How and when was the New Testament canon put together?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- RTS Charlotte presents a series of talks on early Christianity with Dr. Michael Kruger and Dr. Andreas Köstenberger (Part 4/6)
For more RTS videos:
• Playlist
For more on RTS:
www.rts.edu
![[FULL EP.69] #เอิร์นจิรวรรณ เปิดบ้านหมื่นล้านทุกมุม ครั้งแรก! l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_J4_nw8c64o/mqdefault.jpg)
![พาแม่บินครั้งแรก..เกือบวูบ! ให้เกาหลีเยียวยาใจ I Korea Ep.1 [Seoul] x อุงเอิง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/waL3__dEQBU/mqdefault.jpg)
the point about which books focus on finishing the OT is a great point...
I like how that question is answered by councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome. Protestant canon is only backed by individuals
The Authorities of church, Papa Dmaso 382
What is it with you guys and the letter 't'?
Thank you dear brother. God bless you.
I don't know why Michael feels the need to make the point the first Christians believed in written teaching. The earliest writer Paul in 2Thess says stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. The earliest Christian writer--Paul, says the truth is transmitted in both oral tradition and in written tradition. Michael real dilemma is in explaining why he believes oral tradition dies out and at what point, and at what point the written tradition stops, sealing a written canon. The seed of the plant idea can apply to the church itself. Instead of dealing with what we have he goes into the gnostic crap. And Michael employs the church fathers when he has no authority but the Church for who and what the church fathers are. Yet he rejects the Church that gives us that. Then he talks about what writing finish the Old Testament narrative without crediting the tradition from which we get an OT canon.
In his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," Richard Bauckham notes that "It is not as though nothing was ever heard of the gospel message until it was finally written by the authors some decades after Jesus’ death. Such a scenario would have left ample opportunity for error and forgetfulness to creep into the accounts which would have made room for many contradictory stories to develop over time. No, the evidence demonstrates (as seen in the writing of Papias) that the gospels were first taught as a personal testimony of the individual author in oral form which formed a specific and consistent oral tradition that was attributed to the author from the moment they were sent out as witnesses and began teaching until they were finally put down into written form by the men to whom the gospel traditions were attributed. The fact that decades passed before the gospels were put to paper as the message went out across the known world, and yet there are no contradictory 1st century gospel accounts demonstrates that a constant and consistent message was taught from place to place by the authors that ensured that the message remained authentic and unchanged."
The traditions spoken of by Paul is in reference to the gospel message taught by the Apostles that would later be written down, it does not refer to some tradition other than what has been taught.
The only thing in possession of the church that is θεοπνευστος is the scriptures (scriptures as defined by the apostles themselves, not by any church or church council), so if anyone makes an appeal to anything other than the scriptures as being of equal authority with the scriptures, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate that it too is θεοπνευστος, since whatever is asserted without the scriptures may be held as opinion, but need not be believed... If this cannot be done (and it cannot), then they are forced to admit that they believe in doctrines that ultimately did not come from God.
Christian tradition is both written and oral, like Paul says.The New Testament was not written exclusively by Paul or members of the 12 Apostles. The New Testament also never identifies the concept of a Bible or a canon, much less a list of what writings are supposed to be in that Bible. That is information we only have through the tradition of the Church. There was a Church before there was a Bible. The Bible itself teaches that, but the Bible itself does not teach that there is a Bible. The teaching that there is a Bible comes from the tradition of the Church.
anissueof,
Quite right, the Bible does not teach that there is a "Bible," (as in a single collection) but it does teach that there is "Scripture," and neither the church nor its tradition defined that, the Apostles did.
Before there was written scripture, God chose to speak to His messengers in person (Exodus 33:11) through a veiled form such as in the tent of meeting, or through the burning bush (Exodus 3). These men were authenticated as true messengers of the revelation of God by signs and wonders such as in Exodus 4:1-9 with Moses, and in 1 Kings 17:24 for Elijah.
