Purple Robe - Gold And Precious stones - where did i hear that before - ohyea - The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
Why do you mention repeatedly the word pope? This is a later invention of Roman Catholic Church. The concept is found no where in the NT or the early Christian church. There was no universal bishop over the Christian church at the council of Nicaea. Other than that the video is pretty good.
but why and when the denominations appeared? Was that from God? the apostles clearly stated to run from the discussions that would bring division among believers.
This is the catholic version of the story. There is far more about this than he will let you know, that is if he knows it. Research WHY they they held the council in the first place. Example, one thing they hide is "how many god(s) is there?". At this time 1,2,3,7,13,ect... god(s) depending where you lived. Yes most believed in one at this time. Christianity was being hijacked by pagan converts who were bringing their paganism into the church. There is far more reasons! RESEARCH!
@ambrosiusamadeus No, they don't unfortunately; there probably were no transcripts made even at the time. There are several firsthand accounts that survive, however, such as that by Eusebius of Caesarea (Arian) and St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Orthodox). The canons of the Council as well as the Creed drawn up by the Council both survive in full as well.
@davidpwithun I think most of the guys on Athanasius's side were reluctant to take up homoousian theology because it was what Gnostics (who were opposed by the early church) taught. Arius further showed his Biblical evidence to support his doctrine but the church still decided against it. Afterwards, the Arians were driven out. But in 336, were welcomed back when Constantine converted to Arianism and he would be baptized by the Arian Eusebius in 337.
Thank God for these video especially this one. This is soo clarified to the slander suppositions that I read and heard about. This video really cleared out the cobwebs in my mind.
christianty used to control and inslave africans, are we even african , africa was named by racist romans white lies rule the world and arab lies early gangs with blood on their hands
@MrAlhaji1 Many people have been oppressed by the patriarchy including whites. if you want to find a conspiracy against blacks listen to some hip hop.
@MrAlhaji1 You're absolutely right my brotha. ALL religions hav Ancient Kemetic origins. The very first GREAT civilization to hav ever existed was settled in the land of Kemet. NOTE: This was several centries BEFORE christianity, judaism, ISLAM and all religion period. Hotep! Hav u heard of Dr. Ray Hagins?
@MrAlhaji1 Don't worry about the author's comment. I completely understand your point, and I myself am a devout catholic. You speak of truth at it's heart, a truth that the common era today does not seem capable of understanding as a whole. Racism and prejudice preside forever.. May God have mercy.
@Waacm check out what Jesus said in Matthew 23:6-13.
verse 9 and 10:
9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.
***
Do you call anyone in your religion "Father"? Can such a thing affect one's mind? The way someone gathers information about God? Note verse 13:
“Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men;
Why should we bother with the Protestant heretics? I am tired of talking with them. Most of them are both spiritually and intellectually dishonest, and lack the mental firepower to come to the truth of the Christian faith.
@FishEaster I follow the one true faith,. I can't remember, just for the moment exactly which one it is. Statistically it's probably one of the Abrahamic ones. I've got it written down somewhere. I'll ask my sister, she remembers this sort of stuff. The point is I know it's true.
It should be know myth or confusion as to the true origins of Christianity's so-called
Holy Trinity. Why does the people raise things up as being Holy and Divine when
they have no authority from non but themselves ? But there is a book from God that corrects this type of behavior and offers forgiveness for those who have done this. But will any, but those who already know, believe, now that you
have proof that the so-called Holy Trinity is not from God or from Jesus Christ
The Second Council of Constaintanople in A.D. 543 *did* make amazing changes to the "original" biblical text.
PS: There was more than one Council of Niceae, not just now famous "First" Council.~~
(I hope none would use Wikipedia in research, its mistakes are ubiquitious.) ~~Pardon spelling if mistake, English second language. Love to all, Daraby
Nice job, but please pronounce "countenance," not "continence." Also, Fayarin is technically correct. Arius had no problem with *language of divinity refering to Christ, as long as it was qualified by his doctrine that the Son had a beginning in time. In other words, Arius did not think that "God" meant "that which has no beginning in time."
@davidpwithun Well, you do make some valid points i.e. the biblical canon. But in the last segment, on the arian controversy, you start making assumptions. I can make a video in which I can make assumptions and pose the answer, I don't think that's fair.
@davidpwithun Moreover, Jesus divinity was a hot topic. Discussed for many years. Arius merely was a spokesman of this position. Arianism was liable and an important enough issue to be debated. When one views the history of the Catholic church - the new dogma's and frequent apologies for older 'misinterpretations' - in my view, it must be seen as a fair debate, which illustrated a vivid contemporary conflict.
@Fayarin His relation to the Father was a hot topic; his divinity itself wasn't so much -- the Ebionites and Adoptionists (the only early movements I can think of which denied Christ's inherent divinity) were fairly small movements and were generally unrelated to Arianism.
Really? the emperor was humble before the bishops? In all his gold and glitter?ha right!. When did Mickey Mouse show up with Bambi at his side? You ever think maybe the writer didn't want him and his family mutlilated by the Emperor? Did you ever hear of propaganda?
And this all gave birth to a religon that protects pedophiles!!!!! Is that part of God's plan? Great Plan!!!! Way to go!!!
@Lombokstrait1 You are clearly open to new ideas arent you? The Christian faith is open to all who truly repent of all their sins however heinious they may seem to us-For God so loved the World, He gave His Only Begotten Son
Seems like every time someone brings the truth about christianity,someone tries to give an excuse.The fact is ,no matter how many suffered,the council did decide if Jesus was or wasnt a God.And he wasnt.
@mandelajustice 1. Actually, I covered that in these videos. The Council did not decide whether Jesus is God or not. It defined what his relationship is to God the Father. The Arians, who "lost" at the Council, still believed that Christ is God, but not "quite as God" as the Father is. Both sides said "Christ is God' --it was their understanding of that phrase that differed. 2. Whether or not he is in fact God is a matter of Faith. That's not something I can prove one way or the ...
@davidpwithun That is absolutely false! Arius teachings are VERY clear on this. He declares that the Son and Father are not of the same substance: "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing." Arius sees Jesus as the highest being, NOT as god.
@mandelajustice other. What can be said with absolute certainty, historically speaking, is that Christ claimed to be God, his followers believed he was God (and died for that claim), and that the Council of Nicaea only affirmed what Christians had always believed -- that Christ is God, co-substantial, co-eternal, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
@davidpwithun What God means is the Son is NOT equal to the Father as in (John 14:28) "My Father is greater than ." Moreover, the Son slept while God never sleeps as in (Psalm 11:4) "Behold, he that keepth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." In addition, the Son was tempted by satan for forty days in (Luke 4:1-13), BUT in (James 1:13) "...for God cannot be tempted with evil..." So, how can the Son be equal with God?
@davidpwithun Matt. 24:36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Can you explain that to me? If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not? And, how many times is "Trinity" mentioned in the Bible?
"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty GOD, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." -Isaiah 9:6
There's also John 1:1. Christ willingly gave up divine knowledge, but he was one in essence with God. "Trinity" is merely a newer word used to describe a doctrine that has existed since the time of the apostles.
Nice video. The Nicean Council is 4 me fine. Jesus is YHWH. Arius was both a heretic & antichrist. His views have taken millions 2 Hell. Islam, JW's & CoG are related. Jesus bless u.
@wjuler St Nicolas gave Arius the smackdown. (Literally!). He got tired of hearing his nonsense and smacked him. St. Nicolas was thrown in jail and had his office stripped. Then Jesus and Mary came to him and restored his office back when he was in his jail cell. Other people saw that miracle.
Thank you for this most helpful video. I will watch the other parts with great interest. Would that the readers of books like Richard E. Rubenstein's WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD would be viewers as well. Would that Prof Rubenstein would do the same.
The ancient Christian creeds are a gift from our fathers. Many Pentecostals I meet tell me that "You don't believe in the Holy Spirit" and I tell them that the Holy Spirit of the Church is "The Lord, the giver of life".....And this was the true belief of the Christian faith and not the shallow "force" as portrayed by these modern heretics. The richness of our faith is beyond measure. TY for this video, God Bless...
@clarkbailey1973 Now I truly understand why there are more than 38,000 different Christian Sects. So many twists, turns, views, misconceptions, of such proportions it is mind boggling!!
