds akin to backdrop of movie American Beauty . Uffda. Wrong turn there.
We're all different. I personally found the calm repetition of the background music aided my concentration on what was being said (I only listen, don't watch, as I find any visuals too distracting).
My hats' off to the preparers of this video. No mention of NT pastors. This title was only mentioned 7 time's in the Bible. Once in the NT and 6 time's in the book of Jeremiah. How did we get where we are today? Read 1st John 2:27
The whole point of this teaching video is to emphasize keeping to the interpretation of early churches interpretation of scriptures and to avoid division and to reject heresy.The Roman Catholic interpretation is only accepted by the RCs. How can it be the true universal church then, just by arithmetic. Also to claim it is, creates massive division and also many of its key dogmas have no scriptural basis and thus are 'in partibus'. Three in one.
That is why it was emphasized by the chuch father UNITY. The Catholic church never strayed. It remained on its true teachings. Every doctrine, every dogma and every magesterial teachings are from the teachings of the one true Chrurch thru the will of the Father instituted by Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
If you're a protestant I just want to know how you reconcile this? When we look at the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the rest of the church fathers that follow them we see what the early church/Christians believed. Looks nothing like protestantism. How do you reconcile your beliefs when you realize they didn't exist until 500 years ago? I'm not catholic btw
Protestantism isn't a monolith. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Quakers, and Charismatics all have different ideologies and theologies. I'd also like to add that it is official Catholic doctrine that Protestants are "separated brethren." Not to mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic Church also have very different theology and ideologies. Quite frankly no one is following the apostolic fathers to the letter, certainly not the Catholic church, with all the councils that have added and changed theology over time, and the various church splits and protestantism is a symptom of that. Almost all the denominations and various bodies of Christ have to reconcile with the early teachings and scripture.
@@DreamcastFarm i see your point, i'd push back a lil and say that the apostolic churches while they have their differences still look more similar than protestants. High view of Mary, Liturgical Worship, Veneration of Icons, appeal to the oral and holy tradition, belief in the real presence in the eucharist. These are still very much the universal practices that took place in the early church
If we seek pure Christian truth, is was complete in every way by the death of the apostles! They form the 'foundartion of the Christian congregation with Christ as the corner stone! Jude said in 55AD "The Faith was delivered to the Holy ones (Saints) ONE FOR ALL TIME. Nothing was to be added or subtracted! ( Rev 22: 18,19) Paul said that "All scripture ( complete by the end of the first century) is SUFFICIENT unto salvation ( 2 tIM 3:16,17) We dont greek philosophy & personal oppinions!
That scripture requires an interpreter. Going by personal interpretation has lead to confusion and thousands of contradicting beliefs on what it says. Not to mention the apostles handed down some things in writing and other in tradition. St. Paul said to hold to both. Those who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s 16th-century theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory). Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion. “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]
@@richlopez5896 A very long comment, Thank you! to justify the way men have thought they can improve on the word of God! My Bible says that the "The sayings I have taught you are spirit and life" These are the words of the Lord Jesus! Both catholisism and protestantism have relied heavily on their traditions so many of which, like those of the jews in the talmud have in fact made, as Jesus said "The word of God invalid". I have studied so many church 'traditions' they were based on both pagan & greek philosophy. Ie LOGOS, PHSYKE, HADES. The bible's explanation for these three things is very different from the church traditions. Would you like me to supply you with documented information on the difference? Why am I sceptical about post biblical 'traditions'? simply because I have been warned! By whom? The Lord himself, Paul, Peter & John. Very clearly that 'After the apostles men will arise and speak 'twisted' things', 'traditions of men' e.t.c. Sorry I will stick to the bible, it alone can give me everlasting life. It alone records to actual words of my Saviour! As the Psalmist put it "Put not your trust in Princes in whom NO SALVATION BELONGS" ( psm 146:3). I know you most likely feel a sense of loyalty to your 'church' your parents faith, whatever. I respect your faith. I dont judge you in any way, but I prefer to read my bible and direct my worship to my heavanly Father through his beloved Son Jesus Christ. Only this can result in everlasting life!
@Eric S “Romanist?” Christ’s Church, Catholic (universal) was started with “Upon this Rock I will build my Church.” The Vulgate Bible was compiled circa 400AD by St Jerome. Thus, all “denominations” and the Bible emanate from The Catholic Church. You are not prohibited from reading or acquiring knowledge. Thousands of denominations, each thinking they are the only “right” ones….
It's hard for calvinists to accept their condemned heresy founded by an excommunicated frenchman, in the 16th century, that is, more than 1,500 years after Christ and His Apostles, without any connection to them and in opposition to the holy catholic apostolic Church that does and always did… Is not christian in the slightest, by the contrary.
As a Catholicum apologetic, this is wonderful. May souls convert, repent, and come back to the one tru church of Jesus Christ. May the followers of the anti Christ before it's to late convert and save souls, and for the conversion of all sinners. May Russia b consecrated to our Mothers Immaculate Heart and may all children be saved from torture and abortion. May God bless us all.
Do you really believe that if your not Catholic , your going to hell? Because That’s not biblical , the church , the body , the bride of Christ is the Christians that believe and follow Him.
@@omarsfitnessworld3213 I never said if ur not Catholic your going to hell, so no I do not believe that at all. My whole point is this, maybe you can actually understand this simple way, how ever u come to Christ is wut he wants from u. We r his children and we will all b different. Woe to u that prevents his children to love him, to worship him in their way. I don't judge also I pray for my enemies. R you my enemy, my christian friend??? Do u and I'll do me. I certainly am not affected by your way and do not give it a thought unless in this situation. God bless us all...
@@joeychicago6322 @omarsfitnessworld3213 - you wrote: _'Do u and I'll do me.'_ - a 12 yr old would say that, Sir. you, up above - noted that you're a _'Catholic apologetic.'_ - can you not defend this 'faith' against Christianity? i bet you're not able.
@@tony1685 Well T, wut exactly does it supposedly contradict? Cause it certainly doesn't and tit for tat, Catholicism vs Prots is closer more perfect and infallible to the word of Christ. Remember we r the Apostolic way brother, do your research, look into the 1st all the way threw the Crusades for enlightenment.
Ironically, Protestant doctrine essentially rejects all of the early church fathers who all believed in one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. The fathers of the 20,000 protestant churches are King Henry VIII and Martin Luther.
Not true. The protestants simply rejected the “add ons” of the catholic church and reverted back to the true teachings of Jesus and the examples set by the apostles. We never saw anybody in the bible, be it prophets, priests or the apostles to bow down to statues for example. We never saw anybody in the bible to sell indulgences. Etc etc. And many other things, that were added on later on. We know the history of the catholic church and it isn’t pretty. John Hus was burnt at the stake by the church for preaching the truth for crying out loud.
@@ahojahojish Abdul, you know you’re being dishonest about Catholics and statues. And you know that in establishing the one true Church, Jesus told Peter, whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Peter demonstrated this authority when he pronounced death to the married couple who held back after selling their property. This authority was passed on with apostolic succession. Protestants beginning with their protestant church fathers, Martin Luther and Henry VIII, have rejected the authority of the one true Church, they have rejected the sacraments, and they have rejected apostolic succession. That’s why there are 20,000 protestant denominations all in disagreement with one another.
@@tedtimmis8135 The catholic church is simply full of false doctrines. Its christianity mixed with the paganism of that time. For catholics there is no salvation outside the catholic church. For protestants, there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Catholics just like the jews rely on the tradition, protestants rely on faith and sound biblical teaching, without any add ons. Please show me one verse from the whole bible where Jesus or the apostles taught bowing to statues, praying to images of saints. Just one verse please. Also, show me one verse about purgatory. What the protestants did was, they saw the false doctrines in the church. They shifted the authority from the church to the Bible/Gods word (as it should be). Once they did that, they reverted back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Many catholics will go to hell, just like many protestants will go to hell. Its not about if you belong to a catholic church or a protestant church. Its about does your heart belong to Jesus? Tradition will not save you. Only a living, personal relationship with our Saviour will. Repent and trust on Jesus Christ. If you do that, it doesnt matter what denomination you belong to. I dont label myself a member of the prostestant church, or a member of the catholic church. I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ. And the roman-catholic church is simply unbiblical.
@Ted Timmis Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros Christ, Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Kill Bil in reply... you have that back the front.... that the Church Fathers are directly connected to Orthodox Faith The Church Fathers were first before the Orthodox Faith. You Schismed from the Roman Catholic Faith, and created Orthodoxy: you Schismed refusing The Pope as your Head: instead you have yr Patriarchs: Please accept this my comment with due respect to all Orthodox peoples:
The Catholic Church has always had a pope. All the way back to St. Peter. The Orthodox Church left Jesus' Church in 1054 because it didn't agree with the pope. The Catholic Church is the first Church--Jesus' one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.
Amen John Henry Newman if only Protestant weren’t Protestant the world would be what God wants. They need to “study to be approved unto God”. Which is The one true holy Catholic and apostolic Church. And they can prove it. Amen !
@@krazzykracker2564 it’s you who are in error. If you’re right why are there 40,000 denominations all claiming they each have the correct interpretation. Study my friend only take off your sunglasses so you can see what the scripture’s really say. AMEN !
@@davidmcarthur7800 thats simple. The reason there is so many denominations is that very few people actually read the Bible. For example Catholics believe in infant baptism which is nowhere in scripture. They also sprinkle instead of immersion in the father, son, and holyghost. This is also nowhere in scripture and all baptisms after pentecost were done in the name of Jesus. I could go on and on about how un apostolic Catholicism is.
@@krazzykracker2564 They don't. They just contradict YOUR interpretation. There are thousands of interpretations post-1517. The great diversity of contradicting Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to interpret Scripture. This doctrine of private judgment has resulted in thousands of different Christian denominations and quasi-Christian splinter groups throughout history. St. Vincent of Lerins “With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. “I received almost always the same answer from all of them-that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. “Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . . “Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]
@@krazzykracker2564 Catholics, orthodox, Mainline Protestants baptize infants. The Catholic Church uses various methods to baptize: Immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. infant baptism replaced infant circumcision. This seems trivial to us today. Okay, so baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” But this was not trivial to first-century Jewish Christians who were being challenged to circumcise their children “after the manner of Moses or else they could not be saved” (see Acts 15:1-2). Many were being persecuted because they chose infant baptism instead of infant circumcision. As Paul says in Romans 2:28: For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. What is this “spiritual circumcision” of which Paul speaks? Baptism, according to Colossians 2:11-12. Not the shedding of foreskin, but the transformation of the inward man through the sacrament. As a fulfillment of that which is only a type, baptism does something circumcision could never do: “baptism now saves” us (1 Pet. 3:21). The change that occurs is not physical; it is spiritual. As it is often said, what you don’t see is what you get in all of the sacraments, baptism included-and infant baptism included, too. Elsewhere in Scripture we find a close association between baptism and circumcision. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul says: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Paul’s point is that baptism is more inclusive than its Old Testament antecedent. You had to be a free, male Jew to be circumcised. And when were males generally circumcised in the Old Testament, by the way? At eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12). Paul’s point is that in the New Testament, baptism is open to all. Of course babies would be included. This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ, therefore opening up the legitimacy of infant baptism, is at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39). If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher! The Lord explicitly “called infants” to himself in Luke 18:15-17: Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus. The Greek word here is brephe, which mean “infants.” And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parent’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be-that is, they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God-infant baptism makes sense, as they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” (CCC 1250). From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis. I encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well. When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
I have often wondered how a universal church could be truly following what jesus taught , because he said narrow is the way , and FEW there be that find it
@@jamesstarkey1508 if you get to think you know what I know and dont know then i too get to think you what you know and dont know, IF you know what i mean...