The first 5 books of the Tanakh were written by Moses and Joshua, and there are numerous references to their authority (Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4). From the time of the Exodus to the end of the Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, records were kept of Israel’s history, and these historical books such as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah were all pulled together into one collection by the scribes Ezra and Nehemiah in the 400’s BC (Ezra 7-10, Nehemiah 8, Luke 1:70, Romans 1:2, Acts 3:21). As for the books of prophecy and other writings, both poetic and moral, there is little attestation as to when they were finally organized into a single unit, but the Tanakh as we know it today was closed around the year 200 B.C., and as an attestation to their authority, all of the Old Testament books are quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament except for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
By the time John completed the book of the Revelation in 94-96AD, the New Testament was complete and had already been widely circulated as scripture. The New Testament was not compiled by any church council or by any decree of a ruler, rather, the apostles themselves dictated what the Scripture was (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:3-5, 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 2:42, John 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:13, Revelation 21:14, 2 Peter 3:1-2). No scripture is in the Bible that the Apostles themselves did not approve, and all of the scriptures approved by them are in the Bible - no more, no less.
It was only later, in the 100’s AD when the Gnostics began circulating their own texts and claiming apostolic authorship, and in response to Marcion who had created his own canon which included some of these gnostic texts, that the church decided that it became necessary to weed out all heresies that desired to creep into the canon. In order to do this, they developed a standard test to determine the canonicity of scripture. This standard was solely meant to weed out heresy, it was never intended to “create” the canon of scripture; the apostles themselves had already dictated what constitutes scripture, and it ended with John’s book of the Revelation. This is the reason that we know that the Apocrypha are not considered canonical.
Your comment is too long for me to address completely. The term SCRIPTURE is rendered from the Greek term GRAPHE which merely means WRITING. The term does not by itself mean "holy scripture" or "inspired scripture".The Bible also teaches that there is oral teaching, teaching that is not written. The Bible (Paul) also teaches that there is written teaching that is not in the Bible. Paul's earliest letters refer to the existence of written teaching that did not wind up in the NT canon.All the Bible quotes you provide come down to us as inspired teaching because the Church tradition has passed it down as such. Tradition means that which is passed down. The Bible itself never tells us what the Bible is or what's supposed to be in it. That comes from the tradition of the Church.
anissueof,
You said: *"The term SCRIPTURE is rendered from the Greek term GRAPHE which merely means WRITING. The term does not by itself mean "holy scripture" or "inspired scripture."*
I agree, but the manner in which Apostolic writings are referred to by the Apostles themselves demonstrates that they were considered θεοπνευστος.
Here is what we know about the New Testament from the New Testament:
1) The New Testament consists of the Apostle’s teaching (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 5:27, Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:3-5, Acts 2:42, 2 Peter 1:20, 3:1-2, 16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, John 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 11:23, 14:37, 15:1-3, Galatians 1:9, Colossians 2:6-8, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Revelation 1:1).
2) The Apostle’s teaching is considered the very Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, Colossians 1:25, 2 Timothy 2:9, 1 Thessalonians 4:8).
3) The Apostles were accompanied by signs and miracles that served to authenticate them as the messengers of the revelation (Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 14:3).
4) The Apostles teaching is intended to be read to others as authoritative scripture (2 Corinthians 10:9, Colossians 4:16, Revelation 1:3).
5) All other writing or teaching that is not of the teaching of the Apostles is not scripture and must be avoided (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 2 John 10, Galatians 1:8, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Now, it is to my 5th point that I wish to address tradition. There is nothing wrong with traditions, but if those traditions are not in alignment with the written, God-breathed scripture, then they are not to be followed. And, as I have stated earlier, if someone wishes to follow a tradition that runs contrary to the written text, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate not only how it too is θεοπνευστος, but also how they can reconcile it with the scriptures that are known to be θεοπνευστος.
You said: *"All the Bible quotes you provide come down to us as inspired teaching because the Church tradition has passed it down as such."*
Not true. All of the scripture that we have that we know is inspired, we have because they were endorsed by the Apostles as such (as I have already demonstrated, and I can go into a lot more detail if you wish). All that the church has ever done was to officially RECOGNIZE canon, not CREATE it.
You said: *"The Bible itself never tells us what the Bible is or what's supposed to be in it. That comes from the tradition of the Church."*
Wrong again. I do recognize that this is a typical Catholic teaching, but it is proved wrong by merely observing the Apostolic endorsements found in their own writings. For instance, Paul considered Mathew’s and Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament in 1 Timothy 5:18 where he quotes from Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10, referring to them as “scripture;” see also Deuteronomy 25:4. Also, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). These are just two endorsements, but I can go into much more detail here if you wish.
He mentions Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian. Were they protestants?
Of course not. What kind of question is that, besides being highly anachronistic?
They were certainly not catholics. You need to check on the history books.
Clement lived in the third century. The first Protestant church came into existence in the sixteen century.