God is the energy within that causes the atom, that energy that holds all things together, to create this illusion we call life, the illusion of Matter, Energy, Space, Time. Our mission is to wake up!! Stop killing, destroying, manipulating this energy that holds all things together. WE ARE ALL CONNECTED,
Islam derives a lot of its knowledge of Christianity from early Traditions, but it ignores the most ancient traditions that are closest to the source, oddly enough (Paul's letters especially, which Muhammad seems completely unaware of). Muslims are aware of the belief in the sinlessness of Mary and the infancy gospels, but seem confused about the Trinity, even though this was well articulated centuries before Muhammad
I only asked if he was a Muslim, because if so, we'd have to believe an even more "suspicious" story about Christian origins (that Jesus was whisked away to heaven and immediately his followers "forgot" the message and turned him into a God and corrupted "the Gospel" and God allowed all this and waited six centuries for Muhammad, a sinful man who wrought no miracles, to come along and correct it (and needed to use the sword to do so)
ur wastin ur time bro.. Jesus was not alone.. there were hundreds of thousands of prophets before him who came to preach about the God, who has no one like him, who wasnt born of anyone, nor was anyone born of him.. and like all of them Jesus was a prophet ONLY.
Right, and your words are Gospel and I'm supposed to believe them simply because you said it. Believing that Christ is God is a matter of Faith, so it's useless to argue it. The historical facts, though, state that the earliest Christians, including the Apostles who knew Christ personally, all believed that he was the Incarnation of God and were willing to die horrible deaths in defense of this claim. Take it for what you will.
and ur simply believing the words of who ? mathew ? and paul ? who the helll was paul ? he was no one.. infact he was an enemy of the ones who believed in God. no i didnt say Jesus. i said God.. the one Jesus was preaching about..n ur saying that Jesus`s apostles wouldnt have died for Jesus knowing that he was Gods profit ? anyways its too late now.. Jesus( a prophet of God) has been turned into a man god by Romans (they had men god by da way).. n u believe in it.. so too bad for u.
So you admit, then, that you have no historical evidence for your rediculous claim? Just say it; don't be afraid to really embrace your position, no matter how absurd.
And, yes, I believe the words of Matthew, Peter, James and John (who all personally knew Christ) as well as Luke, Mark, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, Paul, and Barnabas (who all knew people who personally knew Christ).
I believe the historical evidence. There's not a single dissenting voice in early Christianity.
Given that argument, do you believe David Koresh was the son of God? The historical facts state that Koresh's followers, who knew him personally, alll believed that he was the Incarnation of God and were willing to die horrible deaths in defense of this claim. Would you seriously say that it is a "matter of faith" and pointless to argue with someone who does believe in the divinity of David Koresh?
There's a big difference though. David Koresh's followers died because of their belief in a claim he made. Christ's followers died because they said that they had seen him come back from the dead. If dozens of people were willing to die because they refused to recant their testimony that they had seen David Koresh raise from the dead, well, it'd be something worth investigating. But that's not the case with Koresh; it is with Christ. Very different types of claims.
Would you die for christ? Did you see him ressurected? Do you believe all amazing stories you hear that are thousands of years old and not even recorded by the original people who claimed it happened?
You religious nuts just dont understand how brainwashed you all are. All religions use occultic tactics and all take a nut job to believe in them... Koresh or Jesus, its all the same bullshit.
1. Yes, I would die for Christ -- at least I pray for the strength that would allow me to do so -- and I do each day at the hands of people like yourself.
2. Actually, most of the New Testament is written by people who did see the resurrected Christ -- Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and James were all firsthand witnesses. Mark and Luke both were close companions of firsthand witnesses (in Mark's case, Peter; in Luke's case, Paul). I suggest you do some historical research for yourself.
So we have the original accounts, not copies from these first hand witnesses. Learn to read, I said not RECORDED by the original people who claimed it happened..... Brainwashing tactics make your mind selectively add or subtract from what you are reading.... Do you believe all second hand crazy stories?
Im seeing a resemblance to you and Koresh all the time.
Um... are you sure you understood what I said? Apparently you're the one who selectively reads other people's words. I made quite clear that Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and James (whose writings make up the majority of the New Testament) were all firsthand (that means not secondhand, in case you didn't know) witnesses of the resurrected Christ.
Christianity.... The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie, who was His own father, can make you live forever if you eat crackers and wine (that then turn into His flesh) while telepathically telling Him that you accept Him as your Master so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat the forbidden fruit of a magical tree.... Yeah, it just makes sense.
Wow, you have a stunning lack of knowledge about Christian belief and practice. If you'd like to learn more about the Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, please let me know. My e-mail is in the sidebar at the right. If not, please cease posting such inane and ignorant comments. My advice to you is to at least learn about Christianity so that people will take you at least a little seriously when you attempt to criticize it. Right now, all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.
Please enlighten me on what I do not understand about xianity so that I will not burn in hell forever. What a great moral teacher jesus is huh.... Do you seriously think anyone deserves to be tortured forever?
Also, please cite the peer review article that says the new testament was LITTERALLY written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....
Brainwashing, how crazy it makes people sound, never ceases to amaze me. Really, its kind of sad, but a little interesting and entertaining as well.
1. Again you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian belief with your inane comments about the nature of hell. Hell is not a literal fiery place of torment. Hell is the pain ("burning") of eternal rebellion against God -- it is being in the presence of God and yet rejecting him. It is a chosen state of being, due to self-will and self-love.
2. On the authorship of the Gospels, see John A.T. Robinson, Jaroslav Pelikan, B.C. Butler, and John Wenham, amongst others.
That is a nice watered down interpretation of the bible. If the fire metaphors are just metaphors then what else is metaphor? Jesus actually being god? Original sin? Why doesnt the bible come out with it, why beat around the bush?
The question still stands though, does anyone DESERVE to feel pain forever? Why would god allow that? If he allows it because its just, than he is sick. If it isnt just and he allows it than he is not all powerful.
Actually, it's the original interpretation of the Bible; not watered down at all. The Fathers of the Church, those men who gave us the Bible, were the ones who interpreted it this way -- it is the original interpretation. And it's not as "metaphorical" as you might think -- English translations, done by Protestants whose ideas of hell derive more from pagan influence than from ancient Christianity, consistently mistranslate verses in the Bible about hell. You might be very interested to read
the article "RIver of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros. If you type "river of fire" into Google, it should be the first thing that pops up.
Also, the ancient Christians didn't believe in original sin either -- that's another later Western invention. That one specifically began with Augustine of Hippo, who carried over many of his earlier Gnostic (pagan Platonic) beliefs into this Christian writings. So, nope, no original sin either.
As for why God would allow this pain: the real question should
be why any man would choose to stand in eternal rejection of God. God doesn't want man to suffer -- he wants us all to experience his love and to love him in return; but neither does he violate our free will, as coerced or forced love is not really love at all. Robots can be taught to show affection -- but that's not love, it's not chosen.
C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce" is a great allegory that explains all of this very well.
I hope I was able to help a little. Thanks for the comments
Look kids at the end of the day YOU have to decide what your faith is and what it isn't. Don't let others do it for you. Don't inherit your religion, believe in it.
Constantine is the rock behind Christainity. He and Eusebius manipulated the council. They ignored the belief by Jesus brother James that he was a great prophet and not God.
If this is the case, then please present ANY historical evidence that this is so. You can't, of course. By the way, Eusebius was on the losing side at the council (the Arian side), which makes your statement even more preposterous. Also, Christ's brother James had been dead for almost 300 years by the time of the Council, which makes it difficult to say that anyone at the Council would have even known even had James held to this belief, which he didn't.
Quick question, you called James the Brother of Christ, but in Orthodox Christianity you guys believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary right?
That means you believe the brother in the more Semitic use of the term, which is more like relative.
I'm just clarifying, not trying to debate or anything. I had read several Orthodox articles on it, I just didn't know if some have differing opinions in the church.
Good question. Yes, we do believe in the ever-virginity of Mary. The Orthodox generally go by the oldest traditions, such as those contained in the Infancy Gospel of James (written around the year 150), that the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the Gospels and other ancient sources are St. Joseph's children through his first wife, as he was a widower.
@SittingBullswar where is the evidence that James, the brother of the Lord, believed that Jesus was only a mortal prophet and not God?
James didn't even believe that Jesus was a prophet until after the resurrection. According to Paul, the risen Jesus appeared to James, hence we can imagine he was converted the same way Paul was (though Paul's was more dramatic, because he was actively persecuting the disciples and hadn't met Jesus prior to this that we know of). But Paul met Peter and James
It is a shame more people are not familiar with the impact this council had. Some of this I have never heard and must look into. Whatever the truth, protestants waste their time criticizing Catholicism. I have met many Catholics strong in the faith.
