What a great interview with Dr. Habermas! When I graduated from Dallas Seminary in 1984, just a year or two later I acquired Dr. Habermas' book on evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible, which was a great help on defending the veracity of Jesus as a real, historical Person. Thanks, Alisa, for letting us listen to Dr. Habermas' teaching on these early creeds that are in the NT! Keep up the good work and God bless you and your ministry!
I like judge Judie's comments when she quotes, "we know when he is not being entirely honest because his lips are moving". To me she could be talking about Gary. I don't know which which college awarded this man a PhD because his level of scholarship is lacking.
@@johncook19 you cant even spell Judy right but his scholarship is lacking 😂 If its all true is another conversation but his scholarly knowledge of history and biblical history is not debatable at all.
@@cliffordhammontree1009 Gary Habermas is poor academic, you can see this in his debate with Ken Humphreys. Mike Licona is of the same ilk both talk about the historical method. The problem is that both men are contaminated with Christianity psychologically and that makes them unable to be good academics. He talks about data, which hardly refers to dates, it means accurate information that can verified and not just whished up out of the ether. You obviously have got stuck in your childhood and love fairy tales. C'est la vie.
ALISA, THIS VIDEO IS SO BEAUTIFUL, TO SEE GARY SPEAKING AND YOU GRASPING AND THINKING ABOUT THE HOW OF SHARING. I'M WEEPING IN JOY AS I WATCH. THIS IS HALACHA.
Great video. I like how thoughtful and respectful Alisa is and how she just lets the guest speak. His info about the creeds and high Christology was interesting. His comments about suffering really spoke to me.
Yeah. I figured she was uncomfortable with his reference to “the third heaven” being a NDE. Was also thinking she would wish he would have supported more her evaluation about PSA. Interesting interview.
Recently started reading the early church fathers. This instruction in them has been really helpful, but also it really helps interpreting scripture. There are several good translations.
@@ahd9456 that’s just simply not true. Real Christian oppression by the Romans wouldn’t happen until centuries later and was propagandized by later Christians to support their belief in a self victimization that supported their fanatical beliefs. Read a book.
The earliest Christology is the same as the Christology we have today in the apostolic churches. Now if you are a Protestant that’s probably a meaningful statement but not for an Orthodox or Catholic.
This is a great video. Although Childers tries to jump from the creed to saying “this suggests substitution atonement”. The problem with Protestantism, and I am a protestant, is the fact that we decipher everything through Soteriology, and not Christology. We are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. When you look at something through a telescope or binoculars from the wrong end (not from the eye piece) everything is distorted, small and the picture is incomplete. Jesus died for our sin, but not in a legalistic way. Jesus is God, Jesus died to defeat death so that we may be in Union with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Ghost for all eternity. This is what the early church believed in. If anyone’s interested, the Eastern Orthodox Church has the cliff notes.
The Creeds in the New Testament are exactly what we would expect to find because they were the best way to help the illiterate remember the foundational basics of the Gospel so they would believe, be born again and then be able to share with non believers.
The Gospels, what Jesus taught and how his followers reacted, were written in such basic form. The letters and Acts were written to explain and expand Jesus' words, remember these writers were filled with the Visible holy spirit and inspired by God. Revelation was written for Christians in The Last Days, and a bit more complicated with that intention. Revelation explains, reflects on, compliments and corroborates the previous Greek Scriptures (New Testament) and some of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures namely, but also the rest of The Bible from Genesis.
Dr. Habermas speaks of the early church, but the scholars he quotes only date back within the last hundred years. I applaud his studying and knowledge, but I would encourage you to not just talk about the early church, but to read what they said in the first couple of centuries. The letter of Clement on Christian Unity is a great place to start, Ignatius, Justin and Polycarp. Irenaeus' writing- Against Heresies- and the passionate Christian life of Origen. These men were all martyred for their faith, (correction- Origen was tortured but died naturally within a couple years)and they had to deal with all the incorrect things that people tried to inject into Christianity. Upon reading the writings of these, you see the threats of the Gnostic and Arius heresies, how the early church dealt with these things even in the first century. Irenaeus was the first to identify the four Gospels that we have today. All the creeds spoken of here lead up to the Nicaean Creed and Apostle's Creed which we have to this day, and were identified by these men filled with the Holy Spirit at the council of Nicaea in direct response to the Arius teaching that Jesus was not God. Santa Claus was among those who helped identify this false teaching and put it down. Good info- but dig deeper. If you want to be well-read, then you need to read these.
He is actually referring to the FIRST creeds, the one's preceding the creed's you mention. At issue is not how recent the scholars are, but the age of the texts they identify as the oldest unified representation of what Christian's understood about Jesus's identity within the actual New Testament texts. The church father's are not relevant to this particular discussion since they come AFTER the New Testament and they are easily dismissible by critical scholars since everyone agrees the New Testament came first.
Sister Alisa, thank you for this information that contains high value for us today. For me it is essential and vital to acknowledge the deity of Christ, his death and resurrection. Very interesting to hear that recognizing Jesus as Lord, is high Christology.
Great guest, great show. I always get quality and learn when I come here. Great interviewer, intelligent, thoughtful, and with great questions. Thanks so much, and God bless.
I reviewed Dodd years ago and using his chart at the end of his book I realized that every instance of Kerygma was within the context of Spiritual activities. Holy Spirit seemed to inspire apostolic preaching.
I learned so much. Mr. Habermas is fascinating to listen to as he just speaks as if we're all his students. Enjoyed his informal sense of humor and passion for identifying creed passages and the timeline too.
REVISED Post: (1st, what I started with): Very glad this has been posted. Busy now but hope to catch up with this later. I am quite curious to see if he will talk about: The DIDACHE Clement of Rome Polycarp Ignatius . . . . . . . . .and now, after video, pt.2: (ohhh man).... The Topic was-- the earliest creeds of Christian History. I would have hoped that somewhere along the way, we'd hear from some historical commentary that: Churches founded by Peter believed this, or the early churches in Antioch (where the disciples were first called Christians, right?) believed this-n-that. (Maybe the "Confessions" book they mentioned talks more about that? But i was hoping for more, in the video-talk). But No. sigh. Instead, we hear alot about Christology, alot about Son of Man, etc,, also Pinkus LaPede (spelling?), a couple New testament scholars that recently died, and scholars dating epistles. But not really Doctrine and teachings. (Creeds). More on 1st Corinthians 15 and greek langauge. and appearances of christ, but what about doctrine? and teachings? There HAD to be more than whether or not he was the Son of Man or Son of God. Surely there was more than one issue. And what about teachings AFTER Paul? Unaddressed. What about 10yrs. after Jesus's crucifixion? Were churches washing members feet? If yes, when did it stop? Were people still speaking in tongues when ORIGEN was alive and writing about the Christian faith? Is Baptism different now than it was in the Book of Acts? Why? What about qualifications in the church for being an Elder? What about having sex with one of your slaves and having a son or daughter by them? (like Abraham?) When did that stop? John's Gospel talks about "the Word" (Logos?). What did Matthew or Mark think about the Logos? Who, in History, would tell us? Who was Marcion? Did his teachings infiltrate the Churches? Did Churches in Thessalonia or Laodicia, or Phillipi have services that included "the Sinners Prayer" or "the 4 spiritual laws"? NO? Then, why do we? Where is the Biblical authority? Who started these? What year? (see History of the Sinners Prayer on RUclips. also charles finney, Billy SUNDAY, then Billy Graham and Bill Bright. But almost no one bothers to look). Let's consider 80A.D. So let's ask, AFTER 70AD, ten years LATER, what did the early church believe about "the Rapture" in 80AD? Who, back then, wrote about it? It's another Creed. It's relevant. I'm betting the Churches in Ephesus or Colossians never heard about "Calvinism". What was their Doctrine? Would Peter have approved? None of this was talked about in the video. I don't know if the Book they mentioned talks about any of these things. In James 5:16 it talks about confessing your sins TO ONE ANOTHER: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (English Standard Version). But TODAY, you probably pray to GOD for forgiveness of your sins, but who goes around airing-all-their-personal-dirty-laundry to fellow church members?!? Why AREN'T we, if it says to do it? When did it change? Why? and we could go on. But those things weren't talked about, and they DO pertain to "Creeds". That would have been relevant. We could make a long list. What did people who lived much closer to the time of the early church say they believed? And taught? Wasn't Polycarp a disciple of, and taught by the Apostle John? What did Polycarp say about early church Creeds? It didn't come up in this video. What did Clement of Rome say? We weren't told. The DIDACHE was, supposedly, the Teachings of the 12 Apostles. Any comments on that? None. What about any commentary from Ignatius? Again, nothing. l feel like i don't really know any more than when I started. At least about the TITLE-topic of the video. So much was unaddressed. I LIKE alot of what Habermas has said in some of his other videos! I consider him very knowledgeable, and more willing than many to take on the tough, or embarassing, questions, or sensitive topics than some fellow apologists. Kudos to him for that! For example, it may surprise some of you that he's done some videos on near-death experiences. (Sidenote: Will this cause him to become a Spiritualist, later on? I don't know. Maybe not. The claims, from people who say they've had a near-death experience seem to have gotten more outlandish, and less consistent these days, than back in the 70's. And if you haven't noticed, REINCARNATION is now creeping quite a bit heavier into the Near-Death testimonies and RUclips videos. When Dr. Raymond Moody wrote "Life After Life" in 1975, it wasn't like that). But THIS video, to me, sounded like it danced around and didn't really confront the topic directly enough. It was a lecture on Christology. But that wasn't the Title. I still like him, though. He's done other videos that are better.