@@igorgomez1055 *St Irenaeus:*
_“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”_ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
_“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”_ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
_“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”_ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
*St Clement of Alexandria:*
_“For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”_ Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
*Tertullian:*
_“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, _*_He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body._*_ For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.”_ Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
After reading this, were they :
A. Catholics
or
B. Protestants
(note, when Ireneaus speaks of one giving THANKS ... he is speaking of the words of consecration by the Priest, 100% consistent with the Catholic Mass 1800 years later).
@@TruthHasSpoken they were:
C: none of the above.
1 Corinthians 10:16
New King James Version
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the [a]communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
It was already in Paul's writings
By the way, Iraeneus does not specify whether the word "THANKS" is in reference to the "priest". But that's another topic I won't go into.
itd be nice if he answered the question, they address everything but the topic.
How & When NT Canon put together ?
10 minutes later........
????
Michael describes Sacred Tradition over the first few centuries at work. It takes time for him to quote Catholic men, often bishops. Yet, it wasn't until the late 4th century, that the Bishops met together to finally decide a canon, to be read at Mass where they presided. They declared 46 Old Testament writings and 27 New Testament writings (out of 300+ early Christian writings). Michael believes that they were all pagans who did so, he believing wrongly that they were worshiping a piece of bread. Without thinking it through, Michael tacitly trusts in the authority of pagans to have decided his biblical canon, though he is missing 7 OT writings. And his testimony is proof positive that Sola Scriptura fails right at the table of contents.
I read the douay rheims bible, came out in 1582 and 1609. The protestant KJV came out in 1611.
And the KJV 1611 had ALL 46 books of the Catholic Old Testament, as well as a listing of Catholic feast days. So the question becomes, who had the authority to later remove 7 writings from the KJV bible?
@@TruthHasSpoken The Douay-Rheims has 73 books, the KJV has 66.
@@johnsteila6049 the Original King James of 1611 had 73 books.
@@TruthHasSpoken Yes, the original included The Apocryphal Books. Luther was instrumental in having them removed.
@@johnsteila6049 The deuterocanonicals were all in the KJV1611, long after Father Luther. Luther didn't remove them. WHO had the authority to remove them especially as they were held as scripture for the previous 1200 years by both Catholics and Orthodox (their OT is a bit bigger, mirroring the Septuagint) ??
Lutherans today, do not as doctrine, fix the canon of scripture at 66 books.
"The heresy of Orthodoxy" How can someone even spout that depraved nonsense haha. It's basically an oxymoron
You think 🤔? 😉
I think that is the point
❤
He seems very comfortable citing Church acceptance of the synoptic gospels as proof of them qualifying as Scripture.
Would he be as comfortable accepting other widely held doctrines in the early Church? Such as, forgiveness of sins through baptism? Or the nature of the Eucharist?
You understand his argument backwards. It's not, "the Church says they're the authoritative Word of God, so they're the authoritative Word of God," but rather, "They're the authoritative Word of God, so the Church recognizes them as such." If you read his Canon Revisited, he develops that argument more thoroughly. After all, even the Westminster Confession recognizes the value of the Church in affirming the canon, but the authority of the Church in no way provides adequate principia from within herself for either knowledge in general, or knowledge of God in particular. Instead, the Word of God is the norma normans, while the creeds and confessions of the Church are norma normata. If God's self-revelation is not our epistemological starting point, then all creation itself becomes unintelligible.
@@JS-ue2si Of course the Canon is recognized rather than "determined", but one still needs the Church to do it.
How do you believe the Canon was recognized, apart from the Church's authority? It was recognized by individual Christians?
@@ryanpope7891 I wouldn't say the canon was recognized apart from the Church's authority. Rather, the Word of God does not need the Church in order to be the Word of God as such. As God's covenantal self-revelation, it is God's self-revelation whether people recognize it or not. God's self-revelation does not need the Church in order to be what it is. I'm sure you would agree.
@@JS-ue2si How was the Canon "revealed" then?
@@ryanpope7891 I'm confused by the question. If I recognize Mr. Ryan Pope as the author of these comments, these comments don't suddenly bear your authorship. I'm simply recognizing the author and anything relevant to that fact. In the same way, if the writings that make up the NT canon are authored by God (as the efficient cause, though numerous authors were the instrumental cause), then the Church recognizing them as such in no way confers authority upon them or makes them become the Word of God.
Or are you asking how we can know the letters of the canon are the Word of God apart from the Church's recognition?