I converted from Monarchian Pentecostal Protestantism to Orthodox Christianity. I used to believe many lies about the Ecumenical Councils and thought that all "Catholics" were false Christians. I kept removing Traditions and Doctrines from my plate until all I had was drippings and a slice of bread. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (Romans 14:2). Keep your spoon and straw and pass me a fork and knife and the A1. I'm hungry and want it all!
Eusebius was concerned about the unsettled issue of how the Father and the Son were related. Did the Father exist before the Son, as Eusebius believed? Or did the Father and Son coexist? If they co-exist, he asked, how will the Father be Father and the Son be Son? He even supported his belief with Scriptural references, citing John 14:28, which says that the Father is greater than Jesus, and John 17:3, where Jesus is referred to as the one sent forth...
...by the only true God. Alluding to Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1, Eusebius argued that the Logos, or the Word, is the image of the invisible God—Gods Son.
Amazingly, though, at the closing of the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius gave his support to the opposing view. Contrary to his Scriptural stand that God and Christ were not coexisting equals, he went along with the emperor. A Lesson to Be Learned
Why did Eusebius cave in at the Council of Nicaea and support an unscriptural doctrine?...
...Did he have political objectives in mind? Why did he attend the council in the first place? Although all the bishops were summoned, only a fraction—300—actually attended. Was Eusebius perhaps concerned about preserving his social status? And why did Emperor Constantine regard him very highly? Eusebius sat at the right hand of the emperor at the council.
Apparently Eusebius ignored Jesus requirement that His followers be no part of the world. (John 17:16; 18:36) Adulteresses, do you...
...not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? asked the disciple James. (James 4:4) And how appropriate is Pauls admonition: Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers! (2 Corinthians 6:14) May we remain separate from the world as we worship [the Father] with spirit and truth.—John 4:24.
Wikipedia even states in its information that constatine convened the council, and their info is derived from accurate sources in historical evidence, and thus it reads that the council was arranged by him to discuss and fix divisions in the church, to decide if the christ figure should take on the role of being the son of the Father in purpose only or also one in being, is that not dirty? Then lets not mention the 26 or maybe more books that were excluded from the bible, where did that happen?
"Wikipedia even states in its information that constatine convened the council,"
This is correct; he did indeed call the council.
"thus it reads that the council was arranged by him to discuss and fix divisions in the church"
Exactly right; it's important to remember that his concern was not preservation of Orthodoxy (that was the concern of the Bishops) -- his concern, as Emperor, was unity -- which explains why he later attempted to force a reconciliation ... continued ...
between the Arians (whom the council had declared heretics) and the Orthodox.
"to decide if the christ figure should take on the role of being the son of the Father in purpose only or also one in being"
Now, this part is incorrect. It doesn't bare up in history. First, it's important to know what each side believed. The Orthodox position, which the Council's final decrees upheld, is that Christ is the eternal Son of God - equal with him and existing for all eternity alongside him. ...
The Arian position was that Christ was the Son of God -- and they even called him himself by the name "God" just as the Orthodox did -- but that he was a created being (the first of all created beings) -- and therefore not co-eternal and co-equal. The difference between the positions is not nearly as drastic as your statements -- and those of many modern conspiracy theorists -- suggest.
Now, what the Bishops at the Council sought to do in deciding the issue was not to invent anything new --
they didn't, that's easy to figure out -- all you have to do is compare the Faith as expressed by the Council with that expressed by earlier Christians. What they were trying to do -- and did do -- was figure out who had changed their beliefs (the Orthodox or the Arians) and to support those beliefs which were unchanged. They made the obvious choice-- the Orthodox were the ones who clung to the Faith of the Apostles and early Christians. See my list of quotes in my second video in this series.
"Then lets not mention the 26 or maybe more books that were excluded from the bible, where did that happen?"
Not at Nicaea; the Bishops at Nicaea never even discussed the canon of Scripture. But, there's a lot more problems with your statement here than just that. I'll cover a few of them:
1. I assume you're talking about the Gnostic writings, as those are the ones most commonly held out as "forbidden books" or "lost books of the Bible."
Neither of these titles for these books is true. The Gnostics were a Christian heretical sect of the mid-second century -- and their books were never considered scriptural by mainstream Christians. To say that the later Church, whether at Nicaea or not, covered them up or took them out of the Bible or any similar statement is, to put it bluntly, a lie. The Gnostics were a small fringe group with whom mainstream (that is, the Orthodox) Christians did not associate.
2. Modern scholars have confirmed the assertions of the early Christian authors (see espeically St. Irenaeus of Lyons -- who lived in about AD 180, and was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was, in turn, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, a direct disciple of Christ, and who wrote extensively about the Gnostics) -- modern scholars are in agreement that the Gnostic writings, although some of them claim to have been written by Apostles, are later forgeries, continued...
all dating decades if not centuries AFTER the time of the Apostles(which means, decades, if not centuries after the writings contained in the New Testament.
3. See my series of four videos on Scripture; it may interest you, as I explain the development of the New Testament. There were four criteria for the books that eventually went into the New Testament; they had to be Apostolic(that is, written by an Apostle or very close associate of an Apostle),Ancient(dating from the time of the Apostles),
Catholic (in use in the whole Church -- not just some small part of it), and Orthodox (they had to agree with the Faith of the Church as expressed in Tradition and Liturgy. Many writings were not included in the final New Testament we have today that are very acceptable, great writings -- but they weren't written by Apostles or weren't used everywhere in the Church.
4. The canon of the New Testament was the result of a gradual development in the life of the Church -- not a decree by a Council
or Bishop. There's no conspiracy here. The Church (that is, the people in the Church -- both clergy and laity) came to a gradual consensus on the canon of Scripture -- and disagreements about the canon lasted a very long time. Even as late as about the year 1000, some didn't accept the Revelation as part of Scripture. And as late as 1666 there are copies of the Bible in Armenian that contain an additional letter of St. Paul in the New Testament. continued...
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a slightly different New Testament canon even today.
I know that was a lot of stuff, and I apologize if it's a little overwhelming -- please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns -- but I think your statement needs to be addressed with all of this and more because it's, well, wrong -- very wrong. In the end, to summarize, there was no great conspiracy or cover up -- there was an organic process of the Church. continued...
(By the way, you have the Church to thank for preserving many of these so-called "forbidden books" -- far from being "lost" or "destroyed" by the Church many of them were preserved in the libraries of cathedrals and monasteries! -- So much for a conspiracy!
Thank you again for your comments. I hope my statements here helped to clear things up a little for you. Again, please watch my videos on the development of the canon of Scripture -- you will find them very interesting, I'm sure.
So what is the total argument here? Its a good historical recap, but it doesn't subtract from the fact that some dirt was being done in that meeting, by the way where can this same info be found, I would like to put it under my microscope...
The point of these videos is to show that that assertion is entirely baseless. The historical record not only contradicts this claim -- but shows the exact opposite.
"where can this same info be found"
I'll be posting my third and final video in these series in a couple of days and I plan to post links to all of the primary sources for the council in the sidebar there.
Hmm. I'd say that if we're going to believe Eusebius, who was at the council, then Constantine not only presided, but it was he who convinced the council to add "homoousios" to the creed.
Eusebius, in the Life of Constantine III:13, says the emperor gave permission to the bishops to speak, listened to their arguments, then led them to agreement.
Socrates' history records a letter from Eusebius saying it was Constantine who insisted on the insertion of homousios.
Given how important and powerful the Emperor was, I think it is safe to assume he would have had influence. How could you not be influenced by the most powerful man alive sitting right next to you?
However, there is not evidence that he "dictated" the actions of the council. In fairness, he was probably involved in a way similar to the way the Vice President "presides" over the US Senate. (ie: hold a gavel, pose for some pictures, but only really get involved when a tie-vote needs to be broken)
thekingmaker has it right here, and that's what I intended. If I made it seem that he had no part at all in the Council, this is false and I apologize. He certainly did.
On homoousios: It was St. Ossius of Cordoba who first suggested it, and pursuaded Constantine to accept it (remember, he was Constantine's person theological advisor), and Constantine then insisted on its being in the Creed.
I think you mischaracterize the passage you cite here when you say that he "gave permission" to them.
"As soon as the emperor had spoken these words in the Latin tongue, which another interpreted, he GAVE PERMISSION to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions."
I don't think I was mischaracterizing. I think I was quoting word for word.
Constantine certainly had a part in the Council, but it was not as President (as that was Ossius) and it was certainly not as dictator. And, as far as the primary documents indicate, he himself didn't think up anything on his own -- the Bishops proposed and he helped lead the discussions.