Epic comment. 🎯🎯🎯I’m cheering you on. Studying questions like these led me recently to convert from Protestant to Orthodox. “The Soul After Death” by Fr. Seraphim Rose is on my to-read list due to his patristic analysis of the contemporary NDE phenomenon.
@@annalynn9325 Very kind. Thank you!😄 Glad I found Alisa's channel. I've also commented on some of her Apologetics stuff, and about Progressives in the church. She does a great job of asking the right questions and picking interesting topics. And she wants answers that are True, not just slick or canned slogans. Looking forward to her second/next book, coming out in October. You may also enjoy Natasha Crain (who Alisa has interviewed) and Melissa Dougherty, both on RUclips.
@@dabbler1166 I like Alisa too, I am happy to listen to anyone with intellectual honesty and a heart for the truth, which she certainly has. It had been a little weird navigating some of my close friendships from my PCA days, as my husband and I became Orthodox. Church history etc. convinced us it is the church of Acts, of the apostles, but many expect and prefer something that looks very different. “Simple” seems to be the common theme
Terrific video. So impressed by how Dr. Habermas sleek to educate rather than to impress or intimidate his listeners. Show's a Christ-approved, servant heart.
"The Imitation of Christ" written by Saint Thomas à Kempis ( Dutch/German) is a Catholic devotional book. It was first composed in Latin ca. 1418-1427. It is a small powerful handbook how to live daily a spiritual life arising from the Devotio Moderna movement, of which Kempis was a member.
They affirmed one God, Christ’s deity, the atonement, the resurrection, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and living a separated, holy life.
Alisa, this is a Treasure Trove of CRITICAL INFORMATION,;and desperately demands a textual version of the audio, so that we may peruse each sentence carefully and critically, and become fully informed of the many scriptural references mentioned here! Is it possible to obtain this? This may be the most important video you have produced to date. Thank you for your love and devotion to our faith in Him!. However Bill Craig does with his Reasonable Faith transcripts..
I'm surprised that with all of Habermas's credentials he isn't aware that Paul's theology wasn't derived from early Christian creeds or even from the original apostles but came thru direct revelation. In Galatians1 11-12 Paul clearly states "For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man’s gospel, For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [t came to me through a direct revelation by Jesus Christ." That's why his gospel to the Gentiles and his teachings ran into conflicts and sometimes were even opposed by the original twelve
@@labsquadmedia176 I saw it, but it's irrelevant. 1st, there's no comparison between Paul's account of being taken to the 3rd heaven where he witnessed things he wasn't permitted to share with the MANY times he proclaims various truths that he describes as mysteries revealed to him directly by God is an apples/oranges situation. The first event is most likely related to being stoned and left for dead but the others are related to his 3 years of "seminary" training directly by the Lord in Arabia. 2nd, Habermas' claim that Paul is just relaying an existing shared "creed" in 1Cor15 is refuted by Gal2 about Paul's meeting with the apostles to address their concerns about the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles (salvation by faith plus nothing) which was NOT the same as the gospel they had been proclaiming to the Jews since the day of Pentecost. Paul says in Gal2:5 that he didn't yield submission to them even for a moment so that the truth of the Gospel (his gospel) might continue to be preserved in its purity - (faith alone without adding works of the Law). The result of that meeting was that the apostles agreed not to interfere with his gospel to the Gentiles and they would continue preaching their version to Israel.
@@LindaC613 ❤ Always go by the scriptures while relying on the interpretation by the One who wrote them (the Holy Spirit) rather than the opinions of so-called bible experts who generally couldn't exegete their way out of wet parchment if their life depended on it.
I've seen a few comments stating that just because the earliest Christians believe this doesn't make it true. I would just say, Gary Habermas is also an expert on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and a resurrection would validate the claims of the earliest Christians.
The best skeptics have not been able to come up with an alternative explanation for why the earliest Christians believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus other than the reasons these first Christians themselves gave for their beliefs-that they saw Jesus alive after he had died, that it validated everything he ever taught, and that they were therefore motivated to spread this message as far and as wide as they could despite continual and extreme persecution.
I like the Baha’i explanation of Trinity. The divine messenger is like the Mirror on earth reflecting the Light. The Sun remains the One Source. This fits the scriptures well. The mirror can say I am the sun to you. It reflects divinity to humanity. ❤️🙏🏽
I'm imagining Eastern Orthodox Christians getting a kick out of protestants realizing there was such a thing as church traditions and creeds in the early church. 🤣
True, but Protestants will rightfully wonder why Orthodox Christians, who so value the creeds, also give so much credence to traditions and teachings that are in opposition to those same creeds.
@@LzCoda "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15 Who says that Orthodoxy does not hold onto these traditions? You, independently, through some personal revelation, have determined so? What a gift you have been given, apparently. The Church in Thessaloniki, which this letter was written to, is still in Thessaloniki, and still holds onto the holy tradition as given by St. Paul.
@@George-ur8ow Perhaps. But you have a great deal of different "churches" in the east: Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, Armenian, etc., all claiming to hold to the Apostle's teaching. It really is presumption on your part that one specific sect is blemishless, even while certain teachings which are currently espoused simply are not found in the early Church. Offering incense to icons and the Marian liturgical calendar simply are not "the teachings of the Apostles."
@@j.athanasius9832 Liturgical calendars and incensing holy things, including depictions of angels, the altar, the ark, etc were part of Israelite temple practice. Read more your biblical texts, specifically Samuel and kings. When I saw an orthodox service, it just looked like a spin-off of biblical temple worship to me, except no animals died and you could see into the inner sanctum, whereas in the temple, that area would have been hidden from the congregation. For the record, I'm not a believer in anything I just study this a lot so I don't really care about bickering over who's got the most churchiest church. However, the first Christians were jews, still attended synagogue worship and temple worship, so it would follow that they would organize their practice similarly to temple and synagogue practice since that's what they already knew, and refine it to reflect their beliefs. Where I will pick a fight theologically is that the early Christians absolutely did believe that the bread and wine with water was the actual body and blood of Jesus, however that might have occurred, whether in some mystical sense or what have you, and is in its way, in line with previous sacrificial practice as told in Samuel. Not that I would necessarily attach that to holy significance but it was a normal part of temple practice.
@@azurephoenix9546 Can you tell me where I might find more information or documentation on the “bread & wine / communion” being the actual body & blood ?? Thanks for your time in advance.
@@joshuas1834 and the only Church with 2,000 years of pedigree is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church. Read the Apostolic Church Fathers on everything like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp and read the Didache this should help you understand what they were doing .
@@danviccaro3920 your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote and just comes off as patronizing and annoying. Nothing I wrote would give you reason to assume anything about my stance toward Catholicism or how familiar I am with the writings or the apostolic father's. FYI I have read a two volume set of the writings of the apostolic Father's which included everything you mentioned and more.
@@joshuas1834 I applaud you my hat is off to that your taking time to learn the Church Fathers and read the Didache also I hope one day I am welcoming you home to the Church of Jesus Christ. Well done and good luck ..
