Please note: There is an error on screen at 03:24. The words "and the Son" were not in the creed of 381. Mistakes happen, I didn't catch it, there was no secret agenda here. Fear not, those fateful words that divided Christendom will be discussed in the next video, Lord willing. Thanks for your grace as we work out the kinks in the workflow for these!
The Case Against the Doctrine of the Trinity Scriptural Absence of the Term “Trinity”: The term “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible, suggesting that the early Christian writers did not conceptualize God in Trinitarian terms. Angels as “Gods” and “Sons of God”: Psalm 82:1: “God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the ‘gods.'” Argument: This verse indicates that the term “gods” refer to angels as heavenly beings. Job 1:6: “One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.” Argument: The term “sons of God” is used in other translations, showing that the title is not exclusive to Jesus and refer to angels. Jesus’ Distinct Nature and Subordination: Mark 13:32: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Argument: Jesus admits to not possessing the same level of knowledge as the Father, making a clear distinction in their knowledge and power. John 20:17: “Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”” Argument: Jesus refers to the Father as “my God,” indicating not only a subordinate relationship and distinctness from the Father, but as worshipper of the Father. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Argument: Paul outlines a hierarchy where Christ is subject to God, emphasizing their distinct roles. John 14:28: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Argument: Jesus himself acknowledges that the Father is greater than He is, stating a hierarchical relationship. Jesus as the Firstborn and Beginning: Colossians 1:15: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Argument: The term “firstborn” states that Jesus had a beginning, indicating He is not co-eternal with the Father, but is born as in created, but the first of all creations. Proverbs 8:22-30 (interpreted by some as a reference to Jesus as divine wisdom): “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.” Argument: If interpreted as referring to Jesus, this passage suggests He was the first of God’s creations, emphasizing a starting point in time. Revelation 1:8: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'” Argument: This verse emphasizes that it’s the “Lord God” speaking, not Jesus, underscoring Jehovah’s unique eternal nature. Revelation 3:14: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” Argument: Jesus is here name the beginning of God’s creation, meaning he is part of creation, and the beginning or firstborn of creations Jesus’ Future Subordination: 1 Corinthians 15:24-28: “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power… When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” Argument: This passage describes a future time when Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God the Father and be subject to Him, emphasizing their distinct roles and Jesus’ subordination, meaning His is no co-equal in the future either. The Holy Spirit Described as a “Spirit”: John 14:26: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” Argument: The term “spirit” in both the Old and New Testaments refers to a force or power, not a person. In this context, the Holy Spirit is described as an advocate or helper, but not as a separate individual. The Holy Spirit depicted as the “Finger” of God: Luke 11:20: “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Argument: Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as the “finger of God,” a metaphorical expression that emphasizes the Spirit’s role as an extension of God’s power and will, rather than as a person. The Holy Spirit Non-Personified Characteristics: Acts 2:17-18: “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'” Argument: The Holy Spirit is described as something that can be “poured out,” a characteristic not in line with a person. The Holy Spirit Not Explicitly Called “God”: While the Father and the Son are frequently referred to as “God” in various contexts, the Holy Spirit is never explicitly given this title in the scriptures. Argument: The absence of this direct designation further distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the personhood often attributed to the Father and the Son. Baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit: Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Argument: Being baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit does not confer personhood or divinity to the Spirit. In many biblical contexts, doing something “in the name of” means doing it by the authority or power of someone or something. Thus, this baptismal formula can be understood as recognizing the authority and roles of the Father and Son without implying that all three are distinct persons or co-equal. The doctrine dosen’t thorough examination of the Bible (NIV), have any substantial evidence that supported the Trinity view. The scriptures emphasize the distinct nature and roles of Jesus and Jehovah, suggesting that they are not co-equal or co-eternal. That the Holy Spirit is not a person, nor co-equal or co-eternal. This perspective aligns more closely with the biblical portrayal of their relationship: 1. God the Father, whose name is Jehovah is unborn and eternal 2. Jesus is Firstborn, not eternal, however the first of all creation, and for him and through him, all else was created. Subordinated to Jehovah both on earth, and in heaven before and after, his time on earth 3. The Holy Spirit, is finger or hand of Jehovah
@MO-hq4iz Then Jesus was a liar, and a heretic, and someone not worth listening to. He called himself equivalent to God. Acted as though he could forgive sins. Paul, too, is a liar as he tells us that Jesus was equal to God. John, too, is a liar as he tells us that Jesus is God. Distinctness in role from God, yet equal in authority, is the point of the trinitarian view, as is the limited humanity of Christ while He walked among us. That you point out these distinctions means little. That you ignore all the other scripture, which is explicit about the divinity of Christ, means a lot.
@@EIA-Observer It is embarrassing enough for it to have at the very least a historical origin. Late writers would not make up the story, as it depicts Nicholas being revoked by Constantine and imprisoned.
Fun fact: The Church defended Homoousios, while Arians defended Homiousios. Note the Greek “i” or “iota.” The first means “of the same substance and the latter means “of similar substance.” I’ve heard this is where we got the phrase “an iota of difference.”
@@gamerjj777 The faction that preferred 'homoiousios' is usually designated as "Semi-Arian'. The best known member of the faction was Eusebius of Caesarea.
I study orthodox theology in Romania, and I want to say that I like the way you presented the event. It's hard to tell everything in such a short video, but you give some essential information. I would like to add, though, it would be good to say that they used to formulate the Creed some baptismal declarations of faith which were already used.
@@GospelSimplicity Thank you. I respect you and your work very much. It is important that people know it wasn't something ,,created", in an artificial way, but the expression of Church faith.
Not to metion the most importan one that this way many pagan tradition have mixed with the christian and that is how we got religions that use His name and pray to humans and objesct for salvation!
Thank you! I’m so tired of people going around saying the council of Nicaea was where “they wrote the Bible.” They didn’t even discuss biblical canon yet that’s the general misconception. Someone tried to hit me with that and at the time I wasn’t knowledgeable enough.
The canon of scripture was settled in 382 at the council of Rome under pope Damasus I. Too many ignorant people try and claim the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I was responsible for this or that.
@@richlopez5896, the canon of scripture was settled way before that. Both Polycarp (who knew John personally) and Justin the Philosopher (who lived at the same time as Polycarp) used the same scripture used by Christians today.
@@Zaphod771 St. Polycarp was the first Catholic bishop of Smyna and appointed by the apostle St. John. St. Justin Martyr was a Catholic priest in Rome. I am very aware of both of those Catholic saints. St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria did not come up with his canon of 27 books for the New Testament until 367. The Catholic Church did not come up with an official canon of scripture for Christianity until 382. Pope Sircicius would later coin the term "Bible" for the Christian canon. A term the Catholic Church still uses. Below is the complete canon of scripture that was officially set in 382. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus I.
@Zaphod771 No they didn't. The first list equal to the canon was from Bishop Athanasius in 367. Even then, other canon lists appeared. The oldest full Bibles, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both early or mid-4th century) don't match the final canon.
While Nicea was the first “Ecumenical” council, it was not the first church council. That happened in Jerusalem and is cronicled in the Book of Acts. It was led by James “the Lord’s Brother” and set the precedent for solving church issues in a concilliar manner in councils.
No, it was lead by Peter. James hosted it, but it was Peter who when he stood up to make his decision, "all fell silent". That's rabbinic usage when a chief rabbi makes a binding decision, the debate is over. James made some modifications for his jurisdiction, to avoid giving offense to the vastly more numerous Jews the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile heritage, lived among.
And mirrored an earlier pattern. It makes sense it would be Peter. But Peter could appoint another. Peter was the head Apostle. The mount of transfiguration... that is some heavy stuff... the visitations, etc. And then the many who resurrected and appeared to many. But where did the records go? When will we find them? Were they all destroyed in the persecutions and desolations?
Roman Christianity is full of heresy and the 2 Thessalonians 2 Mystery of Lawlessness and Apostasy. The Apostasy is literally TORAH-lessness and Christianity is in full blown Apostasy. Constantine was a FALSE believer who said he didn’t want the new religion they concocted to be like the “despicable Jews” in keeping the Sabbath as he endorsed SUN day over the Shabbat, making Apostasy the religion of the Empire and not the teachings of Jesus and His Torah observant Apostles. Christ Mass? Apostasy! Easter? Apostasy! Halloween? Apostasy! And whatever else the SUN day loving Torah rejecting Apostates push a replacement doctrine for the Torah. Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 7:13-23, Mark 7:6-13, Romans 3:31, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:22-25, Romans 8:5-8, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 John 3:4, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12
@@robertlehnert4148 James and Peter were leading the council, James being the most prominent figure since he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, considered at the time to be the mother of all churches and the one with the biggest amount of followers.
Good to see the first of the seven councils convened to settle matters of the nature of Christ covered. Today most who define themselves as Christians don't even know the role bishops have filled since the days of the Apostles and why they are still relevant today.
Today ALL who define themselves as Christians eat pork, ignore God's festivals, bow down to graven images and have them in their homes, and don't even know when the Sabbath day is. So, yeah, Rome did a great job fooling the Christians.