His role was more along the lines of mediator -- which makes sense, as he could be considered a "third party" at this point, not being a Bishop nor even having been Baptized as of that time.
What it says is that he gave permission to "those who presided at the council to deliver their opinions." This, first of all, indicates he didn't preside, obviously. And, secondly, is not the same as saying he gave the Bishops permission to speak in the discussion (as Eusebius records, a "violent controversy" happened after the readings), but that he had each side of the issue present their respective perspectives on it, something like the mediator in a standardized debate.
I actually agree with you that his role was like the mediator in a standardized debate. However, the video says, "Nor was he involved in the actual decision making."
I like the Council of Nicea's creed. I think it accurately represents what the Church believed. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Tertullian's Praxeas, Athenagoras' Plea; they all teach the same thing.
But Constantine was very involved in the decision making of the council.
What I was intending to say is that he himself didn't actually propose any of the ideas or concepts. He did, though, lead the Bishops in the discussion of what they had proposed and probably, if for no other reason than human nature, toward those that he preferred, although I would say that these preferences were largely determined by the advice he received from Ossius.
I think it's important to keep in mind the respective personalities and agendas of Eusebius and Constantine, which, in turn, affected Eusebius' reliability and Constantine's role.
1. Eusebius was both deeply impressed with the person of Constantine and deeply disturbed by the rejection of Arian theology at Nicaea and found it difficult to reconcile these two facts; he was also prideful, which make it even more difficult (see, for instance, his letter to this flock from the Council). cont...
:-) I like Eusebius' letter. I think he was worried the council went too far in appeasing bishops that leaned toward modalism. The Athanasian Creed, less than 4 decades later, is a mix of orthodoxy and modalism. The RCC and Protestants still hold to that scripturally unjustifiable error today.
I thought an Orthodox believer would be more prone to agreeing with Eusebius' "semi-Arianism."
I think that both are heresies that put us into dangerous territory. Arianism, Eusebius' semi-Arianism, Modalism, and Western Christianity's semi-Modalism are all distortions of the Truth. One (Arianism) is the result of too much emphasis on the diversity of Persons in the Trinity; the other (Modalism) is the result of too much emphasis on the unity of the Persons in the Trinity.
I completely agree with your comments on Modalism and Western Christians' espousal of it.
2. Constantine wasn't a Bishop, a theologian or even, for that matter, an interested laymember of the Church (at that point). He was the Emperor; his interest wasn't in orthodoxy but in unity. Notice how much Eusebius says the Emperor tried to lead the Bishops to "agreement." He seems to have gotten this agreement at the Council itself, but there also seems to have been a lot of "buyer's remorse" on the part of the Arians after the Council (remember, even Eusebius of Nicomedia, continued...
Arianism's biggest voice in the hierarchy, signed the Council's decrees). It's significant that Constantine later attempted to force the Orthodox to reconcile with the Arians and even to readmit Arius to communion.
You bring up some great points though, and I appreciate your comments here. Thank you!
Another great video! The Zeitgeist claims spurn from theosophical teachings of luciferian Helena P. Blavatsky and her disciple Alice Ann Bailey, to whose writings, the makers of Zeitgeist (Peter Joseph, Jordan Maxwell, Acharya S) admittedly adhere to, while partaking in spiritism and promoting other luciferian doctrines in order to do anything to brainwash people into their New World Order one-state of mind.
Exactly; sick lies that they are using just to promote their own agenda. It's amazing how nobody checks the sources! Zeitgeist relies on the fact that people won't check their sources, which they have posted on their website. If you look at them, they're citing "messages from spirits" "received" by Blavatsky and her ilk as if these were real historical and researched facts. It seems everyone wants to question Christianity but no one questions those who question it. It's amazing really.
Great! I'll check out your videos. If you want, I'd be very happy to have you post one or a few of them as responses to this video so that people can go to them for the real source documents.
What amazes me most about all of these myths is how easily debunked they are. It only took me about an hour to compile all the info for these videos (I knew where to look, of course, and most people don't). I wish people would open a book more often and do a little research; it's not very difficult!
@davidpwithun Could you please reference what resources were used and from where you directly take your quotes. It is always important to reference other people's work. Thank you, I enjoyed your video.
I have a series of videos reading out the documents of Nicea as a nice complement to debunkings of the myths about the council. Far too many people take someone's word for it (that agrees with their prejudice) that it must have been some conspiracy against "what Jesus intended" and betrayal of the Gospel. What better way to justify one's rejection of organized religion than to say it was all a big corporate scandal, essentially.
stop calling constantine a saint he wasnt
robZzdaboss 2 weeks ago
@robZzdaboss Ever heard of King David, you puritan?
NicholasMyra 2 weeks ago
Purple Robe - Gold And Precious stones - where did i hear that before - ohyea - The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
robZzdaboss 2 weeks ago
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
yungthirst617 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
yungthirst617 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
yungthirst617 1 month ago
Muslims Vs The Zionist Last World War to take over and Establish the New World order Without God...Islam is the Only thing stopping them from achieving these evil goals...They the elites/freemasons will decieve mankind and call for the slaughter of all muslims and war will start and the ones left behind will have to submit to the new world order..Both muslims and zionist will destroy eachother causing global destruction of money and Goverment to fall... WAKE UP ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!
yungthirst617 1 month ago
Did Constantine promise excommunication for "no" votes? If so would this not be duress?
garyarthurs 2 months ago
So when it comes to faith, the eyes have it?
tuin103 4 months ago
Why do you mention repeatedly the word pope? This is a later invention of Roman Catholic Church. The concept is found no where in the NT or the early Christian church. There was no universal bishop over the Christian church at the council of Nicaea. Other than that the video is pretty good.
Surfxeo 5 months ago 4
THROUGH ALL OF THIS YOU GUYS TRY TO DESTROY THE WORD OF GOD AND ALIENATE PEOPLE FROM GOD.
bodoarca 5 months ago
but why and when the denominations appeared? Was that from God? the apostles clearly stated to run from the discussions that would bring division among believers.
bodoarca 5 months ago
This is the catholic version of the story. There is far more about this than he will let you know, that is if he knows it. Research WHY they they held the council in the first place. Example, one thing they hide is "how many god(s) is there?". At this time 1,2,3,7,13,ect... god(s) depending where you lived. Yes most believed in one at this time. Christianity was being hijacked by pagan converts who were bringing their paganism into the church. There is far more reasons! RESEARCH!
onemarktwoyou 5 months ago
Dude! Change you smoke alarm battery...it's driving me nuts!! Good vid!!
bodom71 5 months ago
...never trust the white man..this dude is white, so he is a liar by default
rugssean 5 months ago
Is it true that Saint Nicholas of myra,better known as Santa Claus was at the nicaean council
umaara100 6 months ago
@ambrosiusamadeus No, they don't unfortunately; there probably were no transcripts made even at the time. There are several firsthand accounts that survive, however, such as that by Eusebius of Caesarea (Arian) and St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Orthodox). The canons of the Council as well as the Creed drawn up by the Council both survive in full as well.
davidpwithun 7 months ago
@davidpwithun I think most of the guys on Athanasius's side were reluctant to take up homoousian theology because it was what Gnostics (who were opposed by the early church) taught. Arius further showed his Biblical evidence to support his doctrine but the church still decided against it. Afterwards, the Arians were driven out. But in 336, were welcomed back when Constantine converted to Arianism and he would be baptized by the Arian Eusebius in 337.
Danielezerable 6 months ago
Thank God for these video especially this one. This is soo clarified to the slander suppositions that I read and heard about. This video really cleared out the cobwebs in my mind.
february17able 11 months ago
christianty used to control and inslave africans, are we even african , africa was named by racist romans white lies rule the world and arab lies early gangs with blood on their hands
MrAlhaji1 11 months ago
@MrAlhaji1 That's historically incorrect. I suggest that you do your research and stop saying silly things like this.
davidpwithun 11 months ago
@MrAlhaji1 Many people have been oppressed by the patriarchy including whites. if you want to find a conspiracy against blacks listen to some hip hop.
MrDeatheater4life 6 months ago
@MrAlhaji1 You're absolutely right my brotha. ALL religions hav Ancient Kemetic origins. The very first GREAT civilization to hav ever existed was settled in the land of Kemet. NOTE: This was several centries BEFORE christianity, judaism, ISLAM and all religion period. Hotep! Hav u heard of Dr. Ray Hagins?
mellobassman 5 months ago
@MrAlhaji1 Don't worry about the author's comment. I completely understand your point, and I myself am a devout catholic. You speak of truth at it's heart, a truth that the common era today does not seem capable of understanding as a whole. Racism and prejudice preside forever.. May God have mercy.