Excellent introduction to creeds and their role in the New Testament. Someone should send this to Andy Stanley in light of his recent ignorant statements about the creeds lacking “love” and being tools of governing authorities. Using the simplicity of the “earliest Christology is the highest Christology” shatters his reinterpretation of the purpose of creeds. What greater love is there, that a man lay down his life for a friend? 1 Cor 15:3/John 15:13. If Stanley doesn’t think Jesus’ work on the cross is evidence of love then he doesn’t know what love is.
about 19 mins in "we often hear from skeptics that the deity was a legendary development"....that's interesting, in that we as Christians tend to hear such statements ( I said statements, not arguments, that's important) and immediately want to respond to such statements (not arguments) without first saying "now hang on a minute, where did you get that from? Do you actually know that to be true?" We sometimes hold skeptics to two low standards 1. A low standard of epistemology --- how we come to know something to be true 2. A low standard of burden of proof --- we try to argue unsubstantiated statements (not arguments), that is, a skeptic just says something without having to say why they say so or how they came to that conclusion and yet we immediately want to respond to the statement, whereas if we were to ask them to substantiate the statements they make, they might expose the logical fallacy or lack of evidence for their statements and realise that they rely on "faith" claims just as much as Christians do if both sides don't know something independently from an author....I might be "gullible" for believing something that Paul wrote, or a skeptic could be just as gullible for reading something that Thomas Payne or Voltaire or Bertrand Russel wrote without evidence and/or without knowing how they arrived at the thoughts that they wrote down in such fancy language that they sound intelligent, so inteliigent-sounding that what they say MUST be true, whereas "even Christian theologians admit that Mark has grammatical errors" so Voltaire must be smarter than Mark and therefore his statements must be more true IF we held skeptics to the same standards of evidence, argument and epistemology as they hold Christians, would they still hold their skeptisms as strongly?
This is a great video. Although Childers tries to jump from the creeds to saying “this suggests substitution atonement”. No it doesn’t. The problem with Protestantism, and I am a protestant, is the fact that we decipher everything through Soteriology, and not Christology. We are looking through a telescope from the wrong end(not from the eye piece) everything is distorted, small and the picture is incomplete. Jesus died for our sin, but not in a legalistic way. Jesus is God, Jesus died to defeat death so that we may be in Union with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Ghost for all eternity. This is what the early church believed in. If anyone’s interested, the Eastern Orthodox Church has the cliff notes. “Son of Man” Jesus is speaking of his Diety. Again see Eastern Orthodoxy for the cliff notes. Read: “The Crucifixion of the King of Glory: The Amazing History and Sublime Mystery of the Passion”
Her statement starts at 15:18. She is saying that 1 Corinthians 15 not only states the events of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, but it gives the divine reason WHY. Christology and soteriology are not mutually-exclusive. Without that, we humans would not admit our sins, admit that that we cannot atone for them ourselves, and repent/turn from them and "work out our salvation" (santification) on this side of eternity as we grow in holiness by the grace of God. As Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 15:56-57 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I have just read ‘The Master and his Emissary” by Ian McGilchrist. A new way to understand “Check off certain boxes.” The book gives clinical, psychiatric and surgical evidence that suppression of right brain or right brain deficits are associated with putting things in boxes/categories. Such rationalization of Christian belief systems may be irremediable, inflexible, incapable of change. I am not any authority nor do I dare judge (I too will be judged on the last day) but what little I know as RN with additional training is this may be the reason Jesus says “He who has ears to hear.’ And God saying He hardened Pharo’s heart for His purpose showing his strength.
From what I’ve experienced it would be good to reintroduce these creeds. In most “gospel” presentations the resurrection is not even mentioned. The creeds bring back what is important in what people should believe. It’s easy to believe that someone died, it’s easy to believe someone died for someone else, these things happen all the time. It’s not easy to believe that God raised someone from the dead.
We weren't designed to live by creeds. We were designed to live by the inheritance we have received in Christ Jesus and respond to the love of God He has given to us through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
the first century text the Didache, is pretty much the earliest window into Christianity outside of NT text - it was a kind of church manual but is organized in sections that elucidate much on early Chrstian mindset The preliterary creed that opens Paul's Roman epistle indicates a Christology that was prevalent at the time as he's recting it in order to get on the same page with the church in Rome. That Christology paints Jesus as elevated by God, but it contrast with the very high Christology that Paul recites in Philipians 2 (that Jesus humbled himself from a high divine position and took on human form)
The early creeds typically were responses to heresy. They are wonderful, but all leave out the “middle life” of Jesus. The Anabaptist Comma is an idea of how to insert Jesus’ kingdom life into a creed.
I know at least TWO of the "Creeds," as it were. First----"GOD is One," Not '3,' and...The "Gift of tongues" is a legitimate blessing from the Spirit of GOD.
We know what the earliest Christian believed because we have the encyclicals (letters) written to the new churches that were spreading through the commission Jesus gave to His Church under Peter & the other Apostles (Bishops). The Church Fathers being disciples of the Apostles, consecrated to be Bishops in the Commission given to the Church. Peter was given the Keys to be the Viceroy of the Church, passing the keys to the next through the Holy Spirit moving through the Bishops, until the return of The King returns
AlisaI have a question for you, why did you not introduce Dr. Hagerman as the editor of the Oscar Cullmann book? He’s listed as the editor right on the front cover that’s a low mark of professionalism on his part. The early church was comprised of Jews, who rarely spoke Hebrew outside of the synagogue, because the every day language of the Galileans was Aramaic. There were three different dialects of Aramaic. Earliest records now show that there were. Aramaic writings of the sayings of Jesus. These same Jews also had a Bible Kotter tonight, which was the old testament and was titled the Septuagint in. It was written in Greek they were not ignorant people. They knew the prophecies concerning the Messiah in a beautiful account is related by the deacons, Stephen just before he was stoned to death, but I’ll look at what Stephen gave in his defense as what was probably the understanding of the average Galilean Jew. Today we have gospels and books in the New Testament that have been written, not for me, Jewish or Aramaic cultural point of view, but from a Greek point of view, which I am sad to say, does not capture a lot of what was conveyed by Jesus in the parables, and then the idioms of the aramaics.
One thing we can say for certain about early Christians is that they weren't MIMICKING anyone. So why do people TODAY attempt to do that? If the Father was available THEN, He is available NOW, so what any sincere follower should do is turn their heart and mind to the Holy Spirit, and when a Leading is given, follow it...even unto death or public disgrace.
The earliest is the simplest "Jesus Christ, Son of God ,Saviour" Take the first letter from the Greek words for this creed and they spell the Greek word for fish ...and you can find drawings of the simple outline of fish all over the middle east...and on bumper stickers today.
The Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions mention blessings by the names of YHWH of Samaria and YHWH of Teman. Like all ancient Near Eastern gods, these two regional gods must have had central temples. This article examines their possible locations and suggests that the combination of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions with the eighth-century prophecies of Amos and Hosea holds the key for identifying these. In light of a detailed analysis of Hosea’s and Amos’ prophecies, it is further suggested that YHWH of Samaria was the name of the major God of the Kingdom of Israel and his main temple was located at Bethel, and that YHWH of Teman was the name of the God of the southern desert regions and his temple was located at Beer-sheba. Israelite traders who traveled southward probably visited the latter god’s temple, offered him sacrifices, made vows to repay him if they succeed in the expedition, and thus turned him to be their patron god during their travel in the desert region. This suggested identification explains why the Judahite cult place of Beer-sheba appears in Amos’ prophecy alongside the Israelite sanctuaries of Bethel, Gilgal, and Dan.
Two very different YHWH's: 1) The YHWH of Samaria/Bethel (Yehowah/Jehovah), who is the 'singular' God of Israel. 2) The YHWH of Teman/Edom (HaShem; unpronounceable "Yahweh") who is the 'polytheistic' god whom the Judahites keep choosing. Read the Samaria/Bethel Israelites Bible. 6000 differences. Judaism got duped by Yaldabaoth/Yahweh. The difference between good and evil is the difference between Samaria/Bethel YHWH and Teman/Edom/Beer-sheba YHWH. Kinda like how Muslims have the Warsh and the Hafs...yet they choose the Hafs. There are, as I count them, seven different Jesus' in the canonical Greek New Testament. Book of Revelation is Yahwistic nonsense. We're supposed to use reason and discernment to see good and evil. Stop apologetics. Apologetics is lies.
Thanks I really enjoyed this. The percentage of illiterate people in the early centuries also explains why the RCs use a 'creed form' with the Hail Mary etc to instill from childhood their blasphemies. The Our Father isn't blasphemous, but they use a mixture of true and untrue prayers. The use of set prayers which are to be repeated mantra like as if they have a magical protective nature, take on the form of a creed for them which actually reinforce untruths and shows the true pagan nature behind that system.
I like your observation pertaining to the RCs. Hearing this helps one understand how people can believe the wrong way even while reading Scripture opposing what they've been led to believe.
Robert Nelson so very well said ! Thus, breaking out of R C into ordinary Christianity can be more difficult than breaking out of Islam into Christianity
“Beware of those who deny the bread and wine is the self same body and blood of Jesus Christ.” St Ignatius of Antioch “Wherever Jesus Christ is There is the Catholic Church.” St Ignatius of Antioch 107ad.