@@grahamebennett3875 : Protestants should remember that they broke away from the RCC taking along with them RCC beliefs. Thus, it will be the adage 'pot calling the kettle black'. Does this mean that Jesus hasn't a True Congregation of believers today? No! Jesus has restored his True Congregation as promised in these last days. Jesus is using these ones to fulfill his last days sign. (Matthew 24:14) And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth FOR A WITNESS to all the nations, and THEN the end will come.
These men, the Apostolic Fathers were the FIRST CHRISTIANS apart from the APOSTLES: They were taught by the 12 Apostles, themselves who were fist taugh by Christ Himself: Here we see THE BEGINNING OF THE FORMATION OF THE ,EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH: BUT NOT ROMAN YET: THAT IS YET TO COME..
Roman is one of the many Rites of the Catholic Church and traces to apostles Peter and Paul. Clement was in Rome with both of them and mentioned in Phil 4:3. “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3). A.D. 189 The Poem Against the Marcionites “In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus” (Poem Against the Marcionites 276-284 [A.D. 267] Eusebius of Caesarea “[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303] Peter of Alexandria “Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome” (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]). Lactantius “When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318] Cyril of Jerusalem “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350] Optatus “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367] Epiphanius of Salamis “At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375] Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. “In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]
There were no Apostles apart from those Jesus called and taught. A lot of historically mingled facts and traditions in this video. Scripture alone is authority or you deny God's Word.
Please inform us , where is it explicitly stated in your kjv "bible alone,? Where is the self authenticating verse? Where is the bibles table of contents?
@@xtraordinairartist9469 2 Timothy 3:16 | All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Sola Scriptura Table of contents? Use a concordance and do a word study. KJV has many translation issues and I do not limit theology to one Codex. I rather use Greek or NASB. Luke 6:13 NASB And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:
@@jerryspidell2331 2 Tim 3 16 is fine for the material sufficiency, that's why Christ gave us his church.the CC Is the only custodian of its own sacred writings. The CC has the power and authority to carry out Christ's mission on earth and his mystical body is the pillar and foundation of truth. The CC alone has the formal sufficiency to understand and interpret the 73 books in the bible, infalliably.
With "73" books you must mean the non-canonical Apocryphal books added. The Canon is 66 books. The Catholic Church errors in the view that a church has authority over the Word as the Word is Christ and His Holy Spirit inspired scripture. In no way is the bride greater than the Groom who is Christand He alone has all authority. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. But this is a problem with Catholic doctrine. Christ is forever bound onto the cross and you will never let Him down. During transubstantiation the church claims power to perform a miracle at calling Christ from His Father in Heaven to be a "real presence" in the Eucharist, forcing Christ down to Earth at the priests command. You believe a Pope is the high authority and the Christ on Earth, but there is no succession ever commanded by Jesus Christ and I challenge you to produce such a scripture. Peter is not the rock that Christ built His Church upon. Its clear who Jesus was pointing too and it was not Petros but petra. Jesus is the Rock upon which we build our house rather than sand (Matt.7:24-27). Jesus is represented as the rock Moses struck, the rock that gushed forth water. He is the Rock in Psalms 18:2, 1 Corinth. 10:4, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Sam.2:2, Deut. 32:4, Isaiah 26:4, 1 Corinth 3:11, Psalm 118:22, Psalm 18:46, Psalm 62:2, Matt. 7:24 etc. For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?- Psalm 18:31 Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20 Without papal succession your whole authority argument falls apart.
@@jerryspidell2331 Those who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory). Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Interesting that there is no mention in this video of the Eucharist in their summary of Ignatius’ teaching. That it is the literal body and blood of Christ.
The original and true name of the Church of the Apostle Peter is not "Catholic" but Universal. Satan has a way to always infiltrate into godly premises so as to defile it. After the schism with the Orthodoxy in 1054, the true name Universal was changed so as to mislead the multitude into believing that it was still the same thing. It isn't ! The true and only Universal Church of the Apostle Peter is no more,but you can believe what you like. The Roman Catholic Church of today is an institution that was put in place by the Roman Emperor Constantine,but it pretends to be the same as the original Church of the Apostle Peter. Infact Christ had Twelve Disciples with His brother James being the true leader of the Apostles,not Peter. Apart from James who presided over the entire fold from Jerusalem, the other Eleven Disciples were sent the world over at that time,to teach and spread the Gospel of Christ to the world. But Rome through the Emperor Constine,has held the Church of Christ hostage. Even pirates,blood drinking,incestuous and many others have all become Popes,whiles Thomas Aquinas has successfully transformed the so-called Church of Rome onto the most white supremacists,racist and imperialistic institution that the world has ever witnessed. At the time when it was the True Universal Church of the Apostle Peter,there were African Popes like Pope Victor and others, but since Thomas Aquinas came with his ideology of spiritual racism and white supremacy,the whole world is being influenced even to this day by his demonic ideology of racist white supremacy. The truth maybe offensive,but it is Righteous and it can never be hidden !
Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros Christ, Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
@@2394Joseph Everyone uses that quotation to support the evils of the Roman Catholic Church. The real stone that the Builders refused,but which later became the head of the Cornerstone is not the Apostle Peter but Jesus Christ Himself. To everyone that it is revealed and beholds that Christ Jesus is truly from the Father,and he is the True Saviour of humanity is a rock upon which Christ can build His Church,as the Father has revealed to them in Spirit what Jesus Christ truly represents. I don't believe that it is to only the Apostle Peter that the Father is able to reveal the eminence of Christ,but to every true Christian that wholeheartedly and truly believes that there is none other but Jesus Christ is the truth,the only way to God and He leads us to everlasting life. It is such that Christ Jesus is able to build his Church, because the revelation from the Father has transformed them into Solid Rocks for the works of God ! Beware,for God is able to transform every stone to sing his glory,and not only the Apostle Peter !
@@samabeka3023 Please reread my quote. It disproves any attempt by the RC Church to claim Apostolic succession from that particular verse. Read it very slowly please.
@@2394Joseph Almost everyone refers to that particular verse,and claims it is the Roman Catholic Church because it is the Apostle Peter who began the Church at Rome.What most people seem to overlook is that,the Apostle Peter's Church was named the Universal Church and not the Catholic church. But as the devil knows how to play with words and the spirit of men,by replacing the name Universal with that of Catholic, of which are the same,the Roman Empire wants as to believe that nothing has changed,because there's no difference of meaning between Universal and Catholic. The Bible warns us about the devils cunningness and deceitful modus operandi of misleading people. Why was there a schism in the original Universal Church,in the year1054,if is was the same and true Church of the Apostle Peter ? There is no need to go on and on and on. Today,we are all witnessing the shortcomings of an institution which claims to be the Church of Christ,but bold enough to name it's telescope,which is said to be one of the most powerful,if not the most powerful in the world, after Lucifer. Could there be any sarcastic irony against the teachings of the Apostle Peter more than this ? It is good to have faith,but it is better to base ones faith on knowledge,as the Christ JESUS taught that the wise man builds his house upon the Rock,but the foolish constructs upon the sands ! Good Day and good luck !
Didn't Jesus say call NO man your father upon this earth cause we have only ONE Father who is in heaven GOD! his Father and ALL that is in him Father... why do people not pay attention to his words
Can any Catholic or orthodox explain why a Protestant can’t take communion with you when the main concern of the early church father was simply that they be baptized?
The Heirarchy of the Nazarene Jewish Knesset aka Early Church was 1 Apostle (now Bishop) 2 Prophets (now Presbyter/Priest) 3 Rabbis (now Deacon) 4 Disciples (now Seminarian) 5 Elders/Presbyters/Bishops (now equivalent to Ruling Elder or Church Councillor or Warden) 6 Deacons (now Equivalent to Church Councillor) 7 Readers (now Lay Ministers) 8 Catechumens (now Confirmation Candidates) 9 Neophytes(now Sunday School children) or Converts This was similar to all other Jewish Knessets or denominations. The first three were itenerant denominational officers. The Elders and Deacons were local Church offices. This explains the travel itenary of Paul Barnabas Jesus and even the Pharisees as Christ commented on it. The head Presbyter was called the Cantor. Roman Catholics make it seem like the Early Church was a distinct institution similar to their own. It was not that unique. House Churches/Synagogues were not strange. Just like Muslims have house mosques today these were liturgical and not pared down come as you are communities with little Church order. They were also semi-monastic in nature with strict entry rules and consecrated living.
The so called 'church fathers' were in the main well educated philosophers influenced by paganism, theories and personal conclusions. Its historical that they were greatly influenced by the hellenistic culture of gnostisim & theory! they often dissagreed. Paul, Peter , John & even Jesus warned us of such men! ( Acts 20:28,30 e.t.c)
Huh? These men were renowned Leaders of the Church, some martyred for Christ. They were disciples of the Apostles themselves or taught by the same, which is what Paul taught, 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9; 2 Tim 1:6, 13f.; 2:2; Eph 4:11f.; Acts 6:1-4. You discount the very authorities which defined Apostolic Succession in accordance with St. Paul’s teaching: Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus (all Bishops) in one fell swoop despite historical evidence and christian consensus. Away with you and your hubris. Humble yourself before the Servants and Martyrs of Almighty God and may He have Mercy on your prideful arrogance. Pax Christi in Regno Christi
@@top8305 Sorry but if you study the background of most of these men, they unlike the apostles who were "unlettered and ordinary men" They were priviledged, educted mostly in greek philosophy and came to be converted to Christianity in adulthood. their writings reveal an effort to combine greek philosophy with the NT and therefore, though their writings are of interest to a sincere Christian. As Paul said " Do not go beyond the things that are written" 1 Cor 4:5. The Holy bible is all we need!