Waacm 1 month ago
@Waacm check out what Jesus said in Matthew 23:6-13.
verse 9 and 10:
9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.
***
Do you call anyone in your religion "Father"? Can such a thing affect one's mind? The way someone gathers information about God? Note verse 13:
“Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men;
Uenbg 2 days ago
@MrAlhaji1
African slavery was started, financed and fully supported by Africans.
It was common for one African ethnic group (Tribe) to capture slaves from another group (Tribe) and sell them to the Arabs.
If you want some wisdom on the subject just study the history of the Hutus and the Tutsis.
The truth is that White slave traders were very rare, and most of them came from Holland.
hammerogod 1 week ago
christianty used to control and inslave africans, are we even africans africans were inslaved by the romans
MrAlhaji1 11 months ago
christianty used to control and inslave africans
MrAlhaji1 11 months ago
Excellent work!
evangpastor 1 year ago
Wow...how does one measure godly fear
coleon8 1 year ago
You most likely would of burned poor pagans at the stake too.
louisianahhh 1 year ago
Amazing vid David. You present an argument and then maintain the high level of that argument. Just an amazing presentation.
XDragasesX 1 year ago
Why should we bother with the Protestant heretics? I am tired of talking with them. Most of them are both spiritually and intellectually dishonest, and lack the mental firepower to come to the truth of the Christian faith.
FishEaster 1 year ago
@FishEaster I follow the one true faith,. I can't remember, just for the moment exactly which one it is. Statistically it's probably one of the Abrahamic ones. I've got it written down somewhere. I'll ask my sister, she remembers this sort of stuff. The point is I know it's true.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Dude reading is sure pissed off.
WNDC 1 year ago
It should be know myth or confusion as to the true origins of Christianity's so-called
Holy Trinity. Why does the people raise things up as being Holy and Divine when
they have no authority from non but themselves ? But there is a book from God that corrects this type of behavior and offers forgiveness for those who have done this. But will any, but those who already know, believe, now that you
have proof that the so-called Holy Trinity is not from God or from Jesus Christ
whom God has sent ?
THEEBIGWEBBLOC 1 year ago
Religion is a reflection man's inability to believe in himself.
raydar878 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Second Council of Constaintanople in A.D. 543 *did* make amazing changes to the "original" biblical text.
PS: There was more than one Council of Niceae, not just the now famous "First" Council.
(I hope none use Wikipedia for research, its mistakes are ubiquitious, particularly concerning hermeneutics.)
deedee2244 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Second Council of Constaintanople in A.D. 543 *did* make amazing changes to the "original" biblical text.
PS: There was more than one Council of Niceae, not just now famous "First" Council.~~
(I hope none would use Wikipedia in research, its mistakes are ubiquitious.) ~~Pardon spelling if mistake, English second language. Love to all, Daraby
deedee2244 1 year ago
Nice job, but please pronounce "countenance," not "continence." Also, Fayarin is technically correct. Arius had no problem with *language of divinity refering to Christ, as long as it was qualified by his doctrine that the Son had a beginning in time. In other words, Arius did not think that "God" meant "that which has no beginning in time."
tfromfkajb 1 year ago
Wow. Every video I come across about this topic on youtube is either propaganda by Christians or Muslims. Fail.
Fayarin 1 year ago
@Fayarin If anything I said in this series of videos is incorrect, please offer your corrections.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Well, you do make some valid points i.e. the biblical canon. But in the last segment, on the arian controversy, you start making assumptions. I can make a video in which I can make assumptions and pose the answer, I don't think that's fair.
Fayarin 1 year ago
@Fayarin What assumptions did I make?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Moreover, Jesus divinity was a hot topic. Discussed for many years. Arius merely was a spokesman of this position. Arianism was liable and an important enough issue to be debated. When one views the history of the Catholic church - the new dogma's and frequent apologies for older 'misinterpretations' - in my view, it must be seen as a fair debate, which illustrated a vivid contemporary conflict.
Fayarin 1 year ago
@Fayarin His relation to the Father was a hot topic; his divinity itself wasn't so much -- the Ebionites and Adoptionists (the only early movements I can think of which denied Christ's inherent divinity) were fairly small movements and were generally unrelated to Arianism.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Really? the emperor was humble before the bishops? In all his gold and glitter?ha right!. When did Mickey Mouse show up with Bambi at his side? You ever think maybe the writer didn't want him and his family mutlilated by the Emperor? Did you ever hear of propaganda?
And this all gave birth to a religon that protects pedophiles!!!!! Is that part of God's plan? Great Plan!!!! Way to go!!!
Lombokstrait1 1 year ago
@Lombokstrait1 You are clearly open to new ideas arent you? The Christian faith is open to all who truly repent of all their sins however heinious they may seem to us-For God so loved the World, He gave His Only Begotten Son
Paul020253 1 year ago
Good job debunking myths concerning this Council. The myths are seized upon by cultists and peddlers of mythical idiocy to forward their agendas!
msm1876 1 year ago
Seems like every time someone brings the truth about christianity,someone tries to give an excuse.The fact is ,no matter how many suffered,the council did decide if Jesus was or wasnt a God.And he wasnt.
mandelajustice 1 year ago
@mandelajustice 1. Actually, I covered that in these videos. The Council did not decide whether Jesus is God or not. It defined what his relationship is to God the Father. The Arians, who "lost" at the Council, still believed that Christ is God, but not "quite as God" as the Father is. Both sides said "Christ is God' --it was their understanding of that phrase that differed. 2. Whether or not he is in fact God is a matter of Faith. That's not something I can prove one way or the ...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun That is absolutely false! Arius teachings are VERY clear on this. He declares that the Son and Father are not of the same substance: "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing." Arius sees Jesus as the highest being, NOT as god.
Fayarin 1 year ago
@Fayarin Actually, Arius was willing to refer to Christ as "our God" (as we were created through him) -- just not "the God."
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@mandelajustice other. What can be said with absolute certainty, historically speaking, is that Christ claimed to be God, his followers believed he was God (and died for that claim), and that the Council of Nicaea only affirmed what Christians had always believed -- that Christ is God, co-substantial, co-eternal, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun - no one is equal to GOD.
mandelajustice 1 year ago
@mandelajustice Yes, that's true. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Holy Trinity; and nobody is equal to God. :)
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@mandelajustice @mandelajustice Yes, that's true. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Holy Trinity; and nobody is equal to God. :)
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun What God means is the Son is NOT equal to the Father as in (John 14:28) "My Father is greater than ." Moreover, the Son slept while God never sleeps as in (Psalm 11:4) "Behold, he that keepth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." In addition, the Son was tempted by satan for forty days in (Luke 4:1-13), BUT in (James 1:13) "...for God cannot be tempted with evil..." So, how can the Son be equal with God?
FactualVSFictional 1 year ago
@davidpwithun It is impossible to understand a compound God.
k0smon 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Matt. 24:36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Can you explain that to me? If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not? And, how many times is "Trinity" mentioned in the Bible?
sobefobik 1 year ago
The Bible is pretty clear on Jesus' divinity. ie:
"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty GOD, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." -Isaiah 9:6
There's also John 1:1. Christ willingly gave up divine knowledge, but he was one in essence with God. "Trinity" is merely a newer word used to describe a doctrine that has existed since the time of the apostles.
n8n8n8n8n8n8n8n8n8n8 1 year ago
Hosius of Cordova presided over this Council.
Apologist117 2 years ago
@Apologist117
Yes, he did. I said that at 0:44
:)
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Yeah a Spanish saint, in orthodoxy.
designedsayer 2 years ago
There's quite a few if you're able to go far enough back in time :)
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Quite a few? there's a bunch of Spanish saints, like Theodosius the Great who made Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire.
The Spanish converted so many people to Christianity that it's just amazing to me.
This emperor was even born in my Great Grandpa's town of Seville.
The Orthodox Church is Roman.
designedsayer 2 years ago
The Orthodox Church is even Spanish, Thanks to Theodosius the Great, The Hispalensis.
designedsayer 2 years ago
Nice video. The Nicean Council is 4 me fine. Jesus is YHWH. Arius was both a heretic & antichrist. His views have taken millions 2 Hell. Islam, JW's & CoG are related. Jesus bless u.
wjuler 2 years ago
@wjuler St Nicolas gave Arius the smackdown. (Literally!). He got tired of hearing his nonsense and smacked him. St. Nicolas was thrown in jail and had his office stripped. Then Jesus and Mary came to him and restored his office back when he was in his jail cell. Other people saw that miracle.