There is only 1 Church started by God himself where there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church the Church Jesus Christ started Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Alisa, I am going to ask you to do something difficult. Maybe you will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole. I am a 69 year-old Catholic who does his best to know Jesus. One thing troubles me about Catholicism, and I cannot find a satisfactory answer. Believe me, I have tried. Here is my problem: IMO, the Eucharist has co-opted the Gospel. By that I mean that the Eucharist is vastly more important in the Catholic Church than is the Gospel. If I say that to a fellow Catholic they will strongly object, but I have had plenty of experience in my 60 years of belief to come to this conclusion. I often wonder why the preaching at a RCC is so lacking in Gospel; rather, the preaching is a lot about "the church". As far as I can tell, I think the Gospel took a back seat to the Eucharist some time around 1000 AD, but this is just a hunch. It appears that the Gospel is clearly articulated in the Catholic tradition up and slightly past that time; but in the second-thousand years, the Eucharist becomes dominant. IMO, this development in the RCC helped to lead to the Reformation. If you can give your opinion, I would appreciate it. I have purchased history books and I have not found the answer. I hope you know where to look or whom to talk to. Surely there is someone who is objective enough to answer this question honestly. In conclusion: Basically I want to know if the "earliest" Christians' worship was focused more on the "breaking of the bread" or was it more focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
The early church had an altar and was defined by the celebration of the mass and the Holy Eucharist. Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism. The Lords instruction on how to worship Him: "On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord. In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice." St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.): "They (Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist it the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." St. Justin Martyr 155AD: “…in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name…
Not an expert answer but in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Eucharist is more important because the Eucharist is the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, from the beginning. But the Gospel doesn't take a back seat, it's presented at every mass -- there are multiple daily readings! There are plenty of Catholic YT channels such as Catholic Answers, Trent Horn's Council of Trent, and Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology that might give you in depth answers. Other's might give more insightful and in depth info. Jotun's answer seems to offer a good context!
" ...the Gospel took a back seat to the Eucharistic some time around 1000AD... " ? You seem to be under the impression that there is competition between the two.. The Gospel is the Good News of the Messiah and redemption.. The Eucharist is the manner of redemption, the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Eucharist IS the Good News! But why are you asking a Protestant to explain Catholic doctrine? Why not ask a Catholic!
Except for the clergy and the rich, people were illiterate for more than 1500 years, The only books were in church and were written in Latin. The scriptures were heard in church, sacred traditions played a large part in Christianity. The bible was heard and not read for most of Christian history. The bible was not available to illiterate men for 1500 years.
Have you Gavin Ortlund? He's a very fair-minded Protestant scholar who tries to be balanced in his work. I think his channel is Truth Unites. I'd recommend him for help on the topic.
I appreciate the interview and am genuinely happy that Protestants are looking into the history of the Church, but please don't pretend that you've uncovered something previously unknown. The Ortthodox Church has known, preserved and disseminated these truths for 2,000 years through our "Tradition".
It wasn’t the trinity, they were all Jewish and the furthest thing away from that ( DUET 6:4) have you ever noticed how many problems Saul/ Paul had to address when the gentiles came into the fold , their lifestyles ,,thinking, their philosophies that had to be dealt with and their understanding of G-d, and how simple his teachings were towards them. Clarity,simplicity on the essentials . It took man to add the complexity and insert philosophy
If you want to find out what first century Christians believed it’s easy. Read the works of the Early Church Fathers. These men are “the disciples of the disciples” and their writing sounds extremely Catholic. They write of the Mass, of the Eucharist, and of the divinity of Christ.
You can get an insight into what the early Christians were doing in 1 Corinthians 11 : 23-33 NIV. The Apostle Paul says: "I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus... took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." It's pretty clear the earliest Christians were celebrating the Eucharist exactly as it is celebrated today.
Our brother John gave us wonderful God inspired insights on Jesus and His integral place within the Trinity. He also was inspired to write that by reading the scriptures it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us. We honour God in Spirit and IN truth or His reality. For those seeking and asking the H.S. to lead will intuitively know in their hearts what is true. This always occurs through the heart rather than our intellectual pursuits of God's truths. The early church father's understanding of Jesus and the Gospel etc which Eastern Orthodoxy which to this day still remains close. Centuries later the Orthodox/ Roman Catholic Schism and centuries later still the Protestant Reformation introduced different dogmas to muddy the waters in our search for the Truth the Way and the Life. All three factions agree on that this is found in Jesus the Word of God waiting to be revealed in ALL of mankind. The unbroken image of God our true Christ centred self to be made real. Let us stop the debates the false Gospel bashing and simply follow Jesus with our hearts and be true lights to this suffering world. Let us learn the difference between our false selves, with its fear based self serving agendas, to our true selves (Galatians 1;16) as now consciously aware of our position within the Trinity to love and serve one another. Except for the remnant and the mystics (Jesus on earth was one) we have seen little change to world affairs. Religion and exterior cultural norms yes...transformation into the maturity of Christ no. The game is up and we are now in a post Christian era and unless we stop labelling those (like Jesus in His day) who are critiquing our Christianity as heretics (the prophets of old were stoned) our Gospel suffers. And indeed if the world is on a downward spiral, and here our Christian hypocritical witness is mostly to blame for this, no matter. The early church father's understanding of God's unrelenting grace and mercy reconciles ALL of creation to Himself IN Jesus on the cross. APOKATASTASIS!!! God's sovereign will will not lose one sheep. God being God does not lose for as Paul writes if we have no faith it is His faith which sustains ALL for God cannot deny Himself. Elisha keep asking the hard questions for I believe it will eventually wean us of so much biased human legalistic biblical interpretation since the Reformation. Go back to the early church father's (and Orthodoxy) and discover this to be true.! Shalom and Maranatha.❤️
What a great interview with Dr. Habermas! When I graduated from Dallas Seminary in 1984, just a year or two later I acquired Dr. Habermas' book on evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible, which was a great help on defending the veracity of Jesus as a real, historical Person. Thanks, Alisa, for letting us listen to Dr. Habermas' teaching on these early creeds that are in the NT! Keep up the good work and God bless you and your ministry!
I like judge Judie's comments when she quotes, "we know when he is not being entirely honest because his lips are moving". To me she could be talking about Gary. I don't know which which college awarded this man a PhD because his level of scholarship is lacking.
@@johncook19 you cant even spell Judy right but his scholarship is lacking 😂 If its all true is another conversation but his scholarly knowledge of history and biblical history is not debatable at all.
@messenger ministries No such thing as temporary eternal life
@@cliffordhammontree1009 Gary Habermas is poor academic, you can see this in his debate with Ken Humphreys. Mike Licona is of the same ilk both talk about the historical method. The problem is that both men are contaminated with Christianity psychologically and that makes them unable to be good academics. He talks about data, which hardly refers to dates, it means accurate information that can verified and not just whished up out of the ether.
You obviously have got stuck in your childhood and love fairy tales.
C'est la vie.
Alisa is such a gentle and kind person. I enjoy listening to her very much.
I agree with that statement.
The way you guys described the creeds being passed down really strengthened me in my new journey to Christ. Thank both of you.
I love these talks with Gary Habermas. Hard to put into words how much I value this type of material. It the REAL DEAL
11
Й
ALISA, THIS VIDEO IS SO BEAUTIFUL, TO SEE GARY SPEAKING AND YOU GRASPING AND THINKING ABOUT THE HOW OF SHARING. I'M WEEPING IN JOY AS I WATCH. THIS IS HALACHA.
Watching this for a second time a month later... fantastic guest.
Great interview....this type of knowledge is important for us today
The Catholic Church gave us the authorized version of the Bible.
It's so fortunate that the Catholic Church did this one thing right.
Great video. I like how thoughtful and respectful Alisa is and how she just lets the guest speak. His info about the creeds and high Christology was interesting. His comments about suffering really spoke to me.
Yeah. I figured she was uncomfortable with his reference to “the third heaven” being a NDE. Was also thinking she would wish he would have supported more her evaluation about PSA.
Interesting interview.
@@dbrownaz I certainly wouldn't choose this guy as my teacher
I just shared this video with my Christology students at Joy Bible Institute, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Thanks so much!
Dr Habermas is one of my favorite teachers
Recently started reading the early church fathers. This instruction in them has been really helpful, but also it really helps interpreting scripture. There are several good translations.
"The earliest Christology is the highest Christology."
lol
@@ahd9456 that’s just simply not true. Real Christian oppression by the Romans wouldn’t happen until centuries later and was propagandized by later Christians to support their belief in a self victimization that supported their fanatical beliefs. Read a book.