@@kiwihans100 The problem with that type of thought - that all the disciples of the apostles and those who were personally selected as elders to the churches in the various regions that the disciples established - all went wrong and couldnt acquire/receive the Holy Spirit for guidance despite being taught directly by the apostles, just means we cant really trust anything that happened after the disciples died. So when Paul instructs Timothy to select the next generation of elders in the church, he really got that all wrong. But then again Timothy probably didnt understand anything either - how can we trust Timothy, Titus etc. Also so when scholars question and point out that there isnt any proof that certain letters in the new testament were written by Paul, how can we claim otherwise when we cant trust that these 'highly privileged people' had any idea of what was really going on when they got together to determine bible canon? Do you really mean to say the Holy Spirit only stepped in then (for the bible canon) and conveniently forgot about everything else they did or preached wrong - despite many of them being tortured for their faith? So they believed something so strongly that they were willing to be tortured and killed for it but God only intervenes a few generations later when their disciples in turn (obviously even further misguided) get together to decide Bible canon? hmm. does that sound like God? Also how can we trust that they didnt conveniently delete other letters which should have been in the Bible? And more importantly did any 'church' remain truly faithful to the teachings of Jesus (as per your criteria) or did all of them fall to heresy? So essentially there probably wasnt a true church till the reformation came along? That line of thought brings into question the Bible itself unless you just conveniently chose to believe - well except for the 'Bible' everything else they taught (essentially all the disciples of the apostles and all those appointed by them to each church) were corrupted. Somehow Jesus assured us that a book would survive even if the church didnt.
@@donissac8859 Very good point! Actually i am not saying that all those who followed the apostles were wrong. By no means! But Since Paul stated that "After my going away men will arise and speak twisted things and from amoung you yourselves... (Acts 20:30) you and I need to be wary of many of these prominent, clever men who wrote much that is contrary to the original gospel as they were influenced by greek thought. Col 3 and Paul's letter's to the Thessalonians speaks clearly that "It is already at work" and even our Lord spoke about the "weeds that would be sown in amoung the wheat" ( Darnel wheat is a weed thast lloks identical to the true wheat. Note too that Jesus warned that this would start "While men are sleeping". Was this not the death of the apostles that constituted a "Restraint" that Paul told the Thessalonians? So the history of the chruch from John's death around 100 proves the fulfilment of these prophecies
@@kiwihans100 except that if they were all collectively wrong brings about the biggest problems. When it would seem all the churches would more or less agree on something, how can we 2k years later start questioning that without questioning the validity of the bible. All the apostolic churches had anointing with oil after baptism (as was also recorded by tertullian who wrote that the apostles themselves laid down these practices) yet no mention in the bible as was compiled be church elders even after the very first church fathers. Once we get into 'well ill believe what they compiled (the bible) but wont believe how they understood or preached it essentially is a slippery slope. My simple view is when paul wrote to the romans and later was there, they had the best understanding of that letter. But we cant seem to still agree on quite a bit of 'the letter to the romans' even 2k years later given the number of debates one can easily find on youtube. This is a problem. 2k years later and we still cant grasp what it means fully. Is it because we can trust the words but cant trust the interpretation the earliest church had? Why should our current understanding triumph theirs?
Were all the Apostolic Fathers Gentiles? Where did the Jerusalem saints go just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem? Do we have any writings from them?
Almost all were of Gentile origin. While there is much proof for James, the Brother of Our Lord leading the Saints of Jerusalem for some time, we have to understand the persecution of Christians was happening from the second of the inception of Christs' earthly ministry, so that is another key reason we find those that learned at the feet of Paul the Apostle, like Clement and those that learned at the feet of John the Apostle, like Ignatius, Papias, and Polycarp, are of Gentile origin. If a large percentage of the Apostles left Jerusalem, it's not surprising to see this. We also need to remember places like Smyrna where Polycarp was from and Antioch where Ignatius was from, were in an area of Turkey that already had a heavy Hellenistic Jew influence. So some of them may have been of Jewish/Israelite bloodline, but by culture, they were very much Gentiles, therefore making the Christian conversion they had to go through in their earlier days, all the more easier. Here is a cool quote I found............... According to Eusebius' Church History 4.5.3-4, the first 15 Christian Bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision", meaning they were Jewish. The Romans destroyed the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem in year 135 during the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is traditionally believed the Jerusalem Christians waited out the Jewish-Roman wars in Pella in the Decapolis. So I saw you mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem and you were probably talking about the Temple in 70AD, but as you can see there were Christian Jews there well into the 2nd Century. God bless you and yours my brother.
The Apostles Jesus chose were all of Jewish background. These so-called Church fathers who raised their heads after the death of the Apostles were most likely part of the apostasy foretold by Paul at Acts 20:30. That is why their bickered on doctrinal issues.
@@tongakhan230Read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word. It’s available online and only 40 pages. It, together with the OT scripture he references, refutes your statements as unfounded speculation.
@@makingsmokesince76 : If someone takes the trouble to read the Bible, it would become obvious that there was no organized Christian Congregation after the First Century. Satan was running things with teachings he wanted spread. (Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves. That is how the church systems came to be, with the Trinity, hellfire torment, immortal soul and other twisted teachings. Thus, I'd take Paul's advice and stick to the Bible (1 Corinthians 4:6). Why go running after Athanasius and others when all we need is in the Bible. Ask any JW. They know the Bible.
@@dfacedagame I’m currently reading the Book Eusebius The Church History translation and commentary by Paul L Maier. There sure was a lot of cults and false teaching going on besides the persecution. I’m reading about Origen right now.
Clearly whoever wrote the Didache is an unsaved person(s). Jesus says that He is the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by him. All of those works that it lists that will “lead to life” will just lead you straight to hell. Paul taught in Romans 3:28 that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
No, they were saved. They were looking at it from a Jewish lens that lines up with the Book of James (i.e. faith without works is dead). Paul and James do not contradict, faith will produce good works. I=The Didache is consistent with the gospel, and it was written to people who were already Christians, thus why it focuses on how to live. It was not meant to evangelise to unbelievers, but was a catechism on how to live godly lives as believers.
@@samueljennings4809 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
@@samueljennings4809 faith without works is dead but faith without works still exists. There’s a dead faith that doesn’t profit anyone else and living faith that produces fruit. The Bible teaches the one who does not work but simply believes will be justified. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5 We should all do good works but they have nothing to do with salvation.
@@Boggomvblerk4883 The ones who will be judged by their works at the great white thrown are not written in the book of life, they are from death and hades. “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:13-15 Notice how the passage does not say that any who were judged by their works at this judgement will go to heaven. There is a different judgement for believers (not great white thrown judgement) that will test everyone’s work for rewards. If anyone’s work is burned up then they will still be saved. Paul makes the clear distinction between eternal life and rewards: “Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
There are no such people called Church fathers. These various Church leaders came after the Apostles Jesus had chosen. These so-called Church fathers couldn't agree on most doctrinal issues. Thus, fulfilling Paul's prophecy about the Apostasy found at Acts 20:30. Paul advised Christians not to go beyond the written word (1 Corinthians 4:6).
And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands the Church to hold to the traditions (the same Greek word Jesus used to criticize the "traditions of men") which they were taught "whether by word of mouth or our epistle." In 1 Cor., Paul speaking of things that were written likely indicates the Old Testament, given that's what the New Testament means when it refers to "the Scriptures". The Church Fathers had much consensus, and it is in their consensus that we find the Holy Spirit's guidance.
@@taxiarch : There are two types of traditions. One is what comes from father to children based on what God wanted taught (cf Deuteronomy 11:18-21). The other, what man makes up which is condemned by God. 2 Timothy 3:14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them 15 and that FROM INFANCY YOU HAVE KNOWN THE HOLY WRITINGS, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Matthew 15:6......So you have made the WORD OF GOD INVALID BECAUSE OF YOUR TRADITIONS. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in VAIN that they keep worshipping me, for they teach COMMANS OF MEN AS DOCTRINES.’” In Greek like in English, a single word may mean different things depending on the context. Does LOVE for God and for good food mean the same type of love? Stay with what is complete. Namely, the Bible. So-called church fathers' teachings should be looked at under the light of this prophecy. (Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves. The JW website helps people with what the Bible does teach. Give it a browsing.
I am no learned scholar, but what sources are you getting your information from about these early leaders of the church? Your reference for Christians to not go beyond the written word, What is your definition of the written word? Note that the Bible did not exist when Paul was writting these letters(it only came into existance Nearly 300 years after Paul). Is he reffering to his own letters only and the old testament writtings? Your reference of Acts 20:30 could easily be explained by the multple heresies(Note they are called herecies because they are incorrect beliefs brought forth by people who were christians) the early church dealt with. Such as those addressed at the council of Nicea. Infact his reference to those among you will lead people astray can easily be attached to Martin Luther who was a Priest in the Church before he broke away and started his own church (this is not to say the Catholic Church's members are perfect and is not full of sinners). Which has now led us to a place where anyone with a bible and an opinion can start their own church leading to thousands of churches.
Curious, it is the 2nd video I see which claims Antioch was founded in the 4th century AD in stead of BC. Probably a typo that has been copied over. Nice summary and paused narration allow to digest the huge amount of information. Thx for putting it together.
"6 days of Creation correspond to 6.000 years..." How could he wrote that in the context of them being expected Christ's return when at the time it was around 4.000 years from Creation?
You can see in these very early writtings, The Way of Christ sadly morphing into a religion. The early stages of exchanging the spiritual growth knowing Christ develops to the external works of the flesh that brings bondage. Wretched bunch we are
Very interesting but the speaker speaks too fast snd the noisy background music is too louddisturbing and should be removed.I had to stop the video and give up.Later if I shall return to this video I will turn off the sound completely and see the video reading only the texted message instead.
You poor dear. Are you threatened by such tradition? Fasting on Wednesday and Fridays each week in preparation for the Eurcharist in the Divine Liturgy is a staple of Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@TheLincolnrailsplitttradition is fine as long as it’s within scripture. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for holding traditions above the word of God and Paul commends the Bereans for ensuring the Gospel was in line with Scripture. Peter warns against those who twist Paul’s words, like they do “with other scriptures”. Peter, Paul, and most importantly-Jesus- all had a very HIGH view of Scripture.
This and the documentary on church history (both parts) are extremely well made, interesting and informative. Thank you for all the hard work that went into these documentaries! As a Christian, I love these topics.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 You are obv very ignorant, and a hypocrite to say the least, you say the trinity is a late misinterpretation although even some of the early jews believed in a some what trinity consisted 2 persons. But yet accept a man 600 years later that copied from gnostic, pagan, jewish and christian texts.
This is not Biblical yall.