All of those “Fathers of the Church” happened to believe in the Eucharist.
Do the false Gospels quote the Old Testament like The Four?
It was put together, not written, by Catholics, the early church fathers. Like St. Jerome.
Yes, but "Catholic" didn't mean "Roman Catholic." The early church father's would be appalled at many of the beliefs of the RCC.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 evidence please.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 "The early church father's would be appalled at many of the beliefs of the RCC."
How so Kevin. Interesting, those ECF's believed that
- the Eucharist was the Resurrected Christ (not symbolic only)
- Baptism was salvific
- Baptism should be given to infants
- Salvation by faith AND works of love (read Ja 2)
- Sola scripture? No way.
Perhaps you can cite an ECF, any of them, who professed what you believe on the above topics. If you are right, this should be an EZ task.
If you can not, you should pause and ask from where your beliefs start on these topics.
You may be appalled to know from where they come.
How sad to see the myriad replies and comments from those who reject the Word of God or want to add or take away. It is not men who determine the Canon. It is God, for they are God-breathed. There can be no writers led by the Holy Spirit to write scripture after the Apostles for they would not be apostles. They did not know or see the Lord Christ Jesus and therefore have the qualifications of an apostle according to scripture. It's amazing to see comments containing assertions that the scriptures do not contain this information. It does. But I glory in watching heretics and others like, speaking with such ignorance. Let it be known that if you do not recognize the 27 of the new and 39 of the Old you must go to the Lord and ask for wisdom. Otherwise you have no standard of faith and practices nor a rule by which to live or know the Truth.
he just dodges. stop evading and answer
Thank you Catholic Church for compiling the canon and faithfully copying it for centuries so that these two men can have the Bible.
This was before the first Great Schism, they had not yet become arrogant.
True, VIVA CRISTO REY
Interesting that Michael cites over .. .and over .. and over .. early Catholic men, often Bishops in regards to the development of the canon over the first few centuries. THEY are his evidence fo the canon, yet Michael tacitly believes that they were ALL pagans, no less the priests for believing that through their words of consecration the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected body and blood of Christ, just as JESUS says : THIS IS MY BODY (Jn 6)
Yep, There much Ignorance on how the New Testament came together. There was only one Church in the beginning. The Catholic Church.
@@ponchobarr3455 Michael is most inconsistent, citing Catholics for his canon development but ignoring their beliefs. None of them were evangelical protestants.
Athanasius put all this work into compiling a list of 27 books and giving reasons for it, and modern Catholics are like "the church says so". Sheesh people.
@J Shy first off there was no Catholic denomination in the first 10 centuries. The Catholic church as we know it today did not exist. Athanasius gets the credit because he was one of the first, and because he defends his position so well. The Old Testament was written by the prophets and preserved by the Pharisees. The New Testament was written by the Apostles and preserved by the early church fathers. Obviously we don't think the Pharisees were infallible, but they did a better job preserving the text of the Old Testament than the early church fathers did for the New Testament. So there is no reason to require the early church fathers to be infallible in order to preserve the New Testament. They were believers like us who knew the facts and testified for all of us who would follow. We owe them a debt of gratitude, but they were not Apostles themselves. Human tradition can be either good or bad, but when you claim it is infallible that is bad.
@J Shy the church was actually mostly united in those days, so calling it the catholic church was technically accurate. It wasn't just a name for a denomination like it is today.
@@dahelmang were does this thing come from With such sheepish insight ? My pig will do better pls.
@@augustineonuigbo9360 and muted
Bishop Melito first one.
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or the Hebrew Tanakh Bible or Dead sea scrolls...
*"so then that just shows you that this idea of a of a sacred collection of writings is not a late idea it's too sort of born up within the Christian movement it grows naturally innately from within "*
You are describing _Sacred Tradition_
*"is he really true that he was only in the 4th century that the church decided we're gonna pick those four Gospels and not you know so the Gnostic Gospels like Thomas"*
Actually Catholics will say that the Church accepted all four gospels by the early 2nd century. Yet there was not universal agreement on the other writings, all 27 as we have them today, no more, no less, until the late 4th century. The bible doesn't list these 27 books. Another authority, the Church, fallible men meeting together determined the canon. The only way fallible men can make no error, is if they were led in their repeated decisions by the Holy Spirit. And _that_ is Christ's *promise" : to lead his Church to *all* truth. That's why we can also trust these early Christians understood the Gospel when they went to Church, attending Mass, where they all believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. Nothing symbolic only to be found in their beliefs.