The earliest Christology is the same as the Christology we have today in the apostolic churches. Now if you are a Protestant that’s probably a meaningful statement but not for an Orthodox or Catholic.
@@EricAlHarb I very much doubt it is the same at all.
This is a great video. Although Childers tries to jump from the creed to saying “this suggests substitution atonement”. The problem with Protestantism, and I am a protestant, is the fact that we decipher everything through Soteriology, and not Christology. We are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. When you look at something through a telescope or binoculars from the wrong end (not from the eye piece) everything is distorted, small and the picture is incomplete. Jesus died for our sin, but not in a legalistic way. Jesus is God, Jesus died to defeat death so that we may be in Union with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Ghost for all eternity. This is what the early church believed in. If anyone’s interested, the Eastern Orthodox Church has the cliff notes.
Woh, the preaching was right away. Definitely, Jesus is the only historical figure with early evidence 🙌
The Creeds in the New Testament are exactly what we would expect to find because they were the best way to help the illiterate remember the foundational basics of the Gospel so they would believe, be born again and then be able to share with non believers.
😊
The Gospels, what Jesus taught and how his followers reacted, were written in such basic form.
The letters and Acts were written to explain and expand Jesus' words, remember these writers were filled with the Visible holy spirit and inspired by God.
Revelation was written for Christians in The Last Days, and a bit more complicated with that intention. Revelation explains, reflects on, compliments and corroborates the previous Greek Scriptures (New Testament) and some of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures namely, but also the rest of The Bible from Genesis.
Also...LOVE Alisa's gray hair! Hope mine will be as beautiful 😍
Absolutely Fascinating 💯 love the content of your video and found it quite enlightening and edifying. Keep up the great work. God bless you.
Listened via podcast, but liking and commenting here so it gets more views. :) I loved this!
So refreshing not to hear about sowing a seed (money) in order to be blessed. This interview/teaching is a blessing on its own. Thank you
Dr. Habermas speaks of the early church, but the scholars he quotes only date back within the last hundred years. I applaud his studying and knowledge, but I would encourage you to not just talk about the early church, but to read what they said in the first couple of centuries. The letter of Clement on Christian Unity is a great place to start, Ignatius, Justin and Polycarp. Irenaeus' writing- Against Heresies- and the passionate Christian life of Origen. These men were all martyred for their faith, (correction- Origen was tortured but died naturally within a couple years)and they had to deal with all the incorrect things that people tried to inject into Christianity. Upon reading the writings of these, you see the threats of the Gnostic and Arius heresies, how the early church dealt with these things even in the first century. Irenaeus was the first to identify the four Gospels that we have today. All the creeds spoken of here lead up to the Nicaean Creed and Apostle's Creed which we have to this day, and were identified by these men filled with the Holy Spirit at the council of Nicaea in direct response to the Arius teaching that Jesus was not God. Santa Claus was among those who helped identify this false teaching and put it down. Good info- but dig deeper. If you want to be well-read, then you need to read these.
He is actually referring to the FIRST creeds, the one's preceding the creed's you mention. At issue is not how recent the scholars are, but the age of the texts they identify as the oldest unified representation of what Christian's understood about Jesus's identity within the actual New Testament texts. The church father's are not relevant to this particular discussion since they come AFTER the New Testament and they are easily dismissible by critical scholars since everyone agrees the New Testament came first.
Santa Claus?
@@Billybo-22 Yes- or also known as St. Nicholas, bishop in Turkey at the time-
Oh my goodness! This is such a rich, helpful podcast! I love this podcast and I will be passing it along. Thank you so much to you and Dr. Habermas!
Sister Alisa, thank you for this information that contains high value for us today. For me it is essential and vital to acknowledge the deity of Christ, his death and resurrection. Very interesting to hear that recognizing Jesus as Lord, is high Christology.
Great interview! I will have to listen again and take notes!
Great guest, great show. I always get quality and learn when I come here. Great interviewer, intelligent, thoughtful, and with great questions. Thanks so much, and God bless.
I've added this video to my playlist of Favourite Christian videos. It was excellent! Thank you both.
Really great video, thank you!
I love Gary Habermas! 🥰
Gary and I do not agree on the Jesus narrative.
@@JamesRichardWiley But Jesus does agree with Gary.
Super interesting. Thank you.
Thank you Alisa! Dr. Habermas is amazing!
I reviewed Dodd years ago and using his chart at the end of his book I realized that every instance of Kerygma was within the context of Spiritual activities. Holy Spirit seemed to inspire apostolic preaching.
What is kerygma?
Thank-you, very interesting! Loved this interview.
I learned so much. Mr. Habermas is fascinating to listen to as he just speaks as if we're all his students. Enjoyed his informal sense of humor and passion for identifying creed passages and the timeline too.
Great interview!
REVISED Post: (1st, what I started with): Very glad this has been posted. Busy now but hope to catch up with this later. I am quite curious to see if he will talk about:
The DIDACHE
Clement of Rome
Polycarp
Ignatius . . . . . . . . .and now, after video, pt.2:
(ohhh man)....
The Topic was-- the earliest creeds of Christian History.
I would have hoped that somewhere along the way, we'd hear from some historical commentary that: Churches founded by Peter believed this, or the early churches in Antioch (where the disciples were first called Christians, right?) believed this-n-that. (Maybe the "Confessions" book they mentioned talks more about that? But i was hoping for more, in the video-talk).
But No. sigh.
Instead, we hear alot about Christology, alot about Son of Man, etc,, also Pinkus LaPede (spelling?), a couple New testament scholars that recently died, and scholars dating epistles. But not really Doctrine and teachings. (Creeds).
More on 1st Corinthians 15 and greek langauge. and appearances of christ, but what about doctrine? and teachings? There HAD to be more than whether or not he was the Son of Man or Son of God. Surely there was more than one issue. And what about teachings AFTER Paul? Unaddressed.
What about 10yrs. after Jesus's crucifixion? Were churches washing members feet? If yes, when did it stop?
Were people still speaking in tongues when ORIGEN was alive and writing about the Christian faith?
Is Baptism different now than it was in the Book of Acts? Why?
What about qualifications in the church for being an Elder? What about having sex with one of your slaves and having a son or daughter by them? (like Abraham?) When did that stop?
John's Gospel talks about "the Word" (Logos?). What did Matthew or Mark think about the Logos? Who, in History, would tell us?
Who was Marcion? Did his teachings infiltrate the Churches?
Did Churches in Thessalonia or Laodicia, or Phillipi have services that included "the Sinners Prayer" or "the 4 spiritual laws"? NO? Then, why do we? Where is the Biblical authority? Who started these? What year? (see History of the Sinners Prayer on RUclips. also charles finney, Billy SUNDAY, then Billy Graham and Bill Bright. But almost no one bothers to look). Let's consider 80A.D. So let's ask, AFTER 70AD, ten years LATER, what did the early church believe about "the Rapture" in 80AD? Who, back then, wrote about it? It's another Creed. It's relevant.
I'm betting the Churches in Ephesus or Colossians never heard about "Calvinism". What was their Doctrine?
Would Peter have approved? None of this was talked about in the video. I don't know if the Book they mentioned talks about any of these things.
In James 5:16 it talks about confessing your sins TO ONE ANOTHER: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (English Standard Version). But TODAY, you probably pray to GOD for forgiveness of your sins, but who goes around airing-all-their-personal-dirty-laundry to fellow church members?!? Why AREN'T we, if it says to do it?
When did it change? Why? and we could go on. But those things weren't talked about, and they DO pertain to "Creeds". That would have been relevant. We could make a long list.
What did people who lived much closer to the time of the early church say they believed? And taught?
Wasn't Polycarp a disciple of, and taught by the Apostle John? What did Polycarp say about early church Creeds?
It didn't come up in this video.
What did Clement of Rome say? We weren't told.
The DIDACHE was, supposedly, the Teachings of the 12 Apostles. Any comments on that? None.
What about any commentary from Ignatius? Again, nothing.
l feel like i don't really know any more than when I started. At least about the TITLE-topic of the video. So much was unaddressed.
I LIKE alot of what Habermas has said in some of his other videos!
I consider him very knowledgeable, and more willing than many to take on the tough, or embarassing, questions, or sensitive topics than some fellow apologists. Kudos to him for that! For example, it may surprise some of you that he's done some videos on near-death experiences. (Sidenote: Will this cause him to become a Spiritualist, later on? I don't know. Maybe not. The claims, from people who say they've had a near-death experience seem to have gotten more outlandish, and less consistent these days, than back in the 70's. And if you haven't noticed, REINCARNATION is now creeping quite a bit heavier into the Near-Death testimonies and RUclips videos. When Dr. Raymond Moody wrote "Life After Life" in 1975, it wasn't like that). But THIS video, to me, sounded like it danced around and didn't really confront the topic directly enough. It was a lecture on Christology. But that wasn't the Title. I still like him, though. He's done other videos that are better.