NewVinland 2 years ago
Thank you for this most helpful video. I will watch the other parts with great interest. Would that the readers of books like Richard E. Rubenstein's WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD would be viewers as well. Would that Prof Rubenstein would do the same.
AKhomiakov 2 years ago
The ancient Christian creeds are a gift from our fathers. Many Pentecostals I meet tell me that "You don't believe in the Holy Spirit" and I tell them that the Holy Spirit of the Church is "The Lord, the giver of life".....And this was the true belief of the Christian faith and not the shallow "force" as portrayed by these modern heretics. The richness of our faith is beyond measure. TY for this video, God Bless...
rowanrox 2 years ago 5
Amen to that. Thank you for this comment.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@rowanrox Pentecostalism is Gnosticism....heresy and spirit of the Anti-christ...
clarkbailey1973 1 year ago
@clarkbailey1973 Well in a certain way it is....I must agree...but it has more to it that that ancient faith...
rowanrox 1 year ago
@rowanrox are you saying that Pentecostalism is more ancient than Orthodox?
clarkbailey1973 1 year ago
@clarkbailey1973 Now I truly understand why there are more than 38,000 different Christian Sects. So many twists, turns, views, misconceptions, of such proportions it is mind boggling!!
God is the energy within that causes the atom, that energy that holds all things together, to create this illusion we call life, the illusion of Matter, Energy, Space, Time. Our mission is to wake up!! Stop killing, destroying, manipulating this energy that holds all things together. WE ARE ALL CONNECTED,
chakrachaser 1 year ago 3
Islam derives a lot of its knowledge of Christianity from early Traditions, but it ignores the most ancient traditions that are closest to the source, oddly enough (Paul's letters especially, which Muhammad seems completely unaware of). Muslims are aware of the belief in the sinlessness of Mary and the infancy gospels, but seem confused about the Trinity, even though this was well articulated centuries before Muhammad
XSC3 2 years ago 2
I only asked if he was a Muslim, because if so, we'd have to believe an even more "suspicious" story about Christian origins (that Jesus was whisked away to heaven and immediately his followers "forgot" the message and turned him into a God and corrupted "the Gospel" and God allowed all this and waited six centuries for Muhammad, a sinful man who wrought no miracles, to come along and correct it (and needed to use the sword to do so)
XSC3 2 years ago
ur wastin ur time bro.. Jesus was not alone.. there were hundreds of thousands of prophets before him who came to preach about the God, who has no one like him, who wasnt born of anyone, nor was anyone born of him.. and like all of them Jesus was a prophet ONLY.
DontfearNoMan 2 years ago
Right, and your words are Gospel and I'm supposed to believe them simply because you said it. Believing that Christ is God is a matter of Faith, so it's useless to argue it. The historical facts, though, state that the earliest Christians, including the Apostles who knew Christ personally, all believed that he was the Incarnation of God and were willing to die horrible deaths in defense of this claim. Take it for what you will.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
and ur simply believing the words of who ? mathew ? and paul ? who the helll was paul ? he was no one.. infact he was an enemy of the ones who believed in God. no i didnt say Jesus. i said God.. the one Jesus was preaching about..n ur saying that Jesus`s apostles wouldnt have died for Jesus knowing that he was Gods profit ? anyways its too late now.. Jesus( a prophet of God) has been turned into a man god by Romans (they had men god by da way).. n u believe in it.. so too bad for u.
DontfearNoMan 2 years ago
So you admit, then, that you have no historical evidence for your rediculous claim? Just say it; don't be afraid to really embrace your position, no matter how absurd.
And, yes, I believe the words of Matthew, Peter, James and John (who all personally knew Christ) as well as Luke, Mark, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, Paul, and Barnabas (who all knew people who personally knew Christ).
I believe the historical evidence. There's not a single dissenting voice in early Christianity.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Given that argument, do you believe David Koresh was the son of God? The historical facts state that Koresh's followers, who knew him personally, alll believed that he was the Incarnation of God and were willing to die horrible deaths in defense of this claim. Would you seriously say that it is a "matter of faith" and pointless to argue with someone who does believe in the divinity of David Koresh?
tillnow67 2 years ago
There's a big difference though. David Koresh's followers died because of their belief in a claim he made. Christ's followers died because they said that they had seen him come back from the dead. If dozens of people were willing to die because they refused to recant their testimony that they had seen David Koresh raise from the dead, well, it'd be something worth investigating. But that's not the case with Koresh; it is with Christ. Very different types of claims.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Would you die for christ? Did you see him ressurected? Do you believe all amazing stories you hear that are thousands of years old and not even recorded by the original people who claimed it happened?
You religious nuts just dont understand how brainwashed you all are. All religions use occultic tactics and all take a nut job to believe in them... Koresh or Jesus, its all the same bullshit.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
1. Yes, I would die for Christ -- at least I pray for the strength that would allow me to do so -- and I do each day at the hands of people like yourself.
2. Actually, most of the New Testament is written by people who did see the resurrected Christ -- Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and James were all firsthand witnesses. Mark and Luke both were close companions of firsthand witnesses (in Mark's case, Peter; in Luke's case, Paul). I suggest you do some historical research for yourself.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
So we have the original accounts, not copies from these first hand witnesses. Learn to read, I said not RECORDED by the original people who claimed it happened..... Brainwashing tactics make your mind selectively add or subtract from what you are reading.... Do you believe all second hand crazy stories?
Im seeing a resemblance to you and Koresh all the time.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Um... are you sure you understood what I said? Apparently you're the one who selectively reads other people's words. I made quite clear that Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and James (whose writings make up the majority of the New Testament) were all firsthand (that means not secondhand, in case you didn't know) witnesses of the resurrected Christ.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Christianity.... The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie, who was His own father, can make you live forever if you eat crackers and wine (that then turn into His flesh) while telepathically telling Him that you accept Him as your Master so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat the forbidden fruit of a magical tree.... Yeah, it just makes sense.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Wow, you have a stunning lack of knowledge about Christian belief and practice. If you'd like to learn more about the Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, please let me know. My e-mail is in the sidebar at the right. If not, please cease posting such inane and ignorant comments. My advice to you is to at least learn about Christianity so that people will take you at least a little seriously when you attempt to criticize it. Right now, all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Please enlighten me on what I do not understand about xianity so that I will not burn in hell forever. What a great moral teacher jesus is huh.... Do you seriously think anyone deserves to be tortured forever?
Also, please cite the peer review article that says the new testament was LITTERALLY written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....
Brainwashing, how crazy it makes people sound, never ceases to amaze me. Really, its kind of sad, but a little interesting and entertaining as well.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
1. Again you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian belief with your inane comments about the nature of hell. Hell is not a literal fiery place of torment. Hell is the pain ("burning") of eternal rebellion against God -- it is being in the presence of God and yet rejecting him. It is a chosen state of being, due to self-will and self-love.
2. On the authorship of the Gospels, see John A.T. Robinson, Jaroslav Pelikan, B.C. Butler, and John Wenham, amongst others.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
That is a nice watered down interpretation of the bible. If the fire metaphors are just metaphors then what else is metaphor? Jesus actually being god? Original sin? Why doesnt the bible come out with it, why beat around the bush?
The question still stands though, does anyone DESERVE to feel pain forever? Why would god allow that? If he allows it because its just, than he is sick. If it isnt just and he allows it than he is not all powerful.
Thanks for the authors, I will have a look.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Actually, it's the original interpretation of the Bible; not watered down at all. The Fathers of the Church, those men who gave us the Bible, were the ones who interpreted it this way -- it is the original interpretation. And it's not as "metaphorical" as you might think -- English translations, done by Protestants whose ideas of hell derive more from pagan influence than from ancient Christianity, consistently mistranslate verses in the Bible about hell. You might be very interested to read
davidpwithun 2 years ago
the article "RIver of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros. If you type "river of fire" into Google, it should be the first thing that pops up.
Also, the ancient Christians didn't believe in original sin either -- that's another later Western invention. That one specifically began with Augustine of Hippo, who carried over many of his earlier Gnostic (pagan Platonic) beliefs into this Christian writings. So, nope, no original sin either.
As for why God would allow this pain: the real question should
davidpwithun 2 years ago
be why any man would choose to stand in eternal rejection of God. God doesn't want man to suffer -- he wants us all to experience his love and to love him in return; but neither does he violate our free will, as coerced or forced love is not really love at all. Robots can be taught to show affection -- but that's not love, it's not chosen.