@theguyver4934 on the contrary muslim,,Jesus finished ,we are not under the Law,,Jesus said it is done..than 3days Are our Messiah rose from the dead...Gospel Death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid for are sins that we may be righteous enough to be in the presence of God thru faith alone not of works .John3;16 Eph.2;8,9..as for this vidio it's teachings of Catholics who kept the Gospel from everyone for 1500 yrs.. my savior is Jesus Christ who paid for my soul..God bless Muslim pray yall see the truth..Harpoza soon.
@@theguyver4934evidence does not show this bud 😂 the early fathers spoke of Father Son and Holy Spirit being God; and there only being one God
Thank you for showing me this Lord Jesus Christ, All glory belong to you .
Also thank you for making this, enlightening and reminding people the first Christians served God the way the apostles taught.
God bless all who seek the kingdom of God.
All glory to the Father and to the Son and to Holy Spirit, One God amen ☦️
Chapter 2 verse 2 of the Didache speaks against abortion and the murder of children .
The Didache
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1-2 [A.D. 70]
@@richlopez5896 so everything modern society is doing (lgtbq and new age)
Yep. But we never needed the Didache to know it was always common sense from the start.
These Are Not
The Times When
People Were Needed
To Spread Across The Globe,
There Are Way Too Many
Humans In These Final Days!
@@jordanmcpherson3794 except those were common practices of that day and it was the Church that called them out as wrong. One of the reasons, at least, that we regard those prohibitions as common sense is because of the Church.
Lord's Supper on earth commanded by Jesus - Luke 22:19 is the precursor of Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Heaven-Revelation 19:6-9 Blessed are those invited. These are the true Words of God.
So there was an advertisement for "Liquid Death", the water company, where they showed a witch conducting some sort of spell over the water in big barrels. I've never bought it again. Seeing this first example is so validating that my instinct as a freshly baptized baby Christian is pretty good. I used to be a "witch." I am so blessed to have found my way.
you did not find your way. If you are saved from sin by trusting in the cross and the blood od the Lamb them yu were drawn by HIM.
Hey just want to say keep up the good work here. Even as a reformed Christian i admire the work that you have put out over here especially considering the ignorance of many Christians with our own history
Fasting from the Eastern Orthodox church: We fast on Wednesday and Friday because Wednesday was Jesus betrayal by Judas. Fridays fast is the day HE was crucified. Lord have mercy if I'm incorrect. God bless you all.
Jesus was betrayed after the last supper, which was Thursday.
Also Eastern Orthodox here, and from what I understand, and according to the Didache as well as several of the early church father's letters (that I can't find right now), we fast on Wednesdays and Fridays so as to differentiate ourselves from the Jews. "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day (Wednesday) and the Preparation (Friday)". I suppose both could be true, but it's interesting.
And in monasteries, add Mondays to that list.
@@kevin6293 - FYI, There were actually two days of the Passover week on which the meal could have been eaten. The earlier one in the week MIGHT fit the timing of the trial( on the night) >Pilate,> Herod,>Pilate>Cross.
@@josephodoherty7864 that’s interesting about the Passover meal, but all 4 gospels say that Jesus was crucified the day after the last supper, which would be Thursday, Maundy Thursday
So let us unite ☦
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 whatever that history is I'm pretty much sure it is one-sided but Jesus said one thing that nobody can go to the Father except through Him which is why His ministry was to bring back people to God but majority simply didn't accept Him. What do we think those souls who does not accept nor truly believe and worship God? just asking:
@@theguyver4934Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We don’t worship thesame God. Come to Jesus because he’s the only way.
@@theguyver4934 since they were vegetarian, why did Jesus cook fish for him and his diciples after he resurrected on the 3rd day?
Submit to Rome
Very well laid out.. thank you for posting
This is a great review for a few of the Patristic Fathers (not all are cited herein). The significant redundancy from one segment to the next could be reduced to give more time for those not reviewed. Interesting are the continuing points about church unity, identity of Christ, and Christian morals only skims the surface of each of these Father's writings. Those of the post apostolic age each spoke of many faithful opportunities beyond the witness of this video.
Thanks!
The Christian Church had Readers, subdeacons, deacons, Priests, and Bishops by A.D 90, it is clearly seen in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings. The idea that “heirarchy” was developed later by Constantine or in 300’s is bolognia.
I think that's why Catholics are so awful, they embrace a lie and seek power needing to continue the lie. Not to mind hiding Homosexual Pedos.
Elders and deacons bishops
You developed your ideas 2000 years later
@@trishkearney Right, but the Church developed it's paradigm since the very beginning.
@StNektariosAegina the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church from the beginning.
Wonderful and wonderfully documented,it’s inspiring and awesome to a true believer in Jesus Christ.☝️🙏
One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Some of this video repeats itself especially about St Ignatius h zPolycarp. Great video lots of good info thank you.
Saw that as well. And a small error on the spelling of Proper mispelled as Poper seen in the last part of that repeated part of the video. "Poper Doctrine" 36:38
Here is an answer of ChatGPT, everyone can draw their own conclusions:
Which’s practices and beliefs are closer to those reflected by the Apostolic Fathers, the Catholic’s or the Protestant’s?
ChatGPT
The beliefs and practices reflected by the Apostolic Fathers are generally considered to be closer to those of the Catholic Church than to Protestant denominations. The Apostolic Fathers were early Christian writers and leaders who lived in the first and second centuries AD and were considered to have a direct connection to the apostles and the early church. Their writings and teachings were influential in shaping Christian doctrine and practice in the early centuries of the church.
The Catholic Church traces its origins back to the early Christian church and claims to have maintained continuity with the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Fathers and the early church. Catholicism places a strong emphasis on apostolic succession, the authority of the pope as the successor of Peter, and the sacramental system, which includes baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, marriage, and ordination.
Protestant denominations, on the other hand, emerged out of the Reformation in the 16th century and often place a greater emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture, justification by faith alone, and the rejection of certain Catholic practices such as the veneration of saints and the authority of the pope.
While there are certainly Protestant denominations that share some beliefs and practices with the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church, as I mentioned in my previous answer, the overall emphasis on apostolic succession, sacraments, and the authority of the church is more closely aligned with Catholicism than with Protestantism.
We shouldn't trust "Apostolic fathers" they're not reliable.Jesus said...' I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND ETERNAL LIFE. IN GOD I TRUST(BELIEVE) ALL OTHERS "APOSTOLIC CHURCH FATHERS" BOW DOWN TO JESUS CHRIST'S SUBMISSION AND AUTHORITY!!!JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK ON WHOM HE BUILT HIS ONLY CHURCH!!
@@lupelo8819yes we shouldn’t trust anyone except your pastor because he is closer to Jesus than the church fathers.
@@lupelo8819 Yes, instead of trusting those who were personally taught the teachings of Christ, we should make up our own beliefs and interpretations leading to over 30,000+ "churches" of those who claim to be following Christ. Endless heresy and schism is what Christ wanted!
@@ToonsGoofyMemesThat is exactly what the Catholic Church has done.
Ah yes, ChatGPT, the theologian and historian. Haha
Since the earliest churches were home churches, it best fits a more protestant style of gathering. Not this overlay pompous ritualistic idol-filled ceremonial pius nonsense we see in "one true chuch" type icon-centered works-based liturgy run organized systems.
Did you mean to say Antioch was conquered by the Greeks in the 4th Century BC instead of 4th Century AD? Please clarify.
Amazing info. Valuable. Thank you!
Beautiful And Uplifting Early Church History Of The Early Christian Church Fathers! Shalom And Amen!✝️✝️🛐🛐😇🌟🤗🙏🙏🙏🇨🇦🇬🇧🇮🇱♾️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🗽🦅❤️❤️❤️‼️
Thank you... to whomever wrote it down for us
Turner What a wonderful reply, I like it.
Amazing documentary, I learned a lot. Thank you so much!
Excellent! There is a duplication of the Polycarp part of the video and Papias is missing.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@theguyver4934 line of Ishmael! The bastard son of Abraham which came about from his unfaithfulness of God's promise. Ishmael was an oath and his lineage is of the devil. Historical facts.
Very informative.
Gadol Adonai Umehulal Me' Od
Great video..I appreciate your work brother
How telling you leave out the most important part of St. Ignatius' letter to Polycarp, where he first (in writing) called Jesus' Church the Catholic Church (Katholikós Ecclesia).
What else did you leave out? Why? What is your agenda?
Catholic just means universal. It’s not synonymous with Rome alone.
Catholic Church means universal and it’s different from the Roman Catholic Church.
@@edward1412 Catholic meaning universal does not negate the fact the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter and the apostles. Your contention is silly.
Fantastic Video
Excellent video!! The visuals were excellent (J. Warner Wallace and William Lane Craig would approve!). But: lose the music, or turn it WAY down: my 65 y/o hearing had a difficult time listening to the great narrative/narrator vs the background music: probably on the same frequency (4000 Hz), so learning from this most excellent video was difficult! Otherwise, you get a thumbs up and a subscribe from me! Great work! RnMT
Sometimes I solve that by running thru a second time with the transcript,~~~
@@cindiloowhoo1166 How do you get the transcript?
In and by the Cross we are delivered from ourselves; not only from our sins, but from ourselves; and being delivered from ourselves we are delivered into the Lord Jesus Christ, and King Jesus Christ becomes far more than we. It is a painful process, but it is a blessed issue.
Open Window.
Theology Academy. The Ploycarp part of the video is reported 3 times in this video.
Good video but please take away that awful background music, it’s so disturbing.
Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ...Amen!!!
Outstanding Love this info❤❤❤
Technical correction: At 13:19, the Greeks conquered the area around Antioch in the 4th century BC, not AD.
All of these Church Fathers were united under the Catholic Church:
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. - St Ignatius of Antioch
Amen... God bless
Yeah. I stopped watching after it was clear they weren't going to mention that found in St. Ignatius' letters, where he called Jesus' Church the Catholic Church.
@@jeffscully50613 Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros, Christ Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
@@2394Joseph that's funny. But Now I will tell you the truth so that if you ever repeat that ridiculous story about St. Peter, _you_ know you'll be lying. And God will know you are lying. Lying is a sin. "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor."
Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, Jesus called Simon, Kepha (or Cephas), which means Rock. He called him Kepha the very first time they met (John 1:42). Simon had been known as the Rock for three and a half years before Jesus called him the Rock at Caesarea Philippi.
Jesus had taken the Apostles on a two-day journey to Caesarea Phillipi for a reason. It was the backdrop of the Gates of Hell--a natural rock formation that was literally thought to be the opening to Hades. It was the location of a giant Rock formation that served as the place of worship for the pagan god Pan.
The Greek language is a romance language. All of the nouns in Greek are either masculine or feminine. The word for rock in Greek is feminine. There was no masculine word for rock. When Matthew was writing his Gospel he took the feminine, petra, and gave it a masculine ending, petros. Jesus would not have taken such a serious moment in His ministry, make the Apostles walk two days out of their way, to make a joke and call Simon (Kepha) by a girls name, especially since He had just blessed his chosen Apostle.