Epic comment. 🎯🎯🎯I’m cheering you on.
Studying questions like these led me recently to convert from Protestant to Orthodox. “The Soul After Death” by Fr. Seraphim Rose is on my to-read list due to his patristic analysis of the contemporary NDE phenomenon.
@@annalynn9325 Very kind. Thank you!😄
Glad I found Alisa's channel. I've also commented on some of her Apologetics stuff, and about Progressives in the church. She does a great job of asking the right questions and picking interesting topics. And she wants answers that are True, not just slick or canned slogans. Looking forward to her second/next book, coming out in October. You may also enjoy Natasha Crain (who Alisa has interviewed) and Melissa Dougherty, both on RUclips.
@@dabbler1166 I like Alisa too, I am happy to listen to anyone with intellectual honesty and a heart for the truth, which she certainly has. It had been a little weird navigating some of my close friendships from my PCA days, as my husband and I became Orthodox. Church history etc. convinced us it is the church of Acts, of the apostles, but many expect and prefer something that looks very different. “Simple” seems to be the common theme
Watching Alisha/Natasha interview now
@@annalynn9325 careful friend, if it's meeting on the 1st day and not keeping Exodus 20:8-11, the Lords day - it's not Truth.
Dr Habermas is is a gift from God himself. What a wonderful explanation. thank you for having him on your show.
Terrific video. So impressed by how Dr. Habermas sleek to educate rather than to impress or intimidate his listeners. Show's a Christ-approved, servant heart.
This is so good. I want to listen again at least three more times
Love this... Thanks... Let's go back to the very beginning, instead of all the 'mess' these days without the 'age' of the original apostles (creed).
And what have you concluded?
This is just excellent. It’s not too difficult for me to follow. Thanks for this.
This is the best teaching about the reasons of how and why we walk with Jesus that I have heard in a very long time. Thank you both!!!!
Excellent as always
This was a great video. I love the way Gary Habermas explains things.
Here comes part two. Right on!
Great video
This was very informative.
"The Imitation of Christ" written by Saint Thomas à Kempis ( Dutch/German) is a Catholic devotional book. It was first composed in Latin ca. 1418-1427.
It is a small powerful handbook how to live daily a spiritual life arising from the Devotio Moderna movement, of which Kempis was a member.
They affirmed one God, Christ’s deity, the atonement, the resurrection, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and living a separated, holy life.
When I heard "German Theologians", heresy always comes to my mind
I know this is off subject but your hair looks so beautiful and shiny.
Exhomosexuaĺ, been saved almost 40 yrs, this is one of the best videos ever, brought to tears several times, went to Moody, never knew this
It would be interesting to also discover wat the early church believed about Salvation and Sin, from a 1st century backdrop.
.....you can find that answer in The Book of Acts and Paul's letter to the Romans. 😊
I think the first basic "creed" was the ICHTHUS - The Greek word for "fish" and the acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son [is] Savior."
Alisa, this is a Treasure Trove of CRITICAL INFORMATION,;and desperately demands a textual version of the audio, so that we may peruse each sentence carefully and critically, and become fully informed of the many scriptural references mentioned here! Is it possible to obtain this? This may be the most important video you have produced to date. Thank you for your love and devotion to our faith in Him!.
However Bill Craig does with his Reasonable Faith transcripts..
Alisa, you need to speak with Dr. Daniel Wallace of The Center For The Study of New Testament Manuscripts. CSNTM.
I'm surprised that with all of Habermas's credentials he isn't aware that Paul's theology wasn't derived from early Christian creeds or even from the original apostles but came thru direct revelation. In Galatians1 11-12 Paul clearly states "For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man’s gospel, For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [t came to me through a direct revelation by Jesus Christ." That's why his gospel to the Gentiles and his teachings ran into conflicts and sometimes were even opposed by the original twelve
Did you miss the question and response at minute 46:00?
@@labsquadmedia176 I saw it, but it's irrelevant. 1st, there's no comparison between Paul's account of being taken to the 3rd heaven where he witnessed things he wasn't permitted to share with the MANY times he proclaims various truths that he describes as mysteries revealed to him directly by God is an apples/oranges situation. The first event is most likely related to being stoned and left for dead but the others are related to his 3 years of "seminary" training directly by the Lord in Arabia. 2nd, Habermas' claim that Paul is just relaying an existing shared "creed" in 1Cor15 is refuted by Gal2 about Paul's meeting with the apostles to address their concerns about the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles (salvation by faith plus nothing) which was NOT the same as the gospel they had been proclaiming to the Jews since the day of Pentecost. Paul says in Gal2:5 that he didn't yield submission to them even for a moment so that the truth of the Gospel (his gospel) might continue to be preserved in its purity - (faith alone without adding works of the Law). The result of that meeting was that the apostles agreed not to interfere with his gospel to the Gentiles and they would continue preaching their version to Israel.
@@JoanDArc77 You have some valid points, IMHO.
@@LindaC613 ❤ Always go by the scriptures while relying on the interpretation by the One who wrote them (the Holy Spirit) rather than the opinions of so-called bible experts who generally couldn't exegete their way out of wet parchment if their life depended on it.
I've seen a few comments stating that just because the earliest Christians believe this doesn't make it true. I would just say, Gary Habermas is also an expert on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and a resurrection would validate the claims of the earliest Christians.
Mythology/religion is accepted through belief and faith.
The best skeptics have not been able to come up with an alternative explanation for why the earliest Christians believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus other than the reasons these first Christians themselves gave for their beliefs-that they saw Jesus alive after he had died, that it validated everything he ever taught, and that they were therefore motivated to spread this message as far and as wide as they could despite continual and extreme persecution.
this was like fresh mountain air
I like the Baha’i explanation of Trinity. The divine messenger is like the Mirror on earth reflecting the Light. The Sun remains the One Source. This fits the scriptures well. The mirror can say I am the sun to you. It reflects divinity to humanity. ❤️🙏🏽
I'm imagining Eastern Orthodox Christians getting a kick out of protestants realizing there was such a thing as church traditions and creeds in the early church. 🤣
True, but Protestants will rightfully wonder why Orthodox Christians, who so value the creeds, also give so much credence to traditions and teachings that are in opposition to those same creeds.
@@LzCoda "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15
Who says that Orthodoxy does not hold onto these traditions? You, independently, through some personal revelation, have determined so? What a gift you have been given, apparently.
The Church in Thessaloniki, which this letter was written to, is still in Thessaloniki, and still holds onto the holy tradition as given by St. Paul.
@@George-ur8ow Perhaps. But you have a great deal of different "churches" in the east: Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, Armenian, etc., all claiming to hold to the Apostle's teaching. It really is presumption on your part that one specific sect is blemishless, even while certain teachings which are currently espoused simply are not found in the early Church. Offering incense to icons and the Marian liturgical calendar simply are not "the teachings of the Apostles."
@@j.athanasius9832
Liturgical calendars and incensing holy things, including depictions of angels, the altar, the ark, etc were part of Israelite temple practice.
Read more your biblical texts, specifically Samuel and kings. When I saw an orthodox service, it just looked like a spin-off of biblical temple worship to me, except no animals died and you could see into the inner sanctum, whereas in the temple, that area would have been hidden from the congregation.
For the record, I'm not a believer in anything I just study this a lot so I don't really care about bickering over who's got the most churchiest church. However, the first Christians were jews, still attended synagogue worship and temple worship, so it would follow that they would organize their practice similarly to temple and synagogue practice since that's what they already knew, and refine it to reflect their beliefs.
Where I will pick a fight theologically is that the early Christians absolutely did believe that the bread and wine with water was the actual body and blood of Jesus, however that might have occurred, whether in some mystical sense or what have you, and is in its way, in line with previous sacrificial practice as told in Samuel. Not that I would necessarily attach that to holy significance but it was a normal part of temple practice.
@@azurephoenix9546
Can you tell me where I might find more information or documentation on the “bread & wine / communion” being the actual body & blood ?? Thanks for your time in advance.
Alisa, please interview Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. A highly credentialed Christian on the crucifixion.
Irenaeus in his writings in effect lays out the Nicene Creed in the first century.
Irenaeus wrote in the second century right, not the first. But your point still stands.
@@joshuas1834 and the only Church with 2,000 years of pedigree is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church. Read the Apostolic Church Fathers on everything like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp and read the Didache this should help you understand what they were doing .