This is definitely NOT church history. For instance the controversy over the divinity/humanity of Jesus existed from the moment of his crucifixion, not because of Arius. The Ebionites, who James Tabor believes were the remaining Jewish segment of Jesus's followers after the destruction of the Temple, always maintained Jesus was human. The Jewish messiah was never at any time in Judaism considered to be divine. He was a human, anointed by God. That is the literal meaning of the word 'messiah" in Hebrew. It has no divine connotations at all. The council of Nicea did not refute Arian Christianity. Several centuries later the majority of western Europe was Arian. Western European bishops, from those areas which would later form Roman Catholic Christianity, were almost totally unrepresented at Nicea, perhaps 10% of the bishops there. It was almost exclusively what would later become the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our present understanding and practice is called the Chalcedonian Rite/Creed, because it was fully formed in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. John's gospel is the only one with even a hint of the idea that Jesus and God the Father are one. On the other hand Jesus calls himself the Son of Man over 80 times, not a divine concept. Eusebius our only source for the idea that Constantine converted at all, said it happened on his deathbed which would have been in 337 AD, not before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as you state. The idea that he converted earlier is made even more ludicrous by the fact that one year after Nicea, he executed his own wife and eldest son.
@@ji8044Isaiah 7-14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (which is God with us) Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I was in Nicaea last week visiting the mosque where the 2nd Nicaean council was held (yes it’s a mosque now). We must never forget that the bishops all knew and spoke koine Greek every minute of the day. It was their common language so when modern cultists (including advocates of the New Thought heresy in the USA) try to rewrite the early church teachings we need to put their false teaching into context. Btw some trivia: the location of the first council has now been been found but is difficult to visit as its below water.
Astonishing comment, erudite and thoughtful, thank you so much! Yes! it would bear to mention here that the Greek language of the time was precise and highly evolved/refined and vastly/profoundly definitive - in respect to the meaning and clarity of a richly advanced/mature and intelligently cultivated tradition - both practical and cerebral. it was well-suited for the inquiring investigations of the sciences and studies in/of both civilization and the natural world, in addition to those of philosophy, religious discourse, abstract thought, and to some great extent, psychology. spirituality and astronomy, mathematics and history, poetry and prose, also figured most richly and by a tradition lengthy. indeed, it proved itself to be the most important/vital vessel for communications within the entire Western world, as the one universal lingua franca (among the modern societies of the era), having been judged as the most en point, nuanced, sophisticated, and enlightened form of direct expressiveness, and in the sharing of ideas, in every circumstance/situation, multi-purpose across the spectrum of human engagement. Latin came in as direct/instructive actions became more profuse (being purpose oriented to the accomplishment of the mundane/direct instruction required in an expanding world). to this very day the vocabulary of the West has it's root origins largely in both Latin and Greek. Indo-European is a whole epoch away, going back in time, to pre-history - my grain or 2 🐦 And English being the lingua franca of our present incarnation on Earth (for the entire world). at least for the time being! 🌍🌎🌏🌐
Thanks for dumming it down & summing it up. As I’ve learned to tell people in my field of study & practice of over 40 years as a mental health professional, “it’s complex but not complicated.”
Austin, this video was AWESOME DUDE! This does put a smile on my face. I am so excited to see more!! God bless, may God allow more of these to be produced.
Great job Austin. Really appreciated this video. Simplicity out of complexity is definitely a tall order, walking a tightrope as it were. A stick figure is more simple than a portrait of a person, but I don't think most people would call it an accurate representation. This is a mighty task indeed that you are engaged in. God bless and keep you, always enjoy seeing your videos.
Excellent idea and video! Well done!!! 📈 Looking forward to more videos on the history of the church. Hoping you reach a lot of people who may unintentionally find themselves unaware of the history of the church. Stay blessed!!! ❤️🙏✝️ -Coptic Orthodox fan of the channel and the ministry 🤓
This subject is extremely interesting to me because I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, who hold a belief similar to Arianism. I actually didn't even realize until I was an adult that it was mainstream even in Protestant groups to believe Jesus was God, I had somehow spent most of my life thinking that only Catholics believed that.
I think that's because we were taught that the idea of the trinity was pagan. I got saved about 9 years ago and I really struggled with it. Then I read "The Forgotten Trinity" by James White and realized we had been given a strawman argument. Christians do not believe 3 God's one person. That was what we were taught in the JWs. Congrats for getting out! I pray Jesus shows my family the actual truth. They cut off contact with me. For a group that calls themselves all loving they sure do some very unloving things. It hurts my heart for them.
@@Kurfuffle the transmission as God's realized intent. think of nature with clouds bringing rain to the parched Earth: the LIFE it brings! God's intent from the Beginning - going back to LONG before you and I were born - yea, even prior to the Creation. His living BEING, intent - everything and all within His Law - eternally set towards Light and our SALVATION in CHRIST - remember what He said w/ respect to THIRST - come to Him! 💎🎯🎄⛲🥖🍇☘
@@megenberg8 yea, except that these ideas come from Paul (not a disciple and a bit of a snake oil salesman) and that it was cemented until the 4th century and only after Justinian co-opted the religion for empire’s sake. If this were true, it would be clear and consistent throughout the Bible. It is not.
Thank you so much for doing this, Austin. Roman Catholic here, and it can be tiring hearing people pass on false facts about the Council of Nicaea. The conclusions they made are readily available for everyone to read. God bless you and this project.
Hebrews 1:8 “But to the Son He says, ‘You’re throne, O God, is forever and ever.’” God the Father calling Jesus God. The first century apostles and writers knew He was God.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 John 8:40 - Jesus does call Himself a man here, but in the same discourse (John 8:58), He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” invoking the divine name of God (YHWH), affirming His eternal existence and divinity. Acts 2:22 - While this verse emphasizes Jesus' humanity and miracles, later in the same chapter (Acts 2:36), Peter calls Jesus both "Lord" and "Christ," showing His divine authority alongside His human nature. Acts 17:31 - God’s appointment of a man (Jesus) to judge the world doesn’t deny His divinity. Jesus, in His humanity, is also the perfect judge, but as John 5:22 says, "The Father has given all judgment to the Son," affirming His divine role. Romans 5:15 - Paul speaks of Jesus as the new Adam, emphasizing His human role in salvation. But earlier in Romans 9:5, Paul calls Jesus "God over all," balancing the divine and human natures. 1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus is indeed the mediator between God and men because He is both fully human and fully divine. Hebrews 1:8 explicitly calls Him God: “But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever.’” Revelation 1:5-6 - Jesus is described in human terms as the faithful witness and the firstborn from the dead. However, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus also says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," indicating His divine eternal nature. Revelation 3:12 - Jesus refers to His God because, in His incarnation, He submits to the Father. However, Revelation 22:13 refers to Jesus as “the Alpha and the Omega,” affirming His divinity and eternality.
A week or so ago I was looking for a video on TH-cam that would help package the story of the Nicene Creed and its counsel nicely, along with the following ecumenical counsels for my own personal growth in church history. This new video of yours is absolutely well done! I’m not stating that I’m a huge follower of “The Bible Project’s” webpage or channel but their concise videos that package many big concepts and details in a easily-receivable way for viewers is greatly helpful for understanding what’s presented… and your presentation here does just that! High quality and well scripted and executed! I hope and pray that God helps your ministry and that maybe even the following 6 counsels might get videos as well. I only recently have found your channel (like in the last week and a half), and as a Christian who comes from a more “low-church” Protestant/Restorationist nondenominational tradition as I study church history and come to understand better why my tradition does and conceives Christianity the way that it does as well as the many other denominations and larger branches of Christianity - why they are the way that they are and where the distinguishing differences between each of us come from - and especially as I learn more about the ancient church traditions of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox I have found myself more sympathetic and open to the genuine expressions of Christ through all these. Your channel in particular when I came across some videos of yours a week-ish ago was very revealing and almost like-confirming… as I began to see how you began a long journey as a Protestant into our faith’s history engaging with the two large ancient traditions of RC and EO and how at the end you still are not leaving the Protestant Tradition. Not necessarily that I think we can’t convert to the ancient traditions of Christianity (for they seem good where the intentionally resides) but that watching other perhaps-similar or non-similar Protestants as I am both engage with Christian history and in conversation with those of the other Christian branches I am greatly encouraged to find others that kinda fall in love with many of the practices of tradition Christianity while remaining in our own less-ancient church traditions. I hope I could convey well what I was trying to here… but in short in case I didn’t is that God has blessed me through your TH-cam-recorded journey of Christian history endeavoring - even in the brief amount I’ve seen. And this video in particular is a direct gift from God and exceptionally done as well. Two more things my friend and brother in Christ, I pray that God graces more and more people through your channel, videos, story, and ministry as He has me and well beyond. I pray that His Spirit gives you wisdom, and also that you, your wife, and your family might be able to grace your current church with engaging, challenging, yet graceful dialogue about the beauty of Christ’s bride’s church history, and where in it spiritual formation and worship is most excellently done! May God bless you and I pray that I see and get to meet you brother in the New Heaven and Earth and even, if God is willing, in this life. And lastly, if you ever make your way out to Branson, Missouri, I want to here invite you and your wife (and any other Protestant or Restorationist Christians who may feel “ecclesiastically homeless” as it was excellently described a few videos back”) - I want to invite you to Harvest Evangelical Free Church! We are apart of the EFCA but use the historically-patterned 4-fold pattern of worship in our services and we implement ancient church traditions in a present-day Protestant church while making every effort to not lose the intentionality and heart of Christ behind our practices and time together. I really appreciate your channel, thank you, may God bless you and your wife, and if you ever come through Branson on a Sunday I and the rest of the gathering at Harvest would love to see you at 9:00 am! Christ Bless! -ZGH-
Interesting video. As someone who grew up repeating the Nicene Creed i find it interesting to think that it is not the word of God but the word of a bunch of men who determined who the son of God was who the rest of us.
The first born of all creation is a statement of authority, just as the firstborn has inherited authority from his father. It is not a statement of creation.