Peter is named 190 times in the New Testament. The Apostle named the second most is John, 29 times.the Whenever the Apostles were named Peter was *ALWAYS* first. Judas was *ALWAYS* last.
The entire New Testament shows Peter to be the leader of the Apostles. He's the first to speak. The first to act. The first to be chastised by Jesus. He performed the first miracle by an Apostle after Jesus ascended into Heaven.
Peter decided to replace Judas with Matthias. He decided gentiles could become Christians. He decided the 613 Mosaic Laws were no longer to be imposed on Jewish followers of Christ. He decided circumcision was to be replaced by baptism.
Jesus gave Simon (Kepha) the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. In Isaiah 22, we see King David choosing as his chief steward (AL Habayith, in Hebrew--literally means "Over the House")). The Al Habayith was given the keys to the kingdom. Whatever he decided was law. *THAT* is what Jesus did for Peter. Made him His Al Habayith.
@Jeff Scully I don't need your Papist propaganda. Please keep your Popish heresies all to yourself. It is Christ alone for me. I do not need any other mediator between myself and my God other than Jesus Christ alone. If you want to believe lies, that's up to you. However, there are eternal consequences for that. As it is written, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling "
@@2394Joseph you're funny.
What lies did I tell?
Or is it the fact that you're being shown what people have purposely hidden from you your entire life has you confused?
Jesus established the Catholic Church in AD 33. He chose St. Peter to lead His one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.
It's history. It happened. People there at the time wrote about it. We have proof. We know the names and dates of every pope from Pope Francis all the way back to St. Peter. It's an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession. Every single year is accounted for.
The Catholic Church is 1,990 years old. The oldest Protestant denomination is 505 years old. Which one has been there since the beginning?
Jesus established ONE Church. He promised the Apostles and us that He would be with His Church forever. How could have have promised He would be with the Apostles AND His Church forever, if that Church wouldn't exist until 1,400+ years AFTER the last Apostle died?
Every Protestant denomination was/is _invented by a human being who has no authority from God. Only Jesus' Church: _the Catholic Church_ has God's authority.
This article definitely blows the doors off of the comment. There is no difference in religions. “We all love the same God “
this defines God’s intent and the entire purpose for Jesus’ coming to earth; his death and resurrection..
Very good presentation.
Beautifully done Thx!
Excellent video thank you 😊
I am wondering if I have found an error in this presentation:
At the 13:22 mark a statement is made that no city had existed in the area of Antioch until the Greeks conquered the area in 4 AD, "Hellenized" the area, and built up the city.
Subsequently, at the 13:55 mark, a seemingly contradictory statement is presented that Roman General Pompey captured the city of Antioch from the Greeks in 64 BC.
I am thinking that the date of 4 AD provided as the date the Greeks established Antioch must surely be in error.
Praying for our separated brethen to come home to the One Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus founded 2000 years ago.
The church founded by Christ is not modern day papacy.
Sorry.
Repeating this lie does not make it true.
@@geordiewishart1683 protestantism is blasphemous heresy, become a true Christian 🇻🇦
Oliver, why do you mention Protestantism?
I didn't.
You claim that Catholicism is true Christianity?
Surely true Christianity focuses on Christ as saviour and sole mediator and redeemer?
How can Catholicism make this claim when it abounds with idol worship and worship of the Queen of Heaven?
Mystery Babylon indeed!
@@geordiewishart1683 a simple google search refutes your claim,
"Question: Does the Catholic Bible say to worship Mary?"
"Answer: The phrase "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" demonstrates that Catholics view Mary not as a goddess to be worshipped, but as a helpful ally in the life-long struggle against sin and temptation. In all of the Marian prayers offered by Catholics, there is not a single claim of Mary's divinity"
@@oliveri9407 Then stop worshipping saints
Thank you for this!
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"- Cardinal John Henry Newman
And how wrong he was. What is written in the very early Christian writings is NOTHING like what the False Catholic Church presents itself as and preaches today. I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The more you learn the way of the Apostles in Scripture and the Apostolic Church Fathers that came after, you will learn that what ROME eventually began to teach was far from what Christ and His Apostles called His sheep to do.
I wonder if the cardinal ever owned a Bible and considered that it was written roughly between 1500BC and 90AD. That by definition would be deep in history.
@@dfacedagame WHEN YOU SAID "nothing like what the false Catholic Church presents itself as and preaches today" The APOSTOLIC FATHERS which are bishops in the early church never even mentioned as to how the catholic church should represent the church in the future(today). However, they laid hands on them their successors to promulgate laws concerning the church especially in proclaiming the word of God which is preaching. If we attribute error to the church we attribute error to the Bible because the bible is a catholic book. The Catholic church alone can trace its lineage back to the early church fathers. Jesus Christ himself said that he will be with his church until the end of the days, Jesus gave his authority to the church so much so that in 1st Timothy 3:15 said that "the pillars and foundations of truth is in the church". Not anything else that pops up out of the blue.
@@jasonlewis5350 the bible was canonized in the early 3rd century by Pope Damascus. And the cardinal wasn't a Cardinal then, he was a former Anglican priest converted to catholic. He wasn't born during the time when the bible compiled so common sense dictates that when he converted he learned the bible which is a catholic book.
@@Yoboyambassador Where does it say in the Bible that Mary is co-mediatrix and that I should worship her?
The Early Christian Church Fathers' by Henry Bettenson. Page 14."Irenaeus followed the example of the Apologists in seeking expound Christian teaching in terms acceptable to Greek thought. Thus contributing to what Harnack termed the dilution of Christianity by Hellenism." This is an honest admission of the motivation in much of the pro 'trinitarian' ideas and essays they contributed to the eventual formulation of both the trinity, immortal soul, succession of saints, hell & purgatory teachings that eventually became the mainstay of 'orthodoxy'.
There is repetition at time 36 min and 41 min
Great video. Would love to use for RCIA. But there are duplications and typos “Poper Doctrine”. Seems like you need some review and final edits :)
Very good presentation. Thank you immensely for uploading and sharing this wonderful memorial event of God freely given to be as an advice of teaching program.
Interesting video .. but an ad every 3-5 minutes? I couldn’t finish the whole thing. Sorry.
Awesome video on a little known topic. For me the music was a bit distracting but a fanfi fantastic and valuable video nevertheless
Yes. Music is a total distraction. Sort of amazing that Someone would out so much good intention and intelligence into something and then smear it with distractive music that sounds akin to backdrop of movie American Beauty . Uffda. Wrong turn there.
We're all different. I personally found the calm repetition of the background music aided my concentration on what was being said (I only listen, don't watch, as I find any visuals too distracting).
My hats' off to the preparers of this video. No mention of NT pastors. This title was only mentioned 7 time's in the Bible. Once in the NT and 6 time's in the book of Jeremiah. How did we get where we are today? Read 1st John 2:27
Catholic Christians hold the true faith ✝️☦️
Catholic no faith the worshiping idols
Christ is the true faith. He is the word made flesh those who believe in him will be saved. Through Christ and Christ only.
The whole point of this teaching video is to emphasize keeping to the interpretation of early churches interpretation of scriptures and to avoid division and to reject heresy.The Roman Catholic interpretation is only accepted by the RCs. How can it be the true universal church then, just by arithmetic. Also to claim it is, creates massive division and also many of its key dogmas have no scriptural basis and thus are 'in partibus'. Three in one.
That is why it was emphasized by the chuch father UNITY. The Catholic church never strayed. It remained on its true teachings. Every doctrine, every dogma and every magesterial teachings are from the teachings of the one true Chrurch thru the will of the Father instituted by Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
@@IPraisetheTrinity Attend an Orthodox serve and one can see how far the Catholics have strayed.
Awesome video, thank you very much.
If you're a protestant I just want to know how you reconcile this? When we look at the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the rest of the church fathers that follow them we see what the early church/Christians believed. Looks nothing like protestantism. How do you reconcile your beliefs when you realize they didn't exist until 500 years ago? I'm not catholic btw
Justice Divine, what writings of the apostolic fathers you are talking about,?
Can you site one of those writings? And let us compare.
@@browneyes5196 is he not referring the contents of the Didache that are discussed in the video which reffer to what the early church looked like?
Protestantism isn't a monolith. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Quakers, and Charismatics all have different ideologies and theologies. I'd also like to add that it is official Catholic doctrine that Protestants are "separated brethren."
Not to mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic Church also have very different theology and ideologies. Quite frankly no one is following the apostolic fathers to the letter, certainly not the Catholic church, with all the councils that have added and changed theology over time, and the various church splits and protestantism is a symptom of that. Almost all the denominations and various bodies of Christ have to reconcile with the early teachings and scripture.
@@Ribastein Thank you
@@DreamcastFarm i see your point, i'd push back a lil and say that the apostolic churches while they have their differences still look more similar than protestants. High view of Mary, Liturgical Worship, Veneration of Icons, appeal to the oral and holy tradition, belief in the real presence in the eucharist. These are still very much the universal practices that took place in the early church
Thank you for this, well done!
If we seek pure Christian truth, is was complete in every way by the death of the apostles! They form the 'foundartion of the Christian congregation with Christ as the corner stone! Jude said in 55AD "The Faith was delivered to the Holy ones (Saints) ONE FOR ALL TIME. Nothing was to be added or subtracted! ( Rev 22: 18,19) Paul said that "All scripture ( complete by the end of the first century) is SUFFICIENT unto salvation ( 2 tIM 3:16,17) We dont greek philosophy & personal oppinions!
That scripture requires an interpreter. Going by personal interpretation has lead to confusion and thousands of contradicting beliefs on what it says. Not to mention the apostles handed down some things in writing and other in tradition. St. Paul said to hold to both.
Those who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s 16th-century theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]
@@richlopez5896 A very long comment, Thank you! to justify the way men have thought they can improve on the word of God! My Bible says that the "The sayings I have taught you are spirit and life" These are the words of the Lord Jesus! Both catholisism and protestantism have relied heavily on their traditions so many of which, like those of the jews in the talmud have in fact made, as Jesus said "The word of God invalid". I have studied so many church 'traditions' they were based on both pagan & greek philosophy. Ie LOGOS, PHSYKE, HADES. The bible's explanation for these three things is very different from the church traditions. Would you like me to supply you with documented information on the difference? Why am I sceptical about post biblical 'traditions'? simply because I have been warned! By whom? The Lord himself, Paul, Peter & John. Very clearly that 'After the apostles men will arise and speak 'twisted' things', 'traditions of men' e.t.c. Sorry I will stick to the bible, it alone can give me everlasting life. It alone records to actual words of my Saviour! As the Psalmist put it "Put not your trust in Princes in whom NO SALVATION BELONGS" ( psm 146:3). I know you most likely feel a sense of loyalty to your 'church' your parents faith, whatever. I respect your faith. I dont judge you in any way, but I prefer to read my bible and direct my worship to my heavanly Father through his beloved Son Jesus Christ. Only this can result in everlasting life!