@@danviccaro3920 your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote and just comes off as patronizing and annoying. Nothing I wrote would give you reason to assume anything about my stance toward Catholicism or how familiar I am with the writings or the apostolic father's. FYI I have read a two volume set of the writings of the apostolic Father's which included everything you mentioned and more.
@@joshuas1834 I applaud you my hat is off to that your taking time to learn the Church Fathers and read the Didache also I hope one day I am welcoming you home to the Church of Jesus Christ. Well done and good luck ..
@@joshuas1834 remember to go deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
Thank you
Excellent introduction to creeds and their role in the New Testament. Someone should send this to Andy Stanley in light of his recent ignorant statements about the creeds lacking “love” and being tools of governing authorities. Using the simplicity of the “earliest Christology is the highest Christology” shatters his reinterpretation of the purpose of creeds. What greater love is there, that a man lay down his life for a friend? 1 Cor 15:3/John 15:13. If Stanley doesn’t think Jesus’ work on the cross is evidence of love then he doesn’t know what love is.
Andy Stanley should be avoided.
about 19 mins in "we often hear from skeptics that the deity was a legendary development"....that's interesting, in that we as Christians tend to hear such statements ( I said statements, not arguments, that's important) and immediately want to respond to such statements (not arguments) without first saying "now hang on a minute, where did you get that from? Do you actually know that to be true?"
We sometimes hold skeptics to two low standards
1. A low standard of epistemology --- how we come to know something to be true
2. A low standard of burden of proof --- we try to argue unsubstantiated statements (not arguments), that is, a skeptic just says something without having to say why they say so or how they came to that conclusion and yet we immediately want to respond to the statement, whereas if we were to ask them to substantiate the statements they make, they might expose the logical fallacy or lack of evidence for their statements and realise that they rely on "faith" claims just as much as Christians do if both sides don't know something independently from an author....I might be "gullible" for believing something that Paul wrote, or a skeptic could be just as gullible for reading something that Thomas Payne or Voltaire or Bertrand Russel wrote without evidence and/or without knowing how they arrived at the thoughts that they wrote down in such fancy language that they sound intelligent, so inteliigent-sounding that what they say MUST be true, whereas "even Christian theologians admit that Mark has grammatical errors" so Voltaire must be smarter than Mark and therefore his statements must be more true
IF we held skeptics to the same standards of evidence, argument and epistemology as they hold Christians, would they still hold their skeptisms as strongly?
Habermas likes to talk…..and I love to listen to him. :D
Beautiful!! 🕊 😍
This is a great video. Although Childers tries to jump from the creeds to saying “this suggests substitution atonement”.
No it doesn’t. The problem with Protestantism, and I am a protestant, is the fact that we decipher everything through Soteriology, and not Christology. We are looking through a telescope from the wrong end(not from the eye piece) everything is distorted, small and the picture is incomplete. Jesus died for our sin, but not in a legalistic way. Jesus is God, Jesus died to defeat death so that we may be in Union with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Ghost for all eternity. This is what the early church believed in. If anyone’s interested, the Eastern Orthodox Church has the cliff notes. “Son of Man” Jesus is speaking of his Diety. Again see Eastern Orthodoxy for the cliff notes. Read: “The Crucifixion of the King of Glory: The Amazing History and Sublime Mystery of the Passion”
Her statement starts at 15:18. She is saying that 1 Corinthians 15 not only states the events of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, but it gives the divine reason WHY. Christology and soteriology are not mutually-exclusive. Without that, we humans would not admit our sins, admit that that we cannot atone for them ourselves, and repent/turn from them and "work out our salvation" (santification) on this side of eternity as we grow in holiness by the grace of God.
As Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 15:56-57
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I have just read ‘The Master and his Emissary” by Ian McGilchrist. A new way to understand “Check off certain boxes.” The book gives clinical, psychiatric and surgical evidence that suppression of right brain or right brain deficits are associated with putting things in boxes/categories. Such rationalization of Christian belief systems may be irremediable, inflexible, incapable of change. I am not any authority nor do I dare judge (I too will be judged on the last day) but what little I know as RN with additional training is this may be the reason Jesus says “He who has ears to hear.’ And God saying He hardened Pharo’s heart for His purpose showing his strength.
Such helpful info! I’m saving this one to rewatch for sure
Excellent podcast as always!
From what I’ve experienced it would be good to reintroduce these creeds. In most “gospel” presentations the resurrection is not even mentioned. The creeds bring back what is important in what people should believe. It’s easy to believe that someone died, it’s easy to believe someone died for someone else, these things happen all the time. It’s not easy to believe that God raised someone from the dead.
A remarkable discussion and thanks for sharing ✝️
LOVE Gary ❤️
We weren't designed to live by creeds. We were designed to live by the inheritance we have received in Christ Jesus and respond to the love of God He has given to us through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
the first century text the Didache, is pretty much the earliest window into Christianity outside of NT text - it was a kind of church manual but is organized in sections that elucidate much on early Chrstian mindset
The preliterary creed that opens Paul's Roman epistle indicates a Christology that was prevalent at the time as he's recting it in order to get on the same page with the church in Rome.
That Christology paints Jesus as elevated by God, but it contrast with the very high Christology that Paul recites in Philipians 2 (that Jesus humbled himself from a high divine position and took on human form)
The early creeds typically were responses to heresy. They are wonderful, but all leave out the “middle life” of Jesus. The Anabaptist Comma is an idea of how to insert Jesus’ kingdom life into a creed.
I know at least TWO of the "Creeds," as it were. First----"GOD is One,"
Not '3,' and...The "Gift of tongues" is a legitimate blessing from the
Spirit of GOD.
If you follow the development of their beloved “creeds”, you can watch the evolution of their false belief.
Is there a modern,up to date book/pamphlet/website listing all these creeds?
This was great…
I don't know if you're aware or not but the Podcast when played on the Google player is not rewindable
We know what the earliest Christian believed because we have the encyclicals (letters) written to the new churches that were spreading through the commission Jesus gave to His Church under Peter & the other Apostles (Bishops).
The Church Fathers being disciples of the Apostles, consecrated to be Bishops in the Commission given to the Church.
Peter was given the Keys to be the Viceroy of the Church, passing the keys to the next through the Holy Spirit moving through the Bishops, until the return of The King returns
AlisaI have a question for you, why did you not introduce Dr. Hagerman as the editor of the Oscar Cullmann book? He’s listed as the editor right on the front cover that’s a low mark of professionalism on his part. The early church was comprised of Jews, who rarely spoke Hebrew outside of the synagogue, because the every day language of the Galileans was Aramaic. There were three different dialects of Aramaic. Earliest records now show that there were. Aramaic writings of the sayings of Jesus. These same Jews also had a Bible Kotter tonight, which was the old testament and was titled the Septuagint in. It was written in Greek they were not ignorant people. They knew the prophecies concerning the Messiah in a beautiful account is related by the deacons, Stephen just before he was stoned to death, but I’ll look at what Stephen gave in his defense as what was probably the understanding of the average Galilean Jew.
Today we have gospels and books in the New Testament that have been written, not for me, Jewish or Aramaic cultural point of view, but from a Greek point of view, which I am sad to say, does not capture a lot of what was conveyed by Jesus in the parables, and then the idioms of the aramaics.
One thing we can say for certain about early Christians is that they weren't MIMICKING anyone. So why do people TODAY attempt to do that? If the Father was available THEN, He is available NOW, so what any sincere follower should do is turn their heart and mind to the Holy Spirit, and when a Leading is given, follow it...even unto death or public disgrace.
When it says bows to Jesus, isn't that the same as just bowing to a king, not worship?
Issue I have this, that the translators of Bible used the same principle as Hebrews, Lord is actually a substitution for God's name.
The earliest is the simplest "Jesus Christ, Son of God ,Saviour" Take the first letter from the Greek words for this creed and they spell the Greek word for fish ...and you can find drawings of the simple outline of fish all over the middle east...and on bumper stickers today.
I posted the Early Roman Creed in the appendix of my book...
The Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions mention blessings by the names of YHWH of Samaria and YHWH of Teman.
Like all ancient Near Eastern gods, these two regional gods must have had central temples.
This article examines their possible locations and suggests that the combination of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions with the eighth-century prophecies of Amos and Hosea holds the key for identifying these.
In light of a detailed analysis of Hosea’s and Amos’ prophecies, it is further suggested that YHWH of Samaria was the name of the major God of the Kingdom of Israel and his main temple was located at Bethel, and that YHWH of Teman was the name of the God of the southern desert regions and his temple was located at Beer-sheba.