*"the Church Fathers make it very clear that we're using these four"*
And WHO were these Church Fathers? They were all Catholic. And when they went to Church on Sunday, they all professed that the Lord's Supper was literal: the bread and wine became the resurrected body and blood of Christ. We can start early with St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John :
_“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)._
Why be inconsistent and trust these Church fathers on what they believed to be canonical NT books, but distrust them in their _universal_ belief on the Lord's Supper?
*"we find and again the canonical Gospels outmatch the apocryphal ones in great numbers and so"*
Have to be careful here with this criteria of determining canonicity. One would need to apply it to each and every NT book. And note, scripture itself doesn't state that this is a criteria anywhere. So there is an man-made authority that you are deferring to ultimately, that determined which is, and is not, scripture.
*"which gospel is an early Christianity look like they're finishing the Old Testament story "*
So too, this criteria is found nowhere in scripture. This criteria comes from another authority man. And even if a writing finished an OT story, what of that on its own, makes it "inspired" ?
St. Thomas Gospel : what authority do you defer to that says to be scripture, a writing had to be written in the 1st century? Again, this criteria is found no where in scripture.
You mention these folks below. We should be clear who there were and what else they believed, especially as you cite them as important figures in determining that there was early on, only four gospels. They *both* believed that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass
"St. Clement of Alexandria" - Catholic theologian in Alexandria
"Irenaeus" - Catholic Bishop of Lyon France
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
To the point at the end. Most definitely... YES. Evangelical's *should* study the historical development of the canon and ask these additional questions:
- WHO determined the canon ?
- WHAT else did they believe and profess ?
- WHY was the NT canon put together ?
- WHERE did they meet ?
- WHEN did they do so ?
- HOW - by criteria did they use to determine what was and was not NT scripture?
Doing so raises risks as many have learned including Francis Beckwith. This is reflected in the words of John Henry Newman:
""To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"
@@CoolioMoDee Soli Deo Gloria!
@@CoolioMoDee sorry but that actually doesnt disprove they weren't Catholic - everything the Fathers believed is Catholic belief- now as far as Protestants are they all believing the same thing Luther did OR was there reformation under reformation that has continued until today. Easy question to ask here - which Catholic Dogma including the dogma of early Church father has been changed - not added - but changed? Here for your reference YOUR own dogma has changed as you do not believe in the Holy Eucharist as the early Church Fathers did. Your Trinity belief came from Catholic Dogma. EACH book you have in the bible was placed together by the Catholic Church - where were the Protestants when it came to the growth of Christianity in the first 1500 years - history can show you were we were but YOU...
YOU are WELCOME- Catholics did all the leg work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then you guys come along and want to rip it apart - so much that by the time Luther died the Reformation movement caused new churches to come up.
@@CoolioMoDee are you certain that early church fathers didnt believe in the papacy?as a Protestan you never even think that Peter IS the Rock which the 1st Church Fathers and Apostolic would disagree with you along with Sola Scriptura along with Rapture along with Save once always saved..they believe in the Holy Sacraments..
Tertullian
For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
@@CoolioMoDee tell that to the First Church Fathers..not me...
@@rhdtv2002 onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
m.th-cam.com/video/YW0JZrFYU2c/w-d-xo.html
For anybody who is interested. Fun looks. May God guide us in all truth.
The only writings we have from Christians in the first century that were ever considered Scripture are the 27 books in the New Testament that we have today :-)
Actually, there were for example twenty other gospels than the ones included in The Canon, that are called apocryphal. The texts are available even now.
No matter what denomination we subscribe to, we obviously owe a great debt to The Catholic (Orthodox) Church for giving us The New Testament.
There is big difference between the Catholic church and the Roman Catholic
@@josephchosenmwangi Please explain the difference…
Our Heavenly Father said love thy God with all thy strength and do not worship false gods or idols. False gods are fallen angels who wanted to be worship as gods including subliminal Santa Revelation Chapters 1 14 Old Testament and the archangel Gabriel
Yeah keep lying
Accusation with no refutation
congratulations, you're a snowflake
Mary was compromised by the archangel Gabriel of a false god mentioned in Our Heavenly Father commandments and was given the Roman's synagogues and Mary Madeleine Churchs and other branches of her own. NO one may claim his Temple of worship as their own not even his prophets
No one worships Mary or any of the Saints🤦🏻♂️