When Paul says that Jesus is the "Firstborn from the dead," does that literally mean that Jesus was "born"? Or can we agree that the language of scripture, in speaking of lofty things, often uses metaphors that, by virtue of the absolute transcendence of the things described, cannot align perfectly with ultimate truth of what it describes? John 1, in any case, is pretty explicit that the Word is co-eternal "from the beginning."
John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Zechariah 6:13 (KJV) Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
@@SoftBreadSoft Referencing anything from the book of John to try and argue for anything other than the deity of Christ is a fool's errand. I imagine, you are referencing John 17:3, because it mentions two persons, "...You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." The fact that the text does not confuse the persons in the construction of this sentence by no means negates the equality of both of those persons. Remember this is the same the book that says, "...before Abraham was born, I AM," "Jesus said to them, 'I AM'," "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," or how about two verses down from 17:3, "O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory, which I had with You before the world was." The entire book of John is devoted to establishing Christ's deity--that he is in fact The God Man that Moses and the Prophets wrote about and called YHWH.
Constatine intentionally excluded any "Jewish" bishops, anyone who kept Saturday Sabbath, anyone who supported the holidays listed in Leviticus 23. His intention was to form the Church into the image of Zoroastrianism, with mother-son icons and the holidays from his youth.
I'm pretty sure the actual reasoning was that the early Church formed a distinctly non-Judaizing identity. They took the stance of Paul on it; Judaizing Christianity was pointless and would only harm the appeal of the religion to gentiles. I doubt it was some scheme to Zoroastrianize the religion, especially considering that was the religion of Rome's perennial enemy. A source or two might have done you some good in supporting your claim.
@@drugleman601 I seek brevity. Citing sources defeats that, especially if my sources are abundant. I read "TLDR" as "FAIL". Withouth question, Christianity adopted Zoroastrian holidays, practices, and traditions, as Constantine eschewed "the practices of the perfidious Jews". Constantine had coins printed with his face on one side and Mythra on the other after his "conversion". Nicean Christianity tries to exalt Jesus while rejecting His Jewish diet, practices, holidays, religion, and lifestyle. That's illogical. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah, that proves Judiasm (in all its practices) correct, not giving us an excuse to start another religion. So for brevity, try reading Galatians or Ephesians where the pronouns "we", "us", and "I" refer to Paul and Jews and the pronouns "you" and "your" is Gentiles. Read "Law" as Torah, while "works of law" is the oral tradition (Talmud). It'll flip the whole script.
Sabbath is salvation my friend, read Matthew 11:28 true Sabbath in the today's world is salvation until millennium, and infact if you read Isaiah 65 we shall worship Lord from Sabbath to Sabbath means daily
Lucas Try the book entitled "The History of the Church" by Eusebius. He was a Church Father. He speaks of the first 400 years of Church history. Easy read. Very informative. Written by someone who lived it.
I love this one. The first two councils where there was only One Universal Church. After that it only goes downhill and we get four different apostolic churches. Even though we all believe in the Trinity and the same Jesus who died for our sins. I refuse to call my fellow Christians heretics.
Hypothetically, let’s say you found the church of Rolando Cueva. This church is to be led by your sons and grandsons after you and is supposed to follow all of your rules and teachings. Eventually, one of your grandsons says “no you guys are wrong, I have the right teaching, and I’m just as much of a son of Rolando!” So he breaks off and teaches things that you never taught, claiming to be the true church. Does this mean there are now two churches of Rolando Cueva? No. It means there’s a true one and a false one. All of the church splits are like this. Some may have “apostolic succession” but if they break away and teach heresy, they are not the true church.
I love you put Saint Nicholas in the animations. He was very critical. His bones still produce the "mana of St. Nicholas" which is an oil miraculously produced by the bones. Saint Nicholas lost his temper and punched Arius in the nose. The Bishops were not pleased and locked him up. They stole his vestments but Jesus and Mary had other ideas and when they came back in the morning he was fully vested. Saint Nicholas is not the jolly old guy we think of. He was a passionate defender of Christ and his Chruch.
1:50 - states Emperor Constatine was a, "recent convert to Christianity". I believe a lot of historians and theologians will disagree, noting that in ~ 325 AD, the emperor had not officially been baptized, or practiced the Christian faith. That didn't come till the end of his life. Although his mother, Helena, was devout Christian
All of this sounds crazy to me. The word of GOD says what it says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. John 1:1. I don’t know how anyone could state it more plainly. Every preacher, teacher in the world could come together and debate the matter and nothing would change.
What if it means what it says. The word, the message. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus i interpretation of Jewish scripture was dramatically different to that of the Jewish authorities. He was a member of the Nazarene sect. Hence the washing away of sins and rebirth. He is saying that that was always God's intent.
Austin, so far you've made quite a few videos regarding tradition and denominations. I recall one video where you said something along the lines of: we can't just convert because one church or the other says they are the one true church, given our concerns regarding the validity of certain traditions and practices, and also the priority given to spreading the Gospel. Because of such concerns I stopped going to Eastern Orthodox church, and am now in a non-denominational Bible-centered church. I still struggle, seek and pray to understand more about why the church is the way that it is, and why some churches are so adamant on being the only "ark". Videos like this are very helpful for this endeavor, as I believe we need clarity on church history, tradition and dogma, to have proper understanding and discussions about the various denominations. It would be great if this developed into a series going towards later councils and developments. Please keep this up! I'll donate in my next tithing round, God bless! :)
I'm glad you found this helpful! I can fully relate to how difficult the struggle is to understand the state of the church. Prayers for clarity and peace on your journey!
Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas ["Catholic, apostolic church"],” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? -1 Corinthians 1:12-13 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. -Romans 10:9
In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch him. He has not ascended to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. If this scripture is accurate then 4:28 Jesus and Mary are brother and sister because they have the same father. They also worship the same God.
@@caseykaelin9430 The Father to which He was referring is God the Father. Mary believed and was therefore the daughter of God. Jesus was the Son of God (the Word). They are not biologically brother and sister. However they are spiritually brother and sister.
@@GuitaristforChrist-learnguitar So I am not sure if you are saying God and Jesus are two separate beings. 1st Peter would certainly indicate they were.
Rev 1:8. He (Jesus Christ/God) introduces Himself using "“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. 1995. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation."
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church changed the baptismal formula from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in the second century. The Catholic Church considers Trinitarian baptisms to be valid, and while other baptismal formulas are acceptable, they must have been performed by a church or person who believes in the Trinity. So yes they Changed a lot so go back to Biblical ways and Baptize the way the Apostles did
Well considering we have archeological evidence that Jesus was seen as God by early Christian’s, and did claim to be God, as well as do miracles only God could do, and use Gods authority, Jesus is God. Any “muddy waters” can be explained by the fact that he did become fully man, and grew and was tempted in all ways that normal men where, just without sin.
Very straightforward and understandable video. I would never say that "bishops wrote the bible" at this council or any other. To me the larger issue is that this was the first time they were formally co-opted by the emperor and called into council, eventually becoming the state church of the empire. That was a momentous change... and of course not one that was on any written agenda. With imperial patronage came rewards for the "winner" of the debate, and trouble for the "loser" in the end.
Acts 15 recounts the earliest Christian council, the Jerusalem Council, and teaches principles still applicable to the Church today. This council met to discuss the issue of what Gentiles (non-Jews) should do when converting to Christianity. However, no council outside of God's word is legit or a mandate to follow. The councils of Nicea of 325 and Constantinople of 381 were to combat Atianism by creating trinitarianism, thus invalidating monotheism . No where in scripture is one taught a trinity either in word or idea. Here's the facts. God is a holy one, said some 25 in the book of Isaiah alone. The Lord our God is one in Deut. 6:4 and confirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29-30. He was God manifested in the flesh Tim. 3:16. God was in him 2 Cor. 5:19. And he was called in Isaiah 9:6-7 Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. He is Immanuel, God withus. The fullness of the godhead bodily in Col. 2:9. Now if you disagree with me, you disagree with God's word. No haters response please.
Austin, I love so many of your videos. I like this one so much because I'm so sick of hearing that the Council of Nicea invented the Trinity, blah, blah. Can you do a video on Constantine himself? It seems that any group that disagrees with Christianity (esp. Hebrew Roots and Messianic groups) tend to have the viewpoint of "When in doubt, blame Constantine!" I'd love to see you do a video giving the balanced view of this controversial Emperor.
You included the "filioque", which is NOT the Nicean Creed....It was added hundreds of years later by The Roman Catholics and never approved by an Ecumenical Council. This remains one of the reasons the Roman Catholics and the Greek or Eastern Orthodox are separated. If you are going to have a video about the Nicean Creed....please stick to the original texts. Thank you!
Arius, He never said Jesus was created, he rather taught that Jesus was born of the Father therefore had a beginning. Those are two different ideas. To be born and to be crested
Lots of false information there, for instance the controversy over the divinity/humanity of Jesus existed from the moment of his crucifixion, not because of Arius. The Ebionites, who James Tabor believes are the remaining Jewish segment of Jesus's followers after the destruction of the Temple, always maintained Jesus was human. The Jewish messiah was never at any time in the history of Judaism considered to be divine. He was a human, anointed by God. That is the literal meaning of the word 'messiah" in Hebrew. It has no divine connotations at all. The council of Nicea did not refute Arian Christianity. Several centuries later the majority of western Europe was Arian. Western Europeean bishops, from those areas which would later form Roman Catholic Christianity, were almost totally unrepresented at Nicea, perhaps 10% of the bishops there. John's gospel is the only one with even a hint of the idea that Jesus and God the Father are one. On the other hand Jesus calls himself the Son of Man over 80 times, not a divine concept. Eusebius our only source for the idea that Constantine converted at all, said it happened on his deathbed which would have been in 337 AD, not before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as you state. The idea that he converted earlier is made even more ludicrous by the fact that one year after Nicea, he executed his own wife and eldest son. Next time consult some actual scholars.