Israelite traders who traveled southward probably visited the latter god’s temple, offered him sacrifices, made vows to repay him if they succeed in the expedition, and thus turned him to be their patron god during their travel in the desert region.
This suggested identification explains why the Judahite cult place of Beer-sheba appears in Amos’ prophecy alongside the Israelite sanctuaries of Bethel, Gilgal, and Dan.
Two very different YHWH's:
1) The YHWH of Samaria/Bethel (Yehowah/Jehovah), who is the 'singular' God of Israel.
2) The YHWH of Teman/Edom (HaShem; unpronounceable "Yahweh") who is the 'polytheistic' god whom the Judahites keep choosing.
Read the Samaria/Bethel Israelites Bible. 6000 differences.
Judaism got duped by Yaldabaoth/Yahweh. The difference between good and evil is the difference between Samaria/Bethel YHWH and Teman/Edom/Beer-sheba YHWH.
Kinda like how Muslims have the Warsh and the Hafs...yet they choose the Hafs.
There are, as I count them, seven different Jesus' in the canonical Greek New Testament.
Book of Revelation is Yahwistic nonsense.
We're supposed to use reason and discernment to see good and evil.
Stop apologetics.
Apologetics is lies.
Alisa, did you see the debate about your book on the Unbelievable show? Do you think you’ll respond to it?
I seen that, I would like to hear her respond to it. I thought it was a little unfair or one sided.
Unfortunately he never formally gave his thumbs-up to Alisa's Grandmas Peach Cobbler analogy!
Great guest tho.
Thanks I really enjoyed this. The percentage of illiterate people in the early centuries also explains why the RCs use a 'creed form' with the Hail Mary etc to instill from childhood their blasphemies. The Our Father isn't blasphemous, but they use a mixture of true and untrue prayers. The use of set prayers which are to be repeated mantra like as if they have a magical protective nature, take on the form of a creed for them which actually reinforce untruths and shows the true pagan nature behind that system.
I like your observation pertaining to the RCs. Hearing this helps one understand how people can believe the wrong way even while reading Scripture opposing what they've been led to believe.
Robert Nelson. Which prayers are you talking about that are untrue and blasphemy? And the Scriptures that you love to quote, where did they come from.
Robert Stodard. Where did the Scriptures that you talk about come from?
Robert Nelson so very well said !
Thus, breaking out of R C into ordinary Christianity can be more difficult than breaking out of Islam into Christianity
“Beware of those who deny the bread and wine is the self same body and blood of Jesus Christ.”
St Ignatius of Antioch
“Wherever Jesus Christ is
There is the Catholic Church.”
St Ignatius of Antioch 107ad.
There is only 1 Church started by God himself where there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church the Church Jesus Christ started Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Alisa, I am going to ask you to do something difficult. Maybe you will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole. I am a 69 year-old Catholic who does his best to know Jesus. One thing troubles me about Catholicism, and I cannot find a satisfactory answer. Believe me, I have tried. Here is my problem: IMO, the Eucharist has co-opted the Gospel. By that I mean that the Eucharist is vastly more important in the Catholic Church than is the Gospel. If I say that to a fellow Catholic they will strongly object, but I have had plenty of experience in my 60 years of belief to come to this conclusion. I often wonder why the preaching at a RCC is so lacking in Gospel; rather, the preaching is a lot about "the church". As far as I can tell, I think the Gospel took a back seat to the Eucharist some time around 1000 AD, but this is just a hunch. It appears that the Gospel is clearly articulated in the Catholic tradition up and slightly past that time; but in the second-thousand years, the Eucharist becomes dominant. IMO, this development in the RCC helped to lead to the Reformation. If you can give your opinion, I would appreciate it. I have purchased history books and I have not found the answer. I hope you know where to look or whom to talk to. Surely there is someone who is objective enough to answer this question honestly. In conclusion: Basically I want to know if the "earliest" Christians' worship was focused more on the "breaking of the bread" or was it more focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
The early church had an altar and was defined by the celebration of the mass and the Holy Eucharist.
Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism.
The Lords instruction on how to worship Him:
"On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord. In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice."
St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.):
"They (Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist it the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
St. Justin Martyr 155AD:
“…in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name…
Not an expert answer but in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Eucharist is more important because the Eucharist is the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, from the beginning. But the Gospel doesn't take a back seat, it's presented at every mass -- there are multiple daily readings! There are plenty of Catholic YT channels such as Catholic Answers, Trent Horn's Council of Trent, and Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology that might give you in depth answers. Other's might give more insightful and in depth info. Jotun's answer seems to offer a good context!
" ...the Gospel took a back seat to the Eucharistic some time around 1000AD... " ?
You seem to be under the impression that there is competition between the two..
The Gospel is the Good News of the Messiah and redemption..
The Eucharist is the manner of redemption, the Sacrifice of Calvary.
The Eucharist IS the Good News!
But why are you asking a Protestant to explain Catholic doctrine?
Why not ask a Catholic!
Except for the clergy and the rich, people were illiterate for more than 1500 years, The only books were in church and were written in Latin. The scriptures were heard in church, sacred traditions played a large part in Christianity. The bible was heard and not read for most of Christian history. The bible was not available to illiterate men for 1500 years.
Have you Gavin Ortlund? He's a very fair-minded Protestant scholar who tries to be balanced in his work. I think his channel is Truth Unites. I'd recommend him for help on the topic.
I appreciate the interview and am genuinely happy that Protestants are looking into the history of the Church, but please don't pretend that you've uncovered something previously unknown. The Ortthodox Church has known, preserved and disseminated these truths for 2,000 years through our "Tradition".
It wasn’t the trinity, they were all Jewish and the furthest thing away from that ( DUET 6:4) have you ever noticed how many problems Saul/ Paul had to address when the gentiles came into the fold , their lifestyles ,,thinking, their philosophies that had to be dealt with and their understanding of G-d, and how simple his teachings were towards them. Clarity,simplicity on the essentials . It took man to add the complexity and insert philosophy
100% agreed. The philosophers, or church fathers as they call them, corrupted the truth.
The Catholic Church gave us the authorized version of the Bible.
It's so fortunate that the Catholic Church did this one thing right.
If you want to find out what first century Christians believed it’s easy. Read the works of the Early Church Fathers. These men are “the disciples of the disciples” and their writing sounds extremely Catholic. They write of the Mass, of the Eucharist, and of the divinity of Christ.
Your are totally correct to go deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
You can get an insight into what the early Christians were doing in 1 Corinthians 11 : 23-33 NIV. The Apostle Paul says:
"I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus... took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
It's pretty clear the earliest Christians were celebrating the Eucharist exactly as it is celebrated today.
Amen
What writings of Pinchas Lapide is Habermas pointing to, regarding 1 Corinthians? @13:43
Our brother John gave us wonderful God inspired insights on Jesus and His integral place within the Trinity. He also was inspired to write that by reading the scriptures it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us. We honour God in Spirit and IN truth or His reality. For those seeking and asking the H.S. to lead will intuitively know in their hearts what is true. This always occurs through the heart rather than our intellectual pursuits of God's truths. The early church father's understanding of Jesus and the Gospel etc which Eastern Orthodoxy which to this day still remains close. Centuries later the Orthodox/ Roman Catholic Schism and centuries later still the Protestant Reformation introduced different dogmas to muddy the waters in our search for the Truth the Way and the Life. All three factions agree on that this is found in Jesus the Word of God waiting to be revealed in ALL of mankind. The unbroken image of God our true Christ centred self to be made real. Let us stop the debates the false Gospel bashing and simply follow Jesus with our hearts and be true lights to this suffering world. Let us learn the difference between our false selves, with its fear based self serving agendas, to our true selves (Galatians 1;16) as now consciously aware of our position within the Trinity to love and serve one another. Except for the remnant and the mystics (Jesus on earth was one) we have seen little change to world affairs. Religion and exterior cultural norms yes...transformation into the maturity of Christ no. The game is up and we are now in a post Christian era and unless we stop labelling those (like Jesus in His day) who are critiquing our Christianity as heretics (the prophets of old were stoned) our Gospel suffers. And indeed if the world is on a downward spiral, and here our Christian hypocritical witness is mostly to blame for this, no matter. The early church father's understanding of God's unrelenting grace and mercy reconciles ALL of creation to Himself IN Jesus on the cross. APOKATASTASIS!!! God's sovereign will will not lose one sheep. God being God does not lose for as Paul writes if we have no faith it is His faith which sustains ALL for God cannot deny Himself. Elisha keep asking the hard questions for I believe it will eventually wean us of so much biased human legalistic biblical interpretation since the Reformation. Go back to the early church father's (and Orthodoxy) and discover this to be true.! Shalom and Maranatha.❤️