C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce" is a great allegory that explains all of this very well.
I hope I was able to help a little. Thanks for the comments
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@DontfearNoMan are you a Muslim?
XSC3 2 years ago
yea.
DontfearNoMan 2 years ago
Look kids at the end of the day YOU have to decide what your faith is and what it isn't. Don't let others do it for you. Don't inherit your religion, believe in it.
InIJah 2 years ago
Constantine is the rock behind Christainity. He and Eusebius manipulated the council. They ignored the belief by Jesus brother James that he was a great prophet and not God.
SittingBullswar 2 years ago
If this is the case, then please present ANY historical evidence that this is so. You can't, of course. By the way, Eusebius was on the losing side at the council (the Arian side), which makes your statement even more preposterous. Also, Christ's brother James had been dead for almost 300 years by the time of the Council, which makes it difficult to say that anyone at the Council would have even known even had James held to this belief, which he didn't.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@davidpwithun
Quick question, you called James the Brother of Christ, but in Orthodox Christianity you guys believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary right?
That means you believe the brother in the more Semitic use of the term, which is more like relative.
I'm just clarifying, not trying to debate or anything. I had read several Orthodox articles on it, I just didn't know if some have differing opinions in the church.
SuperJoseph1987 2 years ago
Good question. Yes, we do believe in the ever-virginity of Mary. The Orthodox generally go by the oldest traditions, such as those contained in the Infancy Gospel of James (written around the year 150), that the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the Gospels and other ancient sources are St. Joseph's children through his first wife, as he was a widower.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@SittingBullswar where is the evidence that James, the brother of the Lord, believed that Jesus was only a mortal prophet and not God?
James didn't even believe that Jesus was a prophet until after the resurrection. According to Paul, the risen Jesus appeared to James, hence we can imagine he was converted the same way Paul was (though Paul's was more dramatic, because he was actively persecuting the disciples and hadn't met Jesus prior to this that we know of). But Paul met Peter and James
XSC3 2 years ago
Thank you so much for this video! I've seen a lot of falsehoods put out on YouTube by heretical groups like the Mormons etc.
Lutheran84 2 years ago
Comment removed
Grambo4 2 years ago
It is a shame more people are not familiar with the impact this council had. Some of this I have never heard and must look into. Whatever the truth, protestants waste their time criticizing Catholicism. I have met many Catholics strong in the faith.
meypole 2 years ago
I converted from Monarchian Pentecostal Protestantism to Orthodox Christianity. I used to believe many lies about the Ecumenical Councils and thought that all "Catholics" were false Christians. I kept removing Traditions and Doctrines from my plate until all I had was drippings and a slice of bread. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (Romans 14:2). Keep your spoon and straw and pass me a fork and knife and the A1. I'm hungry and want it all!
Tov0voT 2 years ago 10
I'm with you all the way on that. Thanks for this comment!
(My wife was raised Pentecostal as well and converted to Orthodoxy along with me; very interesting, if difficult, transition sometimes)
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@Tov0voT Amazing:-)
jmkora 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tov0voT 2 years ago
A Lover of Truth?
Eusebius was concerned about the unsettled issue of how the Father and the Son were related. Did the Father exist before the Son, as Eusebius believed? Or did the Father and Son coexist? If they co-exist, he asked, how will the Father be Father and the Son be Son? He even supported his belief with Scriptural references, citing John 14:28, which says that the Father is greater than Jesus, and John 17:3, where Jesus is referred to as the one sent forth...
JWinCT 2 years ago 2
...by the only true God. Alluding to Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1, Eusebius argued that the Logos, or the Word, is the image of the invisible God—Gods Son.
Amazingly, though, at the closing of the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius gave his support to the opposing view. Contrary to his Scriptural stand that God and Christ were not coexisting equals, he went along with the emperor. A Lesson to Be Learned
Why did Eusebius cave in at the Council of Nicaea and support an unscriptural doctrine?...
JWinCT 2 years ago
...Did he have political objectives in mind? Why did he attend the council in the first place? Although all the bishops were summoned, only a fraction—300—actually attended. Was Eusebius perhaps concerned about preserving his social status? And why did Emperor Constantine regard him very highly? Eusebius sat at the right hand of the emperor at the council.
Apparently Eusebius ignored Jesus requirement that His followers be no part of the world. (John 17:16; 18:36) Adulteresses, do you...
JWinCT 2 years ago
Comment removed
JWinCT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? asked the disciple James. (James 4:4) And how appropriate is Pauls admonition: Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers! (2 Corinthians 6:14) May we remain separate from the world as we worship [the Father] with spirit and truth.—John 4:24.
JWinCT 2 years ago
Who said Eusebius (of Nicomedia, I assume?) was a lover of truth? I'm just a little confused about who or what you're responding to here...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Wikipedia even states in its information that constatine convened the council, and their info is derived from accurate sources in historical evidence, and thus it reads that the council was arranged by him to discuss and fix divisions in the church, to decide if the christ figure should take on the role of being the son of the Father in purpose only or also one in being, is that not dirty? Then lets not mention the 26 or maybe more books that were excluded from the bible, where did that happen?
thalategreat 2 years ago
"Wikipedia even states in its information that constatine convened the council,"
This is correct; he did indeed call the council.
"thus it reads that the council was arranged by him to discuss and fix divisions in the church"
Exactly right; it's important to remember that his concern was not preservation of Orthodoxy (that was the concern of the Bishops) -- his concern, as Emperor, was unity -- which explains why he later attempted to force a reconciliation ... continued ...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
between the Arians (whom the council had declared heretics) and the Orthodox.
"to decide if the christ figure should take on the role of being the son of the Father in purpose only or also one in being"
Now, this part is incorrect. It doesn't bare up in history. First, it's important to know what each side believed. The Orthodox position, which the Council's final decrees upheld, is that Christ is the eternal Son of God - equal with him and existing for all eternity alongside him. ...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
The Arian position was that Christ was the Son of God -- and they even called him himself by the name "God" just as the Orthodox did -- but that he was a created being (the first of all created beings) -- and therefore not co-eternal and co-equal. The difference between the positions is not nearly as drastic as your statements -- and those of many modern conspiracy theorists -- suggest.
Now, what the Bishops at the Council sought to do in deciding the issue was not to invent anything new --
davidpwithun 2 years ago
they didn't, that's easy to figure out -- all you have to do is compare the Faith as expressed by the Council with that expressed by earlier Christians. What they were trying to do -- and did do -- was figure out who had changed their beliefs (the Orthodox or the Arians) and to support those beliefs which were unchanged. They made the obvious choice-- the Orthodox were the ones who clung to the Faith of the Apostles and early Christians. See my list of quotes in my second video in this series.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
"Then lets not mention the 26 or maybe more books that were excluded from the bible, where did that happen?"
Not at Nicaea; the Bishops at Nicaea never even discussed the canon of Scripture. But, there's a lot more problems with your statement here than just that. I'll cover a few of them:
1. I assume you're talking about the Gnostic writings, as those are the ones most commonly held out as "forbidden books" or "lost books of the Bible."
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Neither of these titles for these books is true. The Gnostics were a Christian heretical sect of the mid-second century -- and their books were never considered scriptural by mainstream Christians. To say that the later Church, whether at Nicaea or not, covered them up or took them out of the Bible or any similar statement is, to put it bluntly, a lie. The Gnostics were a small fringe group with whom mainstream (that is, the Orthodox) Christians did not associate.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
2. Modern scholars have confirmed the assertions of the early Christian authors (see espeically St. Irenaeus of Lyons -- who lived in about AD 180, and was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was, in turn, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, a direct disciple of Christ, and who wrote extensively about the Gnostics) -- modern scholars are in agreement that the Gnostic writings, although some of them claim to have been written by Apostles, are later forgeries, continued...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
all dating decades if not centuries AFTER the time of the Apostles(which means, decades, if not centuries after the writings contained in the New Testament.
3. See my series of four videos on Scripture; it may interest you, as I explain the development of the New Testament. There were four criteria for the books that eventually went into the New Testament; they had to be Apostolic(that is, written by an Apostle or very close associate of an Apostle),Ancient(dating from the time of the Apostles),
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Catholic (in use in the whole Church -- not just some small part of it), and Orthodox (they had to agree with the Faith of the Church as expressed in Tradition and Liturgy. Many writings were not included in the final New Testament we have today that are very acceptable, great writings -- but they weren't written by Apostles or weren't used everywhere in the Church.