You don't know what you're talking about. Have you read Daniel? "Son of man" certainly has divine connotations, it's an easy mistake to think it's talking about Jesus just being a "man", but it's a phrase from Daniel. Also John has WAY more than a "hint" of Jesus' divinity. Finally, there are plenty of other indications that the followers of Jesus believed he was God, including a lot from the gospel according to Mark.
@@IAmDLFL No, that's entirely wrong. In fact when Jesus asks his disciples who people say the Son of Man is, every single name was undeniably human. Have you READ Daniel? Probably not, most Christians just quote phrases they have heard elsewhere. The Son of Man is brought UP to heaven from below by the Ancient of Days (God the Father) He is of this world. That's why he's called Son of Man. The final nail in the coffin of your viewpoint are the gospels themselves. Jesus says he is the Son of Man 80 times, to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and his own followers. Yet never once is he accused of blasphemy for calling himself that. It is only when they believe he is saying he is equal to God the Father that they accuse him of blasphemy.
@@ji8044 First of all, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that Jesus is EITHER human or divine, but the reality is that he is both. Next, "...they believe he is saying..." makes it sound like you think Jesus wasn't actually saying that. But if that's not what Jesus meant, it would be important for him to clarify that (at least to his disciples). But there's nothing from the gospel writers saying "Well, the pharisees THOUGHT Jesus was making himself equal to God, but he wasn't actually saying that". Jesus also accepts worship, which is only rightly attributed to God. There's plenty of examples of Jesus making divine claims, but the most obvious is of course the "Before Abraham was, I Am". Finally, regarding Daniel. I'm not saying you can get the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the passage on the son of man, but he is clearly more than "just" human. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion" it says, and earlier in the book it says of the MOST HIGH "His dominion is an everlasting dominion".
@@IAmDLFL "First of all, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that Jesus is EITHER human or divine, but the reality is that he is both." Actually, I was pointing out the mistaken idea of this video that Arius was the basis for such claims. The heated discussion about the nature of Jesus went on for centuries, beginning immediately after his crucifixion. "Jesus also accepts worship, which is only rightly attributed to God" That's false, he even rejects being called good .Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Luke 18:18-19 "I'm not saying you can get the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the passage on the son of man, but he is clearly more than "just" human" True he is but only AFTER being raised up by God the Father, as even Paul says in his letters. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4
@@ji8044 Re: point 1 - fair enough. Though you could say the discussion started at the beginning of Jesus ministry too. The pharisees certainly didn't think he was the Messiah, much less that he was divine. Also, I'm not sure what that Romans passage has to do with Jesus becoming divine after being raised. Paul is talking about how we can share in Christ's resurrection. I think if you want to assert Paul is saying "Jesus became divine" in this passage, you would have to also conclude that WE become divine in the *same* way (maybe you do conclude that, but I certainly don't). Also, later on in chapter 8, verse 2, Paul says God "sent His Son", which seems to indicate a pre-existence and Jesus' divinity before being raised. In verse 9 of chapter 8 he also talks about "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" in the same way which seems to link them. The "good teacher" passage could be interpreted as Jesus denying being called good (as you say), especially in isolation. The passage could ALSO be interpreted as claiming equality with God. Jesus doesn't say "I'm not good," he ASKS - "Why do you call me good?" I would just ask you to consider a few things. Jesus calls himself the GOOD shepherd (John 10:11). Jesus says that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) which indicates pre-existence and, indeed, an identification with the divine name. Jesus claims authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), which only God does in the OT (Isaiah 43:25). Jesus commands authority over the sea and the wind, which is only the domain of God in the OT (Psalm 65 and 39).
Some churches actually reject the Trinity, preferring instead the explanation that Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings who are "one" only in the same sense that a sports team is "one" - they are united in purpose but not the same being.
I kinda wish you would have hit the "Bible canon was set at Nicaea" claim a little harder, but very cool video overall. I love these visual graphic type videos
Given Rebuking that oneness/pentecostal/hebrew roots conspiracy theory *Nonsense* that they all love to use to peddle the Gnostic Writings and to try and remove St. Paul's Epistles, despite the Gnostic Writings being Condemned, and St. Paul's Epistles being Exalted, by St. Irenaeus nearly 2 Centuries *before* Nicaea, is one of the few things that gets Calvinist Protestant (like myself, a hard-line Five Point Calvinist and a pretty Fundamental Presbyterian, albiet with some Reformed Anglican mixed in as well, and yes, we use the Nicene Creed (with Filioque) most weeks, but also the Apostolic Creed (Normally in Evensong), and Occasionally (such as Trinity Sunday) the Athanasian (and St. Athanasius was at the First Council of Nicaea!) Creed as well), Orthodox and Roman all on the Same Team, it needs a whole video to itself!
It’s a beautiful animation. Thank you for sharing the Truth to us children of God. Because a lot had been deceived lately, and since it happened almost 2,000 years ago, not a lot knows what happened in history.
Please note: There is an error on screen at 03:24. The words "and the Son" were not in the creed of 381. Mistakes happen, I didn't catch it, there was no secret agenda here. Fear not, those fateful words that divided Christendom will be discussed in the next video, Lord willing. Thanks for your grace as we work out the kinks in the workflow for these!
I see the filoque clause is blurred out in the video. Good catch!
I’m Eastern Orthodox and always good at these technicalities…
@@nsixvlAlthough the Church Fathers taught the Filioque and Eternal Manifestation was a later made up doctrine, you can look it up, God bless you 🙏
Sources guys?
The Case Against the Doctrine of the Trinity
Scriptural Absence of the Term “Trinity”:
The term “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible, suggesting that the early Christian writers did not conceptualize God in Trinitarian terms.
Angels as “Gods” and “Sons of God”:
Psalm 82:1: “God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the ‘gods.'”
Argument: This verse indicates that the term “gods” refer to angels as heavenly beings.
Job 1:6: “One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.”
Argument: The term “sons of God” is used in other translations, showing that the title is not exclusive to Jesus and refer to angels.
Jesus’ Distinct Nature and Subordination:
Mark 13:32: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Argument: Jesus admits to not possessing the same level of knowledge as the Father, making a clear distinction in their knowledge and power.
John 20:17: “Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.””
Argument: Jesus refers to the Father as “my God,” indicating not only a subordinate relationship and distinctness from the Father, but as worshipper of the Father.
1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
Argument: Paul outlines a hierarchy where Christ is subject to God, emphasizing their distinct roles.
John 14:28: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
Argument: Jesus himself acknowledges that the Father is greater than He is, stating a hierarchical relationship.
Jesus as the Firstborn and Beginning:
Colossians 1:15: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
Argument: The term “firstborn” states that Jesus had a beginning, indicating He is not co-eternal with the Father, but is born as in created, but the first of all creations.
Proverbs 8:22-30 (interpreted by some as a reference to Jesus as divine wisdom): “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.”
Argument: If interpreted as referring to Jesus, this passage suggests He was the first of God’s creations, emphasizing a starting point in time.
Revelation 1:8: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'”
Argument: This verse emphasizes that it’s the “Lord God” speaking, not Jesus, underscoring Jehovah’s unique eternal nature.
Revelation 3:14: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.”
Argument: Jesus is here name the beginning of God’s creation, meaning he is part of creation, and the beginning or firstborn of creations
Jesus’ Future Subordination:
1 Corinthians 15:24-28: “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power… When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
Argument: This passage describes a future time when Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God the Father and be subject to Him, emphasizing their distinct roles and Jesus’ subordination, meaning His is no co-equal in the future either.
The Holy Spirit Described as a “Spirit”:
John 14:26: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Argument: The term “spirit” in both the Old and New Testaments refers to a force or power, not a person. In this context, the Holy Spirit is described as an advocate or helper, but not as a separate individual.
The Holy Spirit depicted as the “Finger” of God:
Luke 11:20: “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Argument: Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as the “finger of God,” a metaphorical expression that emphasizes the Spirit’s role as an extension of God’s power and will, rather than as a person.
The Holy Spirit Non-Personified Characteristics:
Acts 2:17-18: “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'”
Argument: The Holy Spirit is described as something that can be “poured out,” a characteristic not in line with a person.
The Holy Spirit Not Explicitly Called “God”:
While the Father and the Son are frequently referred to as “God” in various contexts, the Holy Spirit is never explicitly given this title in the scriptures.
Argument: The absence of this direct designation further distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the personhood often attributed to the Father and the Son.
Baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Argument: Being baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit does not confer personhood or divinity to the Spirit. In many biblical contexts, doing something “in the name of” means doing it by the authority or power of someone or something. Thus, this baptismal formula can be understood as recognizing the authority and roles of the Father and Son without implying that all three are distinct persons or co-equal.
The doctrine dosen’t thorough examination of the Bible (NIV), have any substantial evidence that supported the Trinity view. The scriptures emphasize the distinct nature and roles of Jesus and Jehovah, suggesting that they are not co-equal or co-eternal. That the Holy Spirit is not a person, nor co-equal or co-eternal.
This perspective aligns more closely with the biblical portrayal of their relationship:
1. God the Father, whose name is Jehovah is unborn and eternal
2. Jesus is Firstborn, not eternal, however the first of all creation, and for him and through him, all else was created. Subordinated to Jehovah both on earth, and in heaven before and after, his time on earth
3. The Holy Spirit, is finger or hand of Jehovah
@MO-hq4iz Then Jesus was a liar, and a heretic, and someone not worth listening to. He called himself equivalent to God. Acted as though he could forgive sins. Paul, too, is a liar as he tells us that Jesus was equal to God. John, too, is a liar as he tells us that Jesus is God.