@Eric S
“Romanist?”
Christ’s Church, Catholic (universal) was started with “Upon this Rock I will build my Church.”
The Vulgate Bible was compiled circa 400AD by St Jerome.
Thus, all “denominations” and the Bible emanate from The Catholic Church.
You are not prohibited from reading or acquiring knowledge. Thousands of denominations, each thinking they are the only “right” ones….
I wonder how big in terms on numbers this home churches were. I would really want to know
I love the video and the illustrations make it so much more enjoyable
The background "music" is terrible.
it brings me great relief that the first Christians rejected ALL 5 points of Calvinism and obviously faith alone and scripture alone.
It is said those two little gems were pencilled in by Martin Luther.
It's hard for calvinists to accept their condemned heresy founded by an excommunicated frenchman, in the 16th century, that is, more than 1,500 years after Christ and His Apostles, without any connection to them and in opposition to the holy catholic apostolic Church that does and always did… Is not christian in the slightest, by the contrary.
@@josephmariaotf Amen Amen!👏🏽
Wasn't the criminal on the cross next to Jesus saved by his faith alone?
@@ohmy4275 No, he was justified by Jesus who knew that had he lived, he'd of born good fruit as a good person
As a Catholicum apologetic, this is wonderful. May souls convert, repent, and come back to the one tru church of Jesus Christ. May the followers of the anti Christ before it's to late convert and save souls, and for the conversion of all sinners. May Russia b consecrated to our Mothers Immaculate Heart and may all children be saved from torture and abortion. May God bless us all.
Do you really believe that if your not Catholic , your going to hell? Because That’s not biblical , the church , the body , the bride of Christ is the Christians that believe and follow Him.
@@omarsfitnessworld3213 I never said if ur not Catholic your going to hell, so no I do not believe that at all. My whole point is this, maybe you can actually understand this simple way, how ever u come to Christ is wut he wants from u. We r his children and we will all b different. Woe to u that prevents his children to love him, to worship him in their way. I don't judge also I pray for my enemies. R you my enemy, my christian friend??? Do u and I'll do me. I certainly am not affected by your way and do not give it a thought unless in this situation. God bless us all...
why does catholicism teach contrary God's Word?
@@joeychicago6322 @omarsfitnessworld3213 - you wrote: _'Do u and I'll do me.'_ - a 12 yr old would say that, Sir.
you, up above - noted that you're a _'Catholic apologetic.'_ - can you not defend this 'faith' against Christianity?
i bet you're not able.
@@tony1685 Well T, wut exactly does it supposedly contradict? Cause it certainly doesn't and tit for tat, Catholicism vs Prots is closer more perfect and infallible to the word of Christ. Remember we r the Apostolic way brother, do your research, look into the 1st all the way threw the Crusades for enlightenment.
Great truth for the whole body 🪔 !
The xylophone plucking constantly in the background makes it difficult to take in the narrative.
Ironically, Protestant doctrine essentially rejects all of the early church fathers who all believed in one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. The fathers of the 20,000 protestant churches are King Henry VIII and Martin Luther.
Exactly
Not true. The protestants simply rejected the “add ons” of the catholic church and reverted back to the true teachings of Jesus and the examples set by the apostles. We never saw anybody in the bible, be it prophets, priests or the apostles to bow down to statues for example. We never saw anybody in the bible to sell indulgences. Etc etc. And many other things, that were added on later on. We know the history of the catholic church and it isn’t pretty. John Hus was burnt at the stake by the church for preaching the truth for crying out loud.
@@ahojahojish Abdul, you know you’re being dishonest about Catholics and statues. And you know that in establishing the one true Church, Jesus told Peter, whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven.
Peter demonstrated this authority when he pronounced death to the married couple who held back after selling their property. This authority was passed on with apostolic succession.
Protestants beginning with their protestant church fathers, Martin Luther and Henry VIII, have rejected the authority of the one true Church, they have rejected the sacraments, and they have rejected apostolic succession.
That’s why there are 20,000 protestant denominations all in disagreement with one another.
@@tedtimmis8135 The catholic church is simply full of false doctrines. Its christianity mixed with the paganism of that time. For catholics there is no salvation outside the catholic church. For protestants, there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Catholics just like the jews rely on the tradition, protestants rely on faith and sound biblical teaching, without any add ons. Please show me one verse from the whole bible where Jesus or the apostles taught bowing to statues, praying to images of saints. Just one verse please. Also, show me one verse about purgatory.
What the protestants did was, they saw the false doctrines in the church. They shifted the authority from the church to the Bible/Gods word (as it should be). Once they did that, they reverted back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.
Many catholics will go to hell, just like many protestants will go to hell. Its not about if you belong to a catholic church or a protestant church. Its about does your heart belong to Jesus? Tradition will not save you. Only a living, personal relationship with our Saviour will. Repent and trust on Jesus Christ. If you do that, it doesnt matter what denomination you belong to.
I dont label myself a member of the prostestant church, or a member of the catholic church. I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ. And the roman-catholic church is simply unbiblical.
@Ted Timmis Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros Christ, Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
very interesting story of the church fathers
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Poor polycarp.😢
The 'r' is missing in the written: proper doctrine; at 41 minutes and 41seconds
The one holy catholic and apostolic church which is the eastern orthodox church. The church fathers are directly connected to orthodox-faith
Kill Bil in reply... you have that back the front.... that the Church Fathers are directly connected to Orthodox Faith
The Church Fathers were first before the Orthodox Faith.
You Schismed from the Roman Catholic Faith, and created Orthodoxy: you Schismed refusing The Pope as your Head: instead you have yr Patriarchs:
Please accept this my comment with due respect to all Orthodox peoples:
Wrong they were Catholic Jesus is the first Catholic
catholic and orthodox are the same, with apostolic succession.. in due time in future..we will be one in unity
The Catholic Church has always had a pope. All the way back to St. Peter. The Orthodox Church left Jesus' Church in 1054 because it didn't agree with the pope. The Catholic Church is the first Church--Jesus' one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.
@@asintonicJesus is a Jew. The Apostles were the first Catholics.
So the first church fathers were ignatius , polycarp and who else ?
Amen John Henry Newman if only Protestant weren’t Protestant the world would be what God wants. They need to “study to be approved unto God”. Which is The one true holy Catholic and apostolic Church. And they can prove it. Amen !
I got a question. If Catholicism claims to be apostolic why does so much of their beliefs and teaching contradict the apostles?
@@krazzykracker2564 it’s you who are in error. If you’re right why are there 40,000 denominations all claiming they each have the correct interpretation. Study my friend only take off your sunglasses so you can see what the scripture’s really say. AMEN !
@@davidmcarthur7800 thats simple. The reason there is so many denominations is that very few people actually read the Bible. For example Catholics believe in infant baptism which is nowhere in scripture. They also sprinkle instead of immersion in the father, son, and holyghost. This is also nowhere in scripture and all baptisms after pentecost were done in the name of Jesus. I could go on and on about how un apostolic Catholicism is.
@@krazzykracker2564
They don't. They just contradict YOUR interpretation. There are thousands of interpretations post-1517. The great diversity of contradicting Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to interpret Scripture.
This doctrine of private judgment has resulted in thousands of different Christian denominations and quasi-Christian splinter groups throughout history.
St. Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them-that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]
@@krazzykracker2564 Catholics, orthodox, Mainline Protestants baptize infants. The Catholic Church uses various methods to baptize: Immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. infant baptism replaced infant circumcision.
This seems trivial to us today. Okay, so baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” But this was not trivial to first-century Jewish Christians who were being challenged to circumcise their children “after the manner of Moses or else they could not be saved” (see Acts 15:1-2). Many were being persecuted because they chose infant baptism instead of infant circumcision. As Paul says in Romans 2:28: For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.
What is this “spiritual circumcision” of which Paul speaks? Baptism, according to Colossians 2:11-12. Not the shedding of foreskin, but the transformation of the inward man through the sacrament. As a fulfillment of that which is only a type, baptism does something circumcision could never do: “baptism now saves” us (1 Pet. 3:21). The change that occurs is not physical; it is spiritual. As it is often said, what you don’t see is what you get in all of the sacraments, baptism included-and infant baptism included, too.
Elsewhere in Scripture we find a close association between baptism and circumcision. In Galatians 3:27-28, Paul says: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul’s point is that baptism is more inclusive than its Old Testament antecedent. You had to be a free, male Jew to be circumcised. And when were males generally circumcised in the Old Testament, by the way? At eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12). Paul’s point is that in the New Testament, baptism is open to all. Of course babies would be included.
This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ, therefore opening up the legitimacy of infant baptism, is at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. . . . For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39).
If Peter believed that baptism is exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher! The Lord explicitly “called infants” to himself in Luke 18:15-17:
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus. The Greek word here is brephe, which mean “infants.” And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parent’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be-that is, they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God-infant baptism makes sense, as they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” (CCC 1250).
From the very beginning, whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe that infants would not have been included (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis. I encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well.
When Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
I have often wondered how a universal church could be truly following what jesus taught , because he said narrow is the way , and FEW there be that find it
The apostolic movement is completely out of control.
Do you mean when there were only one of them at the foot of the cross of the crucifixion?
I think you see people flopping around like in an asylum, and screaming about what God told them and them alone. I think you know exactly what I mean.
@@jamesstarkey1508 if you get to think you know what I know and dont know then i too get to think you what you know and dont know, IF you know what i mean...
Good info, but how annoying that background audio is!
Those who are against the Catholic Church, remember they are against Our Lord Jesus Christ.
According to Paul at Acts 20:30, it was the apostasy that raised its head as the RCC.
The Catholic Church is a false Gospel.
@@grahamebennett3875 IT doesn't matter GOD will Judge each person according to his/ her work...
@@grahamebennett3875 : Protestants should remember that they broke away from the RCC taking along with them RCC beliefs.
Thus, it will be the adage 'pot calling the kettle black'.
Does this mean that Jesus hasn't a True Congregation of believers today?
No! Jesus has restored his True Congregation as promised in these last days.
Jesus is using these ones to fulfill his last days sign.
(Matthew 24:14) And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth FOR A WITNESS to all the nations, and THEN the end will come.
Now that’s a bunch of hogwash KT W. GEORGENANAL.
Why did Ignatius think that being food for wild beasts would allow him to make it to God? Where did he get this theology?