4. The canon of the New Testament was the result of a gradual development in the life of the Church -- not a decree by a Council
davidpwithun 2 years ago
or Bishop. There's no conspiracy here. The Church (that is, the people in the Church -- both clergy and laity) came to a gradual consensus on the canon of Scripture -- and disagreements about the canon lasted a very long time. Even as late as about the year 1000, some didn't accept the Revelation as part of Scripture. And as late as 1666 there are copies of the Bible in Armenian that contain an additional letter of St. Paul in the New Testament. continued...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a slightly different New Testament canon even today.
I know that was a lot of stuff, and I apologize if it's a little overwhelming -- please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns -- but I think your statement needs to be addressed with all of this and more because it's, well, wrong -- very wrong. In the end, to summarize, there was no great conspiracy or cover up -- there was an organic process of the Church. continued...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
(By the way, you have the Church to thank for preserving many of these so-called "forbidden books" -- far from being "lost" or "destroyed" by the Church many of them were preserved in the libraries of cathedrals and monasteries! -- So much for a conspiracy!
Thank you again for your comments. I hope my statements here helped to clear things up a little for you. Again, please watch my videos on the development of the canon of Scripture -- you will find them very interesting, I'm sure.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
So what is the total argument here? Its a good historical recap, but it doesn't subtract from the fact that some dirt was being done in that meeting, by the way where can this same info be found, I would like to put it under my microscope...
thalategreat 2 years ago
"some dirt was being done in that meeting"
The point of these videos is to show that that assertion is entirely baseless. The historical record not only contradicts this claim -- but shows the exact opposite.
"where can this same info be found"
I'll be posting my third and final video in these series in a couple of days and I plan to post links to all of the primary sources for the council in the sidebar there.
Thanks for the comments.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
thanks these are some wonderful videos, well presented.
tbayou 2 years ago
Thank you very much!
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Context FTW! lol
ncs901 2 years ago
Another excellent video!
TheProtomartyr 2 years ago
Thank you very much. :)
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Hmm. I'd say that if we're going to believe Eusebius, who was at the council, then Constantine not only presided, but it was he who convinced the council to add "homoousios" to the creed.
Eusebius, in the Life of Constantine III:13, says the emperor gave permission to the bishops to speak, listened to their arguments, then led them to agreement.
Socrates' history records a letter from Eusebius saying it was Constantine who insisted on the insertion of homousios.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Given how important and powerful the Emperor was, I think it is safe to assume he would have had influence. How could you not be influenced by the most powerful man alive sitting right next to you?
However, there is not evidence that he "dictated" the actions of the council. In fairness, he was probably involved in a way similar to the way the Vice President "presides" over the US Senate. (ie: hold a gavel, pose for some pictures, but only really get involved when a tie-vote needs to be broken)
thekingmaker10 2 years ago
thekingmaker has it right here, and that's what I intended. If I made it seem that he had no part at all in the Council, this is false and I apologize. He certainly did.
On homoousios: It was St. Ossius of Cordoba who first suggested it, and pursuaded Constantine to accept it (remember, he was Constantine's person theological advisor), and Constantine then insisted on its being in the Creed.
I think you mischaracterize the passage you cite here when you say that he "gave permission" to them.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
The exact quote is:
"As soon as the emperor had spoken these words in the Latin tongue, which another interpreted, he GAVE PERMISSION to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions."
I don't think I was mischaracterizing. I think I was quoting word for word.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Shoot. I should have read your reply better. Sorry.
I got focused on "mischaracterize" and defended myself. I agree that Constantine got homoousios from others.
I was only objecting to what you just apologized for. I should have caught your apology. Sorry.
shammahbn 2 years ago
I gotcha. ;) No worries here.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Constantine certainly had a part in the Council, but it was not as President (as that was Ossius) and it was certainly not as dictator. And, as far as the primary documents indicate, he himself didn't think up anything on his own -- the Bishops proposed and he helped lead the discussions.
His role was more along the lines of mediator -- which makes sense, as he could be considered a "third party" at this point, not being a Bishop nor even having been Baptized as of that time.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
What it says is that he gave permission to "those who presided at the council to deliver their opinions." This, first of all, indicates he didn't preside, obviously. And, secondly, is not the same as saying he gave the Bishops permission to speak in the discussion (as Eusebius records, a "violent controversy" happened after the readings), but that he had each side of the issue present their respective perspectives on it, something like the mediator in a standardized debate.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
I actually agree with you that his role was like the mediator in a standardized debate. However, the video says, "Nor was he involved in the actual decision making."
I like the Council of Nicea's creed. I think it accurately represents what the Church believed. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Tertullian's Praxeas, Athenagoras' Plea; they all teach the same thing.
But Constantine was very involved in the decision making of the council.
shammahbn 2 years ago
What I was intending to say is that he himself didn't actually propose any of the ideas or concepts. He did, though, lead the Bishops in the discussion of what they had proposed and probably, if for no other reason than human nature, toward those that he preferred, although I would say that these preferences were largely determined by the advice he received from Ossius.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
I think it's important to keep in mind the respective personalities and agendas of Eusebius and Constantine, which, in turn, affected Eusebius' reliability and Constantine's role.
1. Eusebius was both deeply impressed with the person of Constantine and deeply disturbed by the rejection of Arian theology at Nicaea and found it difficult to reconcile these two facts; he was also prideful, which make it even more difficult (see, for instance, his letter to this flock from the Council). cont...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
:-) I like Eusebius' letter. I think he was worried the council went too far in appeasing bishops that leaned toward modalism. The Athanasian Creed, less than 4 decades later, is a mix of orthodoxy and modalism. The RCC and Protestants still hold to that scripturally unjustifiable error today.
I thought an Orthodox believer would be more prone to agreeing with Eusebius' "semi-Arianism."
shammahbn 2 years ago
I think that both are heresies that put us into dangerous territory. Arianism, Eusebius' semi-Arianism, Modalism, and Western Christianity's semi-Modalism are all distortions of the Truth. One (Arianism) is the result of too much emphasis on the diversity of Persons in the Trinity; the other (Modalism) is the result of too much emphasis on the unity of the Persons in the Trinity.
I completely agree with your comments on Modalism and Western Christians' espousal of it.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
2. Constantine wasn't a Bishop, a theologian or even, for that matter, an interested laymember of the Church (at that point). He was the Emperor; his interest wasn't in orthodoxy but in unity. Notice how much Eusebius says the Emperor tried to lead the Bishops to "agreement." He seems to have gotten this agreement at the Council itself, but there also seems to have been a lot of "buyer's remorse" on the part of the Arians after the Council (remember, even Eusebius of Nicomedia, continued...
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Arianism's biggest voice in the hierarchy, signed the Council's decrees). It's significant that Constantine later attempted to force the Orthodox to reconcile with the Arians and even to readmit Arius to communion.
You bring up some great points though, and I appreciate your comments here. Thank you!
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Another great video! The Zeitgeist claims spurn from theosophical teachings of luciferian Helena P. Blavatsky and her disciple Alice Ann Bailey, to whose writings, the makers of Zeitgeist (Peter Joseph, Jordan Maxwell, Acharya S) admittedly adhere to, while partaking in spiritism and promoting other luciferian doctrines in order to do anything to brainwash people into their New World Order one-state of mind.
OrthodoxyIsTruth 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Macrina1984 2 years ago
Exactly; sick lies that they are using just to promote their own agenda. It's amazing how nobody checks the sources! Zeitgeist relies on the fact that people won't check their sources, which they have posted on their website. If you look at them, they're citing "messages from spirits" "received" by Blavatsky and her ilk as if these were real historical and researched facts. It seems everyone wants to question Christianity but no one questions those who question it. It's amazing really.
davidpwithun 2 years ago
Great! I'll check out your videos. If you want, I'd be very happy to have you post one or a few of them as responses to this video so that people can go to them for the real source documents.
What amazes me most about all of these myths is how easily debunked they are. It only took me about an hour to compile all the info for these videos (I knew where to look, of course, and most people don't). I wish people would open a book more often and do a little research; it's not very difficult!
davidpwithun 2 years ago
@davidpwithun Could you please reference what resources were used and from where you directly take your quotes. It is always important to reference other people's work. Thank you, I enjoyed your video.
Correctuido 1 year ago
I have a series of videos reading out the documents of Nicea as a nice complement to debunkings of the myths about the council. Far too many people take someone's word for it (that agrees with their prejudice) that it must have been some conspiracy against "what Jesus intended" and betrayal of the Gospel. What better way to justify one's rejection of organized religion than to say it was all a big corporate scandal, essentially.
XSC3 2 years ago 2