Distinctness in role from God, yet equal in authority, is the point of the trinitarian view, as is the limited humanity of Christ while He walked among us. That you point out these distinctions means little. That you ignore all the other scripture, which is explicit about the divinity of Christ, means a lot.
“BRO, THAT’S HERESY!” said Santa Claus, punching him in the face.
Iconic
There's no substantial evidence that it happened... there's also no substantial evidence that it didn't, I accept it.
@@EIA-Observerit’s called circular reasoning
@@EIA-Observer It is embarrassing enough for it to have at the very least a historical origin. Late writers would not make up the story, as it depicts Nicholas being revoked by Constantine and imprisoned.
Heh, nice redeemed zoomer reference!
Fun fact:
The Church defended Homoousios, while Arians defended Homiousios. Note the Greek “i” or “iota.” The first means “of the same substance and the latter means “of similar substance.” I’ve heard this is where we got the phrase “an iota of difference.”
I was familiar with the technical side of that, but not the origin of the saying. That's cool!
Nope, arians used heteroousia.
@@gamerjj777 The faction that preferred 'homoiousios' is usually designated as "Semi-Arian'. The best known member of the faction was Eusebius of Caesarea.
I believe the importance of an Iota is better expressed in Messiah’s words in Matthew 5:17-20
Jesus himself said he would not change one iota of the law
It was great working on this with you Austin! So glad we could collaborate on this 🎉 I hope everyone enjoys!
It was an absolute pleasure, Ryan! Great work on this.
Loved it great work 👍🏼👍🏼🙏🏼🇵🇷
So cool!!
Great job on the animation, excited for the next ones whoop whoop
Thank you not being above sneaking in the Aladdin joke into this otherwise serious video 🫡
"A whole new world" at 02:19 and you can see Aladdin flying on his carpet, I almost died
*"IT'S A WHOLE NEW WOOOOOORLD!"*
All credit to Ryan, the animator, for that easter egg
hahahah, i thought in the same thing, the Aladdin movie XD
Thanks for spotting that. Hilarious.
I probably would have missed it without your tip off, thanks so much! 😅
I study orthodox theology in Romania, and I want to say that I like the way you presented the event. It's hard to tell everything in such a short video, but you give some essential information.
I would like to add, though, it would be good to say that they used to formulate the Creed some baptismal declarations of faith which were already used.
That's a good point! So tough to fit everything in 5 minutes, but that's a great point
@@GospelSimplicity Thank you. I respect you and your work very much. It is important that people know it wasn't something ,,created", in an artificial way, but the expression of Church faith.
Not to metion the most importan one that this way many pagan tradition have mixed with the christian and that is how we got religions that use His name and pray to humans and objesct for salvation!
@hopeAndp, clarify please.
@@c.Ichthys Clarify what?
Thank you! I’m so tired of people going around saying the council of Nicaea was where “they wrote the Bible.” They didn’t even discuss biblical canon yet that’s the general misconception. Someone tried to hit me with that and at the time I wasn’t knowledgeable enough.
The canon of scripture was settled in 382 at the council of Rome under pope Damasus I. Too many ignorant people try and claim the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I was responsible for this or that.
@@richlopez5896, the canon of scripture was settled way before that. Both Polycarp (who knew John personally) and Justin the Philosopher (who lived at the same time as Polycarp) used the same scripture used by Christians today.
@@Zaphod771 St. Polycarp was the first Catholic bishop of Smyna and appointed by the apostle St. John. St. Justin Martyr was a Catholic priest in Rome. I am very aware of both of those Catholic saints.
St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria did not come up with his canon of 27 books for the New Testament until 367. The Catholic Church did not come up with an official canon of scripture for Christianity until 382. Pope Sircicius would later coin the term "Bible" for the Christian canon. A term the Catholic Church still uses. Below is the complete canon of scripture that was officially set in 382.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books”
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.
Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.”
Pope Damasus I.
Marcion created the first Bible.
@Zaphod771 No they didn't. The first list equal to the canon was from Bishop Athanasius in 367. Even then, other canon lists appeared. The oldest full Bibles, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both early or mid-4th century) don't match the final canon.
While Nicea was the first “Ecumenical” council, it was not the first church council. That happened in Jerusalem and is cronicled in the Book of Acts. It was led by James “the Lord’s Brother” and set the precedent for solving church issues in a concilliar manner in councils.
No, it was lead by Peter. James hosted it, but it was Peter who when he stood up to make his decision, "all fell silent". That's rabbinic usage when a chief rabbi makes a binding decision, the debate is over. James made some modifications for his jurisdiction, to avoid giving offense to the vastly more numerous Jews the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile heritage, lived among.
And mirrored an earlier pattern. It makes sense it would be Peter. But Peter could appoint another. Peter was the head Apostle.
The mount of transfiguration... that is some heavy stuff... the visitations, etc.
And then the many who resurrected and appeared to many. But where did the records go? When will we find them? Were they all destroyed in the persecutions and desolations?
@@tuvoca825 The short answer, yes. If there ever was a detailed list of the 500, it's lost.
Roman Christianity is full of heresy and the 2 Thessalonians 2 Mystery of Lawlessness and Apostasy. The Apostasy is literally TORAH-lessness and Christianity is in full blown Apostasy. Constantine was a FALSE believer who said he didn’t want the new religion they concocted to be like the “despicable Jews” in keeping the Sabbath as he endorsed SUN day over the Shabbat, making Apostasy the religion of the Empire and not the teachings of Jesus and His Torah observant Apostles. Christ Mass? Apostasy! Easter? Apostasy! Halloween? Apostasy! And whatever else the SUN day loving Torah rejecting Apostates push a replacement doctrine for the Torah. Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 7:13-23, Mark 7:6-13, Romans 3:31, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:22-25, Romans 8:5-8, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 John 3:4, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12
@@robertlehnert4148 James and Peter were leading the council, James being the most prominent figure since he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, considered at the time to be the mother of all churches and the one with the biggest amount of followers.
Good to see the first of the seven councils convened to settle matters of the nature of Christ covered. Today most who define themselves as Christians don't even know the role bishops have filled since the days of the Apostles and why they are still relevant today.
Preyz Gord
Today ALL who define themselves as Christians eat pork, ignore God's festivals, bow down to graven images and have them in their homes, and don't even know when the Sabbath day is. So, yeah, Rome did a great job fooling the Christians.
While knowledge is good, it is not necessary to my salvation to know about man's ritual. That would be called legalism.
@@DarthPoyner It's called heresy.
Bible Project for church history, let’s go Austin.
Thanks!
@@GospelSimplicity Church History Project
This is definitely NOT church history. For instance the controversy over the divinity/humanity of Jesus existed from the moment of his crucifixion, not because of Arius. The Ebionites, who James Tabor believes were the remaining Jewish segment of Jesus's followers after the destruction of the Temple, always maintained Jesus was human. The Jewish messiah was never at any time in Judaism considered to be divine. He was a human, anointed by God. That is the literal meaning of the word 'messiah" in Hebrew. It has no divine connotations at all.
The council of Nicea did not refute Arian Christianity. Several centuries later the majority of western Europe was Arian. Western European bishops, from those areas which would later form Roman Catholic Christianity, were almost totally unrepresented at Nicea, perhaps 10% of the bishops there. It was almost exclusively what would later become the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our present understanding and practice is called the Chalcedonian Rite/Creed, because it was fully formed in the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
John's gospel is the only one with even a hint of the idea that Jesus and God the Father are one. On the other hand Jesus calls himself the Son of Man over 80 times, not a divine concept.
Eusebius our only source for the idea that Constantine converted at all, said it happened on his deathbed which would have been in 337 AD, not before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as you state. The idea that he converted earlier is made even more ludicrous by the fact that one year after Nicea, he executed his own wife and eldest son.
@@ji8044Isaiah 7-14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (which is God with us)
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾@@misseli1
I was in Nicaea last week visiting the mosque where the 2nd Nicaean council was held (yes it’s a mosque now). We must never forget that the bishops all knew and spoke koine Greek every minute of the day. It was their common language so when modern cultists (including advocates of the New Thought heresy in the USA) try to rewrite the early church teachings we need to put their false teaching into context. Btw some trivia: the location of the first council has now been been found but is difficult to visit as its below water.
Astonishing comment, erudite and thoughtful, thank you so much! Yes! it would bear to mention here that the Greek language of the time was precise and highly evolved/refined and vastly/profoundly definitive - in respect to the meaning and clarity of a richly advanced/mature and intelligently cultivated tradition - both practical and cerebral. it was well-suited for the inquiring investigations of the sciences and studies in/of both civilization and the natural world, in addition to those of philosophy, religious discourse, abstract thought, and to some great extent, psychology. spirituality and astronomy, mathematics and history, poetry and prose, also figured most richly and by a tradition lengthy. indeed, it proved itself to be the most important/vital vessel for communications within the entire Western world, as the one universal lingua franca (among the modern societies of the era), having been judged as the most en point, nuanced, sophisticated, and enlightened form of direct expressiveness, and in the sharing of ideas, in every circumstance/situation, multi-purpose across the spectrum of human engagement. Latin came in as direct/instructive actions became more profuse (being purpose oriented to the accomplishment of the mundane/direct instruction required in an expanding world). to this very day the vocabulary of the West has it's root origins largely in both Latin and Greek. Indo-European is a whole epoch away, going back in time, to pre-history - my grain or 2 🐦 And English being the lingua franca of our present incarnation on Earth (for the entire world). at least for the time being! 🌍🌎🌏🌐
Dude, this is so cool! Really happy and thankful for all the work you’re doing. May our Father continue to bless what you’re doing!