These men, the Apostolic Fathers were the FIRST CHRISTIANS apart from the APOSTLES:
They were taught by the 12 Apostles, themselves who were fist taugh by Christ Himself:
Here we see THE BEGINNING OF THE FORMATION OF THE ,EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH: BUT NOT ROMAN YET: THAT IS YET TO COME..
Roman is one of the many Rites of the Catholic Church and traces to apostles Peter and Paul. Clement was in Rome with both of them and mentioned in Phil 4:3.
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3). A.D. 189
The Poem Against the Marcionites
“In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus” (Poem Against the Marcionites 276-284 [A.D. 267]
Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]
Peter of Alexandria
“Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome” (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
“When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]
Cyril of Jerusalem
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]
Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
“In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]
roman is not other an other religion learn more
I enjoyed this.
There were no Apostles apart from those Jesus called and taught. A lot of historically mingled facts and traditions in this video.
Scripture alone is authority or you deny God's Word.
Please inform us , where is it explicitly stated in your kjv "bible alone,?
Where is the self authenticating verse?
Where is the bibles table of contents?
@@xtraordinairartist9469 2 Timothy 3:16 | All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Sola Scriptura
Table of contents? Use a concordance and do a word study.
KJV has many translation issues and I do not limit theology to one Codex. I rather use Greek or NASB.
Luke 6:13 NASB
And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:
@@jerryspidell2331 2 Tim 3 16 is fine for the material sufficiency, that's why Christ gave us his church.the CC
Is the only custodian of its own sacred writings.
The CC has the power and authority to carry out Christ's mission on earth and his mystical body is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The CC alone has the formal sufficiency to understand and interpret the 73 books in the bible, infalliably.
With "73" books you must mean the non-canonical Apocryphal books added. The Canon is 66 books.
The Catholic Church errors in the view that a church has authority over the Word as the Word is Christ and His Holy Spirit inspired scripture. In no way is the bride greater than the Groom who is Christand He alone has all authority.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
But this is a problem with Catholic doctrine. Christ is forever bound onto the cross and you will never let Him down. During transubstantiation the church claims power to perform a miracle at calling Christ from His Father in Heaven to be a "real presence" in the Eucharist, forcing Christ down to Earth at the priests command.
You believe a Pope is the high authority and the Christ on Earth, but there is no succession ever commanded by Jesus Christ and I challenge you to produce such a scripture. Peter is not the rock that Christ built His Church upon. Its clear who Jesus was pointing too and it was not Petros but petra.
Jesus is the Rock upon which we build our house rather than sand (Matt.7:24-27). Jesus is represented as the rock Moses struck, the rock that gushed forth water. He is the Rock in Psalms 18:2, 1 Corinth. 10:4, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Sam.2:2, Deut. 32:4, Isaiah 26:4, 1 Corinth 3:11, Psalm 118:22, Psalm 18:46, Psalm 62:2, Matt. 7:24 etc.
For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?-
Psalm 18:31
Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Ephesians 2:20
Without papal succession your whole authority argument falls apart.
@@jerryspidell2331 Those who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Interesting that there is no mention in this video of the Eucharist in their summary of Ignatius’ teaching. That it is the literal body and blood of Christ.
History and truth state that the Apostolic fathers were Catholics.
The original and true name of the Church of the Apostle Peter is not "Catholic" but Universal. Satan has a way to always infiltrate into godly premises so as to defile it. After the schism with the Orthodoxy in 1054, the true name Universal was changed so as to mislead the multitude into believing that it was still the same thing. It isn't ! The true and only Universal Church of the Apostle Peter is no more,but you can believe what you like. The Roman Catholic Church of today is an institution that was put in place by the Roman Emperor Constantine,but it pretends to be the same as the original Church of the Apostle Peter. Infact Christ had Twelve Disciples with His brother James being the true leader of the Apostles,not Peter. Apart from James who presided over the entire fold from Jerusalem, the other Eleven Disciples were sent the world over at that time,to teach and spread the Gospel of Christ to the world. But Rome through the Emperor Constine,has held the Church of Christ hostage. Even pirates,blood drinking,incestuous and many others have all become Popes,whiles Thomas Aquinas has successfully transformed the so-called Church of Rome onto the most white supremacists,racist and imperialistic institution that the world has ever witnessed. At the time when it was the True Universal Church of the Apostle Peter,there were African Popes like Pope Victor and others, but since Thomas Aquinas came with his ideology of spiritual racism and white supremacy,the whole world is being influenced even to this day by his demonic ideology of racist white supremacy. The truth maybe offensive,but it is Righteous and it can never be hidden !
Thou art Peter, (Petra a stone) and upon this rock (Petros Christ, Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not ! against it” (Matt. 16:18).3)
@@2394Joseph
Everyone uses that quotation to support the evils of the Roman Catholic Church. The real stone that the Builders refused,but which later became the head of the Cornerstone is not the Apostle Peter but Jesus Christ Himself. To everyone that it is revealed and beholds that Christ Jesus is truly from the Father,and he is the True Saviour of humanity is a rock upon which Christ can build His Church,as the Father has revealed to them in Spirit what Jesus Christ truly represents. I don't believe that it is to only the Apostle Peter that the Father is able to reveal the eminence of Christ,but to every true Christian that wholeheartedly and truly believes that there is none other but Jesus Christ is the truth,the only way to God and He leads us to everlasting life. It is such that Christ Jesus is able to build his Church, because the revelation from the Father has transformed them into Solid Rocks for the works of God !
Beware,for God is able to transform every stone to sing his glory,and not only the Apostle Peter !
@@samabeka3023 Please reread my quote. It disproves any attempt by the RC Church to claim Apostolic succession from that particular verse. Read it very slowly please.
@@2394Joseph
Almost everyone refers to that particular verse,and claims it is the Roman Catholic Church because it is the Apostle Peter who began the Church at Rome.What most people seem to overlook is that,the Apostle Peter's Church was named the Universal Church and not the Catholic church. But as the devil knows how to play with words and the spirit of men,by replacing the name Universal with that of Catholic, of which are the same,the Roman Empire wants as to believe that nothing has changed,because there's no difference of meaning between Universal and Catholic. The Bible warns us about the devils cunningness and deceitful modus operandi of misleading people. Why was there a schism in the original Universal Church,in the year1054,if is was the same and true Church of the Apostle Peter ? There is no need to go on and on and on. Today,we are all witnessing the shortcomings of an institution which claims to be the Church of Christ,but bold enough to name it's telescope,which is said to be one of the most powerful,if not the most powerful in the world, after Lucifer. Could there be any sarcastic irony against the teachings of the Apostle Peter more than this ? It is good to have faith,but it is better to base ones faith on knowledge,as the Christ JESUS taught that the wise man builds his house upon the Rock,but the foolish constructs upon the sands ! Good Day and good luck !
The one true Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church 🙏
Didn't Jesus say call NO man your father upon this earth cause we have only ONE Father who is in heaven GOD! his Father and ALL that is in him Father... why do people not pay attention to his words
He also said" if your eye causes you to sin ...."
But you're not wearing a patch.
😅
What do you call your male parent then?
Because most "Christians" were taught to just believe on Christ as being the Messiah instead of believing the things He said.
so what was the real context of that anyway ..the Jews called their leaders Rabbi or teacher...they didn't call them father..
Have you sell your possession and follow Jesus? 🤣 What kind of church are you from? People has using Apostle Father for thousand of years...
Can any Catholic or orthodox explain why a Protestant can’t take communion with you when the main concern of the early church father was simply that they be baptized?
Read the early church for yourself, it's because Protestants do not believe what we believe.
Especially when Vatican 2 affirms all baptisms, even outside of RCC, are valid baptism.
whats with the annoying hypnotic background track ? I'm moving on
The Heirarchy of the Nazarene Jewish Knesset aka Early Church was
1 Apostle (now Bishop)
2 Prophets (now Presbyter/Priest)
3 Rabbis (now Deacon)
4 Disciples (now Seminarian)
5 Elders/Presbyters/Bishops (now equivalent to Ruling Elder or Church Councillor or Warden)
6 Deacons (now Equivalent to Church Councillor)
7 Readers (now Lay Ministers)
8 Catechumens (now Confirmation Candidates)
9 Neophytes(now Sunday School children) or Converts
This was similar to all other Jewish Knessets or denominations. The first three were itenerant denominational officers. The Elders and Deacons were local Church offices. This explains the travel itenary of Paul Barnabas Jesus and even the Pharisees as Christ commented on it. The head Presbyter was called the Cantor.
Roman Catholics make it seem like the Early Church was a distinct institution similar to their own. It was not that unique. House Churches/Synagogues were not strange. Just like Muslims have house mosques today these were liturgical and not pared down come as you are communities with little Church order. They were also semi-monastic in nature with strict entry rules and consecrated living.
The so called 'church fathers' were in the main well educated philosophers influenced by paganism, theories and personal conclusions. Its historical that they were greatly influenced by the hellenistic culture of gnostisim & theory! they often dissagreed. Paul, Peter , John & even Jesus warned us of such men! ( Acts 20:28,30 e.t.c)
Huh? These men were renowned Leaders of the Church, some martyred for Christ. They were disciples of the Apostles themselves or taught by the same, which is what Paul taught, 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9; 2 Tim 1:6, 13f.; 2:2; Eph 4:11f.; Acts 6:1-4. You discount the very authorities which defined Apostolic Succession in accordance with St. Paul’s teaching: Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus (all Bishops) in one fell swoop despite historical evidence and christian consensus.
Away with you and your hubris. Humble yourself before the Servants and Martyrs of Almighty God and may He have Mercy on your prideful arrogance.
Pax Christi in Regno Christi
@@top8305 Sorry but if you study the background of most of these men, they unlike the apostles who were "unlettered and ordinary men" They were priviledged, educted mostly in greek philosophy and came to be converted to Christianity in adulthood. their writings reveal an effort to combine greek philosophy with the NT and therefore, though their writings are of interest to a sincere Christian. As Paul said " Do not go beyond the things that are written" 1 Cor 4:5. The Holy bible is all we need!