Thank you!
Preyz Gord
Can't wait for the rest of the series! Great job Austin & Ryan!
Thanks!
This video brings simplicity and clarity to this issue. Many thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Yaaaay team! Great work, Austin and team!
Thanks for dumming it down & summing it up. As I’ve learned to tell people in my field of study & practice of over 40 years as a mental health professional, “it’s complex but not complicated.”
Fantastic work! This video helps to provide clarity to an event that has so much mythology attached to it! Keep up the great work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Austin, these council animations are awesome!
That's a great project! Keep it up, please. Peace be with you!
Thanks! I'll do my best to keep it up!
This is amazing Austin!! Truly a dream!! I can’t wait to share these with my friends!
Please do!
Eastern Orthodox fan here. Beautiful. Beautiful. Episode! Going to show this to the kids at Sunday school.
I hope they enjoy it!
Austin, this video was AWESOME DUDE! This does put a smile on my face. I am so excited to see more!! God bless, may God allow more of these to be produced.
Thank you so much!
I love these quick but important teaching videos on different aspects of theology and church history
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video young man! There's an incredible history of all things in our world and yours are worthwhile videos for knowledge is freedom
Awesome!! Please continue with all the major ecumenical councils (until Nicaea II). I'm sure this will be very helpful for lots of people!
Agreed!!!
Yeah Nicea II is a very important topic, as learned from Gavin Ortlund :)
Great job Austin. Really appreciated this video. Simplicity out of complexity is definitely a tall order, walking a tightrope as it were. A stick figure is more simple than a portrait of a person, but I don't think most people would call it an accurate representation. This is a mighty task indeed that you are engaged in. God bless and keep you, always enjoy seeing your videos.
Thanks! It's a tall order indeed.
Nice, concise, Nicaea. I like this kind of video. It's a good development of your ongoing work, kind of like doctrinal development.
Great video! I look forward to seeing the next installment
Excellent idea and video! Well done!!! 📈 Looking forward to more videos on the history of the church. Hoping you reach a lot of people who may unintentionally find themselves unaware of the history of the church. Stay blessed!!! ❤️🙏✝️
-Coptic Orthodox fan of the channel and the ministry 🤓
Thanks!
Thank you for your research and time spent making the video. !
I think an overlooked fact in your presentation is the power of songs to carry messages far distances
❤❤❤ Good work.
Thanks!
Thanks for the video, Austin and Ryan!
Our pleasure!
Well done! Love the animation and totally enjoyable and informative.
Love this kind of content so much!!
Glad you like it!
@GospelSimplicity thanks for your amazing content. How does one reach you offline?
Hits right. Nice job. Waiting for next one!
I appreciate this video. I am now a subscriber, good luck!!
Thanks!
I look forward to seeing your 5 minute summaries for all ecumenical councils 😊
You to mention my teen’s favorite fact from the council that Santa hit Arias and landed in jail.
@@MRSBHB this is true, but I made sure to animate Saint Nick shaking his fist haha
I've got a fun idea for that for the next video. Stay tuned!
Ooo! Exciting! : )
This is apparently not true.
@@davidurist5911 It is the official story correct? I won’t disappoint my child.
This subject is extremely interesting to me because I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, who hold a belief similar to Arianism. I actually didn't even realize until I was an adult that it was mainstream even in Protestant groups to believe Jesus was God, I had somehow spent most of my life thinking that only Catholics believed that.
I think that's because we were taught that the idea of the trinity was pagan. I got saved about 9 years ago and I really struggled with it. Then I read "The Forgotten Trinity" by James White and realized we had been given a strawman argument. Christians do not believe 3 God's one person. That was what we were taught in the JWs.
Congrats for getting out! I pray Jesus shows my family the actual truth. They cut off contact with me. For a group that calls themselves all loving they sure do some very unloving things. It hurts my heart for them.
This is so good
Fantastic summary! Keep up the great work!
Great job, subbed.
Thanks for the sub!
Great video brother! I really liked how much you packed into such a concise video.
Thanks!
This was awesome! Simple and understandable! Love it 🥰
Glad you liked it!!
Except the Trinity part… makes no sense whatsoever
@@Kurfuffle the transmission as God's realized intent. think of nature with clouds bringing rain to the parched Earth: the LIFE it brings! God's intent from the Beginning - going back to LONG before you and I were born - yea, even prior to the Creation. His living BEING, intent - everything and all within His Law - eternally set towards Light and our SALVATION in CHRIST - remember what He said w/ respect to THIRST - come to Him! 💎🎯🎄⛲🥖🍇☘
@@megenberg8 yea, except that these ideas come from Paul (not a disciple and a bit of a snake oil salesman) and that it was cemented until the 4th century and only after Justinian co-opted the religion for empire’s sake. If this were true, it would be clear and consistent throughout the Bible. It is not.
Wow, I honestly didn’t expect that! Great video!
Glad I could surprise you!
Thank you so much for doing this, Austin. Roman Catholic here, and it can be tiring hearing people pass on false facts about the Council of Nicaea. The conclusions they made are readily available for everyone to read. God bless you and this project.
My pleasure!
Great video Austin! Keep these coming!
Hebrews 1:8 “But to the Son He says, ‘You’re throne, O God, is forever and ever.’”
God the Father calling Jesus God. The first century apostles and writers knew He was God.
…and it’s scripture.
@@leerosson216
And backed up by the Old Testament
@@MichaelTheophilus906 throughout the Bible,old and New Testament,proclaims Christ as King!
Truth!
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Quoting verses out of context 👏
@@MichaelTheophilus906 John 8:40 - Jesus does call Himself a man here, but in the same discourse (John 8:58), He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” invoking the divine name of God (YHWH), affirming His eternal existence and divinity.
Acts 2:22 - While this verse emphasizes Jesus' humanity and miracles, later in the same chapter (Acts 2:36), Peter calls Jesus both "Lord" and "Christ," showing His divine authority alongside His human nature.
Acts 17:31 - God’s appointment of a man (Jesus) to judge the world doesn’t deny His divinity. Jesus, in His humanity, is also the perfect judge, but as John 5:22 says, "The Father has given all judgment to the Son," affirming His divine role.
Romans 5:15 - Paul speaks of Jesus as the new Adam, emphasizing His human role in salvation. But earlier in Romans 9:5, Paul calls Jesus "God over all," balancing the divine and human natures.
1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus is indeed the mediator between God and men because He is both fully human and fully divine. Hebrews 1:8 explicitly calls Him God: “But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever.’”
Revelation 1:5-6 - Jesus is described in human terms as the faithful witness and the firstborn from the dead. However, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus also says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," indicating His divine eternal nature.
Revelation 3:12 - Jesus refers to His God because, in His incarnation, He submits to the Father. However, Revelation 22:13 refers to Jesus as “the Alpha and the Omega,” affirming His divinity and eternality.
Great coverage, well done, thank you.
Great Video!
One mistake I did notice is that the Creed of 381 didn't contain "and the Son". ;)
Massive massive massive mistake. Only the Orthodox say the original creed as originally agreed.
You're right. Somehow, I missed that in the edits. I'll make sure in the next video it's not there
Awesome! Been waiting on simple summary videos on the councils
A week or so ago I was looking for a video on TH-cam that would help package the story of the Nicene Creed and its counsel nicely, along with the following ecumenical counsels for my own personal growth in church history. This new video of yours is absolutely well done! I’m not stating that I’m a huge follower of “The Bible Project’s” webpage or channel but their concise videos that package many big concepts and details in a easily-receivable way for viewers is greatly helpful for understanding what’s presented… and your presentation here does just that! High quality and well scripted and executed! I hope and pray that God helps your ministry and that maybe even the following 6 counsels might get videos as well.
I only recently have found your channel (like in the last week and a half), and as a Christian who comes from a more “low-church” Protestant/Restorationist nondenominational tradition as I study church history and come to understand better why my tradition does and conceives Christianity the way that it does as well as the many other denominations and larger branches of Christianity - why they are the way that they are and where the distinguishing differences between each of us come from - and especially as I learn more about the ancient church traditions of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox I have found myself more sympathetic and open to the genuine expressions of Christ through all these.
Your channel in particular when I came across some videos of yours a week-ish ago was very revealing and almost like-confirming… as I began to see how you began a long journey as a Protestant into our faith’s history engaging with the two large ancient traditions of RC and EO and how at the end you still are not leaving the Protestant Tradition. Not necessarily that I think we can’t convert to the ancient traditions of Christianity (for they seem good where the intentionally resides) but that watching other perhaps-similar or non-similar Protestants as I am both engage with Christian history and in conversation with those of the other Christian branches I am greatly encouraged to find others that kinda fall in love with many of the practices of tradition Christianity while remaining in our own less-ancient church traditions.
I hope I could convey well what I was trying to here… but in short in case I didn’t is that God has blessed me through your TH-cam-recorded journey of Christian history endeavoring - even in the brief amount I’ve seen. And this video in particular is a direct gift from God and exceptionally done as well.
Two more things my friend and brother in Christ,
I pray that God graces more and more people through your channel, videos, story, and ministry as He has me and well beyond. I pray that His Spirit gives you wisdom, and also that you, your wife, and your family might be able to grace your current church with engaging, challenging, yet graceful dialogue about the beauty of Christ’s bride’s church history, and where in it spiritual formation and worship is most excellently done! May God bless you and I pray that I see and get to meet you brother in the New Heaven and Earth and even, if God is willing, in this life.
And lastly, if you ever make your way out to Branson, Missouri, I want to here invite you and your wife (and any other Protestant or Restorationist Christians who may feel “ecclesiastically homeless” as it was excellently described a few videos back”) - I want to invite you to Harvest Evangelical Free Church! We are apart of the EFCA but use the historically-patterned 4-fold pattern of worship in our services and we implement ancient church traditions in a present-day Protestant church while making every effort to not lose the intentionality and heart of Christ behind our practices and time together.
I really appreciate your channel, thank you, may God bless you and your wife, and if you ever come through Branson on a Sunday I and the rest of the gathering at Harvest would love to see you at 9:00 am!
Christ Bless!
-ZGH-
Interesting video. As someone who grew up repeating the Nicene Creed i find it interesting to think that it is not the word of God but the word of a bunch of men who determined who the son of God was who the rest of us.
Ecumenical : representing the whole of a body of churches.
Hey! Congrats. Great video. It's nice to see how much you've been through this years and how you share with us your path
Weekly? I recite it daily.
Nice!
Same here as an Orthodox Christian
Damn guess you're better than all the apostles then
@ what the crap are you saying? 🙄
I'm German and grew up in a Lutheranian household. I have never heard of this creed.
The first born of all creation is a statement of authority, just as the firstborn has inherited authority from his father. It is not a statement of creation.
Born means born.
When Paul says that Jesus is the "Firstborn from the dead," does that literally mean that Jesus was "born"?
Or can we agree that the language of scripture, in speaking of lofty things, often uses metaphors that, by virtue of the absolute transcendence of the things described, cannot align perfectly with ultimate truth of what it describes?
John 1, in any case, is pretty explicit that the Word is co-eternal "from the beginning."
@@ethanholmes7624John 17-3 is as explicit as possible. It just doesn't say what you want it to. 😢
John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Zechariah 6:13 (KJV)
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
@@SoftBreadSoft Referencing anything from the book of John to try and argue for anything other than the deity of Christ is a fool's errand.
I imagine, you are referencing John 17:3, because it mentions two persons, "...You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." The fact that the text does not confuse the persons in the construction of this sentence by no means negates the equality of both of those persons.
Remember this is the same the book that says, "...before Abraham was born, I AM," "Jesus said to them, 'I AM'," "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," or how about two verses down from 17:3, "O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory, which I had with You before the world was."
The entire book of John is devoted to establishing Christ's deity--that he is in fact The God Man that Moses and the Prophets wrote about and called YHWH.
This is beautifully done, easy to understand and straight to the point
Constatine intentionally excluded any "Jewish" bishops, anyone who kept Saturday Sabbath, anyone who supported the holidays listed in Leviticus 23. His intention was to form the Church into the image of Zoroastrianism, with mother-son icons and the holidays from his youth.
I'm pretty sure the actual reasoning was that the early Church formed a distinctly non-Judaizing identity. They took the stance of Paul on it; Judaizing Christianity was pointless and would only harm the appeal of the religion to gentiles. I doubt it was some scheme to Zoroastrianize the religion, especially considering that was the religion of Rome's perennial enemy. A source or two might have done you some good in supporting your claim.
@@drugleman601 I seek brevity. Citing sources defeats that, especially if my sources are abundant. I read "TLDR" as "FAIL". Withouth question, Christianity adopted Zoroastrian holidays, practices, and traditions, as Constantine eschewed "the practices of the perfidious Jews". Constantine had coins printed with his face on one side and Mythra on the other after his "conversion". Nicean Christianity tries to exalt Jesus while rejecting His Jewish diet, practices, holidays, religion, and lifestyle. That's illogical. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah, that proves Judiasm (in all its practices) correct, not giving us an excuse to start another religion. So for brevity, try reading Galatians or Ephesians where the pronouns "we", "us", and "I" refer to Paul and Jews and the pronouns "you" and "your" is Gentiles. Read "Law" as Torah, while "works of law" is the oral tradition (Talmud). It'll flip the whole script.
Conspiracy nonsense
Sabbath is salvation my friend, read Matthew 11:28 true Sabbath in the today's world is salvation until millennium, and infact if you read Isaiah 65 we shall worship Lord from Sabbath to Sabbath means daily
@thechurchoftheedgeministry4325 , how does relate to the history of the Council of Nicea?
This is so great! I’ve always wanted to understand the early church but don’t know where to look. God bless
Glad you found this helpful!
Lucas
Try the book entitled "The History of the Church" by Eusebius. He was a Church Father. He speaks of the first 400 years of Church history. Easy read. Very informative. Written by someone who lived it.
I love this one. The first two councils where there was only One Universal Church. After that it only goes downhill and we get four different apostolic churches. Even though we all believe in the Trinity and the same Jesus who died for our sins. I refuse to call my fellow Christians heretics.
Amen, overtime the patriarchs and bishops got a bit too big headed. But that’s all right in Heaven we will all be followers of Christ.
But what if they are heritics?
@@mrjustadude1wait….my mind can’t deal with a what if scenario!! My faith is shattered!😅
Hypothetically, let’s say you found the church of Rolando Cueva. This church is to be led by your sons and grandsons after you and is supposed to follow all of your rules and teachings. Eventually, one of your grandsons says “no you guys are wrong, I have the right teaching, and I’m just as much of a son of Rolando!” So he breaks off and teaches things that you never taught, claiming to be the true church. Does this mean there are now two churches of Rolando Cueva? No. It means there’s a true one and a false one.
All of the church splits are like this. Some may have “apostolic succession” but if they break away and teach heresy, they are not the true church.
There is only one Universal Church, the Catholic Church
Nice one Austin!!
I love you put Saint Nicholas in the animations. He was very critical. His bones still produce the "mana of St. Nicholas" which is an oil miraculously produced by the bones. Saint Nicholas lost his temper and punched Arius in the nose. The Bishops were not pleased and locked him up. They stole his vestments but Jesus and Mary had other ideas and when they came back in the morning he was fully vested. Saint Nicholas is not the jolly old guy we think of. He was a passionate defender of Christ and his Chruch.
Great work.. We need more of this to combat the misinformation out on the net. God bless!
Thanks!
1:50 - states Emperor Constatine was a, "recent convert to Christianity". I believe a lot of historians and theologians will disagree, noting that in ~ 325 AD, the emperor had not officially been baptized, or practiced the Christian faith. That didn't come till the end of his life. Although his mother, Helena, was devout Christian
At that time, many waited for Baptism until near death.
Love this!! Thank you, Austin!
You're so welcome!
This is cool thank you
Glad you liked it!
Well done Austin 🎉
All of this sounds crazy to me. The word of GOD says what it says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. John 1:1. I don’t know how anyone could state it more plainly. Every preacher, teacher in the world could come together and debate the matter and nothing would change.
What if it means what it says. The word, the message. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus i interpretation of Jewish scripture was dramatically different to that of the Jewish authorities. He was a member of the Nazarene sect. Hence the washing away of sins and rebirth. He is saying that that was always God's intent.
Jesus was not a member of any sect. He lived in Nazareth which was why He was called Jesus of Nazareth.
@@reggiep6471 Nazareth did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. John the Baptist was also a Nazarene
Austin, so far you've made quite a few videos regarding tradition and denominations. I recall one video where you said something along the lines of: we can't just convert because one church or the other says they are the one true church, given our concerns regarding the validity of certain traditions and practices, and also the priority given to spreading the Gospel. Because of such concerns I stopped going to Eastern Orthodox church, and am now in a non-denominational Bible-centered church. I still struggle, seek and pray to understand more about why the church is the way that it is, and why some churches are so adamant on being the only "ark". Videos like this are very helpful for this endeavor, as I believe we need clarity on church history, tradition and dogma, to have proper understanding and discussions about the various denominations. It would be great if this developed into a series going towards later councils and developments. Please keep this up! I'll donate in my next tithing round, God bless! :)
I'm glad you found this helpful! I can fully relate to how difficult the struggle is to understand the state of the church. Prayers for clarity and peace on your journey!
I believe in one holy, catholic, and _apostolic_ Church
I believe in one baptism _for_ the _remission_ of sins ☦️
Well, that would have to wait for the second ecumenical council
@@GospelSimplicity Yes 😀
Maybe you should read about a gentleman named Martin Luther
Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas ["Catholic, apostolic church"],” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
-1 Corinthians 1:12-13
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
-Romans 10:9
@@StageWatcher You inserted your interpretation into the text. There’s no dichotomy between being “of Christ” and wanting to be apart of _His_ Body. 😃
Great video! Very clear communication and to the point. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
“It was a whole new world.” *two people fly out of the building on a carpet* I see what you did there 😏
All credit to Ryan for throwing that Easter egg in
Thanks!
I appreciate the support!
Actions speak louder than words. Jesus died was buried and rose again. No one can do that except God.
Jesus, the son of God, was RAISED BY God from the dead.
@@dr.d5920 I'm trying to figure out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. 🤔
In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch him. He has not ascended to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. If this scripture is accurate then 4:28 Jesus and Mary are brother and sister because they have the same father. They also worship the same God.
@@caseykaelin9430 The Father to which He was referring is God the Father. Mary believed and was therefore the daughter of God. Jesus was the Son of God (the Word). They are not biologically brother and sister. However they are spiritually brother and sister.
@@GuitaristforChrist-learnguitar So I am not sure if you are saying God and Jesus are two separate beings. 1st Peter would certainly indicate they were.
God Bless You, brother. Excellent work.