@@kiwihans100 The problem with that type of thought - that all the disciples of the apostles and those who were personally selected as elders to the churches in the various regions that the disciples established - all went wrong and couldnt acquire/receive the Holy Spirit for guidance despite being taught directly by the apostles, just means we cant really trust anything that happened after the disciples died. So when Paul instructs Timothy to select the next generation of elders in the church, he really got that all wrong. But then again Timothy probably didnt understand anything either - how can we trust Timothy, Titus etc. Also so when scholars question and point out that there isnt any proof that certain letters in the new testament were written by Paul, how can we claim otherwise when we cant trust that these 'highly privileged people' had any idea of what was really going on when they got together to determine bible canon? Do you really mean to say the Holy Spirit only stepped in then (for the bible canon) and conveniently forgot about everything else they did or preached wrong - despite many of them being tortured for their faith? So they believed something so strongly that they were willing to be tortured and killed for it but God only intervenes a few generations later when their disciples in turn (obviously even further misguided) get together to decide Bible canon? hmm. does that sound like God? Also how can we trust that they didnt conveniently delete other letters which should have been in the Bible? And more importantly did any 'church' remain truly faithful to the teachings of Jesus (as per your criteria) or did all of them fall to heresy? So essentially there probably wasnt a true church till the reformation came along? That line of thought brings into question the Bible itself unless you just conveniently chose to believe - well except for the 'Bible' everything else they taught (essentially all the disciples of the apostles and all those appointed by them to each church) were corrupted. Somehow Jesus assured us that a book would survive even if the church didnt.
@@donissac8859 Very good point! Actually i am not saying that all those who followed the apostles were wrong. By no means! But Since Paul stated that "After my going away men will arise and speak twisted things and from amoung you yourselves... (Acts 20:30) you and I need to be wary of many of these prominent, clever men who wrote much that is contrary to the original gospel as they were influenced by greek thought. Col 3 and Paul's letter's to the Thessalonians speaks clearly that "It is already at work" and even our Lord spoke about the "weeds that would be sown in amoung the wheat" ( Darnel wheat is a weed thast lloks identical to the true wheat. Note too that Jesus warned that this would start "While men are sleeping". Was this not the death of the apostles that constituted a "Restraint" that Paul told the Thessalonians? So the history of the chruch from John's death around 100
proves the fulfilment of these prophecies
@@kiwihans100 except that if they were all collectively wrong brings about the biggest problems.
When it would seem all the churches would more or less agree on something, how can we 2k years later start questioning that without questioning the validity of the bible. All the apostolic churches had anointing with oil after baptism (as was also recorded by tertullian who wrote that the apostles themselves laid down these practices) yet no mention in the bible as was compiled be church elders even after the very first church fathers. Once we get into 'well ill believe what they compiled (the bible) but wont believe how they understood or preached it essentially is a slippery slope. My simple view is when paul wrote to the romans and later was there, they had the best understanding of that letter. But we cant seem to still agree on quite a bit of 'the letter to the romans' even 2k years later given the number of debates one can easily find on youtube.
This is a problem. 2k years later and we still cant grasp what it means fully. Is it because we can trust the words but cant trust the interpretation the earliest church had? Why should our current understanding triumph theirs?
Were all the Apostolic Fathers Gentiles? Where did the Jerusalem saints go just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem? Do we have any writings from them?
Almost all were of Gentile origin. While there is much proof for James, the Brother of Our Lord leading the Saints of Jerusalem for some time, we have to understand the persecution of Christians was happening from the second of the inception of Christs' earthly ministry, so that is another key reason we find those that learned at the feet of Paul the Apostle, like Clement and those that learned at the feet of John the Apostle, like Ignatius, Papias, and Polycarp, are of Gentile origin. If a large percentage of the Apostles left Jerusalem, it's not surprising to see this. We also need to remember places like Smyrna where Polycarp was from and Antioch where Ignatius was from, were in an area of Turkey that already had a heavy Hellenistic Jew influence. So some of them may have been of Jewish/Israelite bloodline, but by culture, they were very much Gentiles, therefore making the Christian conversion they had to go through in their earlier days, all the more easier.
Here is a cool quote I found...............
According to Eusebius' Church History 4.5.3-4, the first 15 Christian Bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision", meaning they were Jewish. The Romans destroyed the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem in year 135 during the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is traditionally believed the Jerusalem Christians waited out the Jewish-Roman wars in Pella in the Decapolis.
So I saw you mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem and you were probably talking about the Temple in 70AD, but as you can see there were Christian Jews there well into the 2nd Century.
God bless you and yours my brother.
The Apostles Jesus chose were all of Jewish background.
These so-called Church fathers who raised their heads after the death of the Apostles were most likely part of the apostasy foretold by Paul at Acts 20:30. That is why their bickered on doctrinal issues.
@@tongakhan230Read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word. It’s available online and only 40 pages. It, together with the OT scripture
he references, refutes your statements as unfounded speculation.
@@makingsmokesince76 : If someone takes the trouble to read the Bible, it would become obvious that there was no organized Christian Congregation after the First Century.
Satan was running things with teachings he wanted spread.
(Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves.
That is how the church systems came to be, with the Trinity, hellfire torment, immortal soul and other twisted teachings.
Thus, I'd take Paul's advice and stick to the Bible (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Why go running after Athanasius and others when all we need is in the Bible.
Ask any JW. They know the Bible.
@@dfacedagame I’m currently reading the Book Eusebius The Church History translation and commentary by Paul L Maier. There sure was a lot of cults and false teaching going on besides the persecution. I’m reading about Origen right now.
Clearly whoever wrote the Didache is an unsaved person(s). Jesus says that He is the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by him. All of those works that it lists that will “lead to life” will just lead you straight to hell. Paul taught in Romans 3:28 that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
No, they were saved. They were looking at it from a Jewish lens that lines up with the Book of James (i.e. faith without works is dead). Paul and James do not contradict, faith will produce good works. I=The Didache is consistent with the gospel, and it was written to people who were already Christians, thus why it focuses on how to live. It was not meant to evangelise to unbelievers, but was a catechism on how to live godly lives as believers.
@@samueljennings4809 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
Faith alone is a protestant heresy. In the Last Judgement we are judged by our works, eg Matt. 25
@@samueljennings4809 faith without works is dead but faith without works still exists. There’s a dead faith that doesn’t profit anyone else and living faith that produces fruit. The Bible teaches the one who does not work but simply believes will be justified.
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Romans 4:5
We should all do good works but they have nothing to do with salvation.
@@Boggomvblerk4883 The ones who will be judged by their works at the great white thrown are not written in the book of life, they are from death and hades.
“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 20:13-15
Notice how the passage does not say that any who were judged by their works at this judgement will go to heaven. There is a different judgement for believers (not great white thrown judgement) that will test everyone’s work for rewards. If anyone’s work is burned up then they will still be saved. Paul makes the clear distinction between eternal life and rewards:
“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
1 Corinthians 3:12-15
What about the sources that state St Evodius succeeded John as Church father
There are no such people called Church fathers.
These various Church leaders came after the Apostles Jesus had chosen.
These so-called Church fathers couldn't agree on most doctrinal issues. Thus, fulfilling Paul's prophecy about the Apostasy found at Acts 20:30.
Paul advised Christians not to go beyond the written word (1 Corinthians 4:6).
And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands the Church to hold to the traditions (the same Greek word Jesus used to criticize the "traditions of men") which they were taught "whether by word of mouth or our epistle."
In 1 Cor., Paul speaking of things that were written likely indicates the Old Testament, given that's what the New Testament means when it refers to "the Scriptures".
The Church Fathers had much consensus, and it is in their consensus that we find the Holy Spirit's guidance.
@@taxiarch : There are two types of traditions.
One is what comes from father to children based on what God wanted taught (cf Deuteronomy 11:18-21).
The other, what man makes up which is condemned by God.
2 Timothy 3:14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them 15 and that FROM INFANCY YOU HAVE KNOWN THE HOLY WRITINGS, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Matthew 15:6......So you have made the WORD OF GOD INVALID BECAUSE OF YOUR TRADITIONS. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in VAIN that they keep worshipping me, for they teach COMMANS OF MEN AS DOCTRINES.’”
In Greek like in English, a single word may mean different things depending on the context.
Does LOVE for God and for good food mean the same type of love?
Stay with what is complete. Namely, the Bible.
So-called church fathers' teachings should be looked at under the light of this prophecy.
(Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves.
The JW website helps people with what the Bible does teach. Give it a browsing.
I am no learned scholar, but what sources are you getting your information from about these early leaders of the church? Your reference for Christians to not go beyond the written word, What is your definition of the written word? Note that the Bible did not exist when Paul was writting these letters(it only came into existance Nearly 300 years after Paul). Is he reffering to his own letters only and the old testament writtings? Your reference of Acts 20:30 could easily be explained by the multple heresies(Note they are called herecies because they are incorrect beliefs brought forth by people who were christians) the early church dealt with. Such as those addressed at the council of Nicea. Infact his reference to those among you will lead people astray can easily be attached to Martin Luther who was a Priest in the Church before he broke away and started his own church (this is not to say the Catholic Church's members are perfect and is not full of sinners). Which has now led us to a place where anyone with a bible and an opinion can start their own church leading to thousands of churches.
All Christians should Live in unity! Oh Lord how we have failed you.
@@tongakhan230 jw?
That's teaching a different gospel.
Gal 1 8
Lotd. Forgive those pious hypocrites of hatred.
Pray for unity.
Ummm, Antioch was founded by Seleucus I Nicator in 300 BC not 400 AD.
Yes. 4th century BC not 4th century AD, ~13:20 into video
Curious, it is the 2nd video I see which claims Antioch was founded in the 4th century AD in stead of BC. Probably a typo that has been copied over.
Nice summary and paused narration allow to digest the huge amount of information.
Thx for putting it together.
You meant the 4th century BC for when the "Greeks helllenized the area?"
Very interested
The Book of Hebrews has unknown authors too. It would have been fun to hear that book described.
"6 days of Creation correspond to 6.000 years..." How could he wrote that in the context of them being expected Christ's return when at the time it was around 4.000 years from Creation?
That view is quite naive. You need to do some serious biblical research on a more scholarly level. ❤ 0:03
Could you give me some broader information?@@djalimodjalimo
You can see in these very early writtings, The Way of Christ sadly morphing into a religion. The early stages of exchanging the spiritual growth knowing Christ develops to the external works of the flesh that brings bondage.
Wretched bunch we are
Very interesting but the speaker speaks too fast snd the noisy background music is too louddisturbing and should be removed.I had to stop the video and give up.Later if I shall return to this video I will turn off the sound completely and see the video reading only the texted message instead.
The Greeks didn't conquer in the 4th Century AD, it was BC. (Minutes 13:20)
Did God do any miracles through the apostolic fathers?
If it’s not in the canon scripture, forget it. Nowhere in scripture is there a foundation for Romanism
You poor dear. Are you threatened by such tradition? Fasting on Wednesday and Fridays each week in preparation for the Eurcharist in the Divine Liturgy is a staple of Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@TheLincolnrailsplitttradition is fine as long as it’s within scripture. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for holding traditions above the word of God and Paul commends the Bereans for ensuring the Gospel was in line with Scripture. Peter warns against those who twist Paul’s words, like they do “with other scriptures”. Peter, Paul, and most importantly-Jesus- all had a very HIGH view of Scripture.
Would the “Overseers” of the Roman Church be the first popes?