Thanks!
Jesus should never be referred to in the past tense (was) because Jesus IS alive today!
Jesus WAS dead but is alive though
Rev 1:8. He (Jesus Christ/God) introduces Himself using "“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. 1995. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation."
Amen
Looks great Austin!
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church changed the baptismal formula from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in the second century. The Catholic Church considers Trinitarian baptisms to be valid, and while other baptismal formulas are acceptable, they must have been performed by a church or person who believes in the Trinity. So yes they Changed a lot so go back to Biblical ways and Baptize the way the Apostles did
God is good! My religion students asked for a lesson on the Nicene Creed just a few days ago. I'll definitely be using this video. Thank you!!! 😊❤
I hope they enjoy it!
Honestly as a polytheist, arianism always made more sense to me than trinitarianism
Well considering we have archeological evidence that Jesus was seen as God by early Christian’s, and did claim to be God, as well as do miracles only God could do, and use Gods authority, Jesus is God. Any “muddy waters” can be explained by the fact that he did become fully man, and grew and was tempted in all ways that normal men where, just without sin.
Very straightforward and understandable video. I would never say that "bishops wrote the bible" at this council or any other. To me the larger issue is that this was the first time they were formally co-opted by the emperor and called into council, eventually becoming the state church of the empire. That was a momentous change... and of course not one that was on any written agenda. With imperial patronage came rewards for the "winner" of the debate, and trouble for the "loser" in the end.
Glory To The Triune GOD
Acts 15 recounts the earliest Christian council, the Jerusalem Council, and teaches principles still applicable to the Church today. This council met to discuss the issue of what Gentiles (non-Jews) should do when converting to Christianity. However, no council outside of God's word is legit or a mandate to follow. The councils of Nicea of 325 and Constantinople of 381 were to combat Atianism by creating trinitarianism, thus invalidating monotheism . No where in scripture is one taught a trinity either in word or idea. Here's the facts. God is a holy one, said some 25 in the book of Isaiah alone. The Lord our God is one in Deut. 6:4 and confirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29-30. He was God manifested in the flesh Tim. 3:16. God was in him 2 Cor. 5:19. And he was called in Isaiah 9:6-7 Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. He is Immanuel, God withus. The fullness of the godhead bodily in Col. 2:9. Now if you disagree with me, you disagree with God's word. No haters response please.
Austin, I love so many of your videos. I like this one so much because I'm so sick of hearing that the Council of Nicea invented the Trinity, blah, blah. Can you do a video on Constantine himself? It seems that any group that disagrees with Christianity (esp. Hebrew Roots and Messianic groups) tend to have the viewpoint of "When in doubt, blame Constantine!" I'd love to see you do a video giving the balanced view of this controversial Emperor.
Perhaps one day! I think I have a clip of an interview on that for now
Well in the next year after this Council, Constantine executed his own wife and son.
Even in his own time, that was pretty controversial.
Thanks
I appreciate your support!
You included the "filioque", which is NOT the Nicean Creed....It was added hundreds of years later by The Roman Catholics and never approved by an Ecumenical Council. This remains one of the reasons the Roman Catholics and the Greek or Eastern Orthodox are separated. If you are going to have a video about the Nicean Creed....please stick to the original texts. Thank you!
Most of this video is wrong.
This may be the best distillation of this subject I've ever seen.
Thanks! That means a lot
Arius, He never said Jesus was created, he rather taught that Jesus was born of the Father therefore had a beginning. Those are two different ideas. To be born and to be crested
Do more of these!
Lots of false information there, for instance the controversy over the divinity/humanity of Jesus existed from the moment of his crucifixion, not because of Arius. The Ebionites, who James Tabor believes are the remaining Jewish segment of Jesus's followers after the destruction of the Temple, always maintained Jesus was human. The Jewish messiah was never at any time in the history of Judaism considered to be divine. He was a human, anointed by God. That is the literal meaning of the word 'messiah" in Hebrew. It has no divine connotations at all.
The council of Nicea did not refute Arian Christianity. Several centuries later the majority of western Europe was Arian. Western Europeean bishops, from those areas which would later form Roman Catholic Christianity, were almost totally unrepresented at Nicea, perhaps 10% of the bishops there. John's gospel is the only one with even a hint of the idea that Jesus and God the Father are one. On the other hand Jesus calls himself the Son of Man over 80 times, not a divine concept.
Eusebius our only source for the idea that Constantine converted at all, said it happened on his deathbed which would have been in 337 AD, not before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as you state. The idea that he converted earlier is made even more ludicrous by the fact that one year after Nicea, he executed his own wife and eldest son.
Next time consult some actual scholars.
You don't know what you're talking about. Have you read Daniel? "Son of man" certainly has divine connotations, it's an easy mistake to think it's talking about Jesus just being a "man", but it's a phrase from Daniel. Also John has WAY more than a "hint" of Jesus' divinity. Finally, there are plenty of other indications that the followers of Jesus believed he was God, including a lot from the gospel according to Mark.
@@IAmDLFL No, that's entirely wrong. In fact when Jesus asks his disciples who people say the Son of Man is, every single name was undeniably human. Have you READ Daniel? Probably not, most Christians just quote phrases they have heard elsewhere. The Son of Man is brought UP to heaven from below by the Ancient of Days (God the Father) He is of this world. That's why he's called Son of Man.
The final nail in the coffin of your viewpoint are the gospels themselves. Jesus says he is the Son of Man 80 times, to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and his own followers. Yet never once is he accused of blasphemy for calling himself that. It is only when they believe he is saying he is equal to God the Father that they accuse him of blasphemy.
@@ji8044 First of all, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that Jesus is EITHER human or divine, but the reality is that he is both.
Next, "...they believe he is saying..." makes it sound like you think Jesus wasn't actually saying that. But if that's not what Jesus meant, it would be important for him to clarify that (at least to his disciples). But there's nothing from the gospel writers saying "Well, the pharisees THOUGHT Jesus was making himself equal to God, but he wasn't actually saying that". Jesus also accepts worship, which is only rightly attributed to God. There's plenty of examples of Jesus making divine claims, but the most obvious is of course the "Before Abraham was, I Am".
Finally, regarding Daniel. I'm not saying you can get the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the passage on the son of man, but he is clearly more than "just" human. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion" it says, and earlier in the book it says of the MOST HIGH "His dominion is an everlasting dominion".
@@IAmDLFL "First of all, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that Jesus is EITHER human or divine, but the reality is that he is both."
Actually, I was pointing out the mistaken idea of this video that Arius was the basis for such claims. The heated discussion about the nature of Jesus went on for centuries, beginning immediately after his crucifixion.
"Jesus also accepts worship, which is only rightly attributed to God"
That's false, he even rejects being called good
.Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Luke 18:18-19
"I'm not saying you can get the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the passage on the son of man, but he is clearly more than "just" human"
True he is but only AFTER being raised up by God the Father, as even Paul says in his letters.
“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4
@@ji8044 Re: point 1 - fair enough. Though you could say the discussion started at the beginning of Jesus ministry too. The pharisees certainly didn't think he was the Messiah, much less that he was divine.
Also, I'm not sure what that Romans passage has to do with Jesus becoming divine after being raised. Paul is talking about how we can share in Christ's resurrection. I think if you want to assert Paul is saying "Jesus became divine" in this passage, you would have to also conclude that WE become divine in the *same* way (maybe you do conclude that, but I certainly don't). Also, later on in chapter 8, verse 2, Paul says God "sent His Son", which seems to indicate a pre-existence and Jesus' divinity before being raised. In verse 9 of chapter 8 he also talks about "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" in the same way which seems to link them.
The "good teacher" passage could be interpreted as Jesus denying being called good (as you say), especially in isolation. The passage could ALSO be interpreted as claiming equality with God. Jesus doesn't say "I'm not good," he ASKS - "Why do you call me good?"
I would just ask you to consider a few things. Jesus calls himself the GOOD shepherd (John 10:11). Jesus says that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) which indicates pre-existence and, indeed, an identification with the divine name. Jesus claims authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), which only God does in the OT (Isaiah 43:25). Jesus commands authority over the sea and the wind, which is only the domain of God in the OT (Psalm 65 and 39).
Some churches actually reject the Trinity, preferring instead the explanation that Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings who are "one" only in the same sense that a sports team is "one" - they are united in purpose but not the same being.
03:26 Why is "the Son" blotted out on the original version?
Excellent work! Keep up!
Thank you, short and understandable. Many blessings!
I kinda wish you would have hit the "Bible canon was set at Nicaea" claim a little harder, but very cool video overall. I love these visual graphic type videos
Given Rebuking that oneness/pentecostal/hebrew roots conspiracy theory *Nonsense* that they all love to use to peddle the Gnostic Writings and to try and remove St. Paul's Epistles, despite the Gnostic Writings being Condemned, and St. Paul's Epistles being Exalted, by St. Irenaeus nearly 2 Centuries *before* Nicaea, is one of the few things that gets Calvinist Protestant (like myself, a hard-line Five Point Calvinist and a pretty Fundamental Presbyterian, albiet with some Reformed Anglican mixed in as well, and yes, we use the Nicene Creed (with Filioque) most weeks, but also the Apostolic Creed (Normally in Evensong), and Occasionally (such as Trinity Sunday) the Athanasian (and St. Athanasius was at the First Council of Nicaea!) Creed as well), Orthodox and Roman all on the Same Team, it needs a whole video to itself!
Great simple explanation
It’s a beautiful animation. Thank you for sharing the Truth to us children of God. Because a lot had been deceived lately, and since it happened almost 2,000 years ago, not a lot knows what happened in history.