Some RUclips theologian I don't remember who posted the agenda of the Council of Nicea. I think there were four items but it may have been three. The Arian heresy that Jesus is man but not God Another heresy that Jesus is not man but only God was also declared anathema Thus the doctrine of the Trinity was established as Orthodox and the first version of the Nicene Creed was written. The third issue was the date of Easter. If there was a fourth item I would have remembered if it was the canon. The claim that Rome invented Christianity at Nicea is an obvious lie. The Bishop of Rome wasn't there. Or missed. The real prototype of Santa Claus was there though. Bishop Niclaus of Myra. He is known for his charity ( reality doesn't live up to the legends but he was remarkable). He is also known to have come to blows with the heretic Arius. Also Constantine called the council of Nicea and opened it but he was not qualified to discuss theology, even less to decree it. However some of the delegates remained after the Council of Nicea closed. They authorized and funded copies of the Bible.p They must have had a defacto discussion on canon since they decided what to include. As Dr. Cooper said nothing official.
Not exactly- Arius, that is Arians, thought that the Son pre-existed but claimed he wasn't eternal. They called him God but they refused to admit he was eternal. So yes, they denied the true Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But their false heretical view of Jesus wasn't that he was only a man.
There are probably two cultural phenomenona that lead to more silly beliefs about Christianity than anything else - Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" and that nonsensical "Zeitgeist" movie.
@@CHRISTISKING4EVER222 LOL! Logic isn't your strong point it seems. 🤣. I must assume that you are simply a really young person or a well-meaning older person who lacks an elementary foundation in reading comprehension or basic reasoning. I did not mention any books and the original commenter only referred to one. Do you need me to diagram the sentences in my comment so that you can more easily identify the subject vs. the object? The predicate? The issue I addressed with them? Because you address _none_ of these in your hilarious non sequitur / ad hominem / strawman argument. If I decide to say something stupid, I'll contact you first for advice - you seem to have mastered the craft. An education beyond what I obviously already have is neither required, nor sufficient to comprehend my two sentence post. _However_ , I believe my four university degrees and two professional licenses suffice for the achievement of so lofty a task. In the meantime, I'll keep my posts based upon the opinions they address, thereby avoiding stupid utterances and leave them in your obviously more capable, expert hands.
@@MrSeedi76 Mercy, this section is filled with mentally-challenged people - _your truth claim, Mr. Seedi._ That is what I am talking about., of course. Which of the two sentences did _YOU_ struggle to comprehend? I'm happy to simplify them a bit if that helps you understand more easily.
The recognition of the canon is like when somgwriters put out a lot of songs but only some become hits. Their "canon" would be the or hits. The audience were moved by some nut not the others. The Spirit is in the church forming what the church recognized as what is canonical.
Could you please cite one statement from history up until and including the council of Nicea that shows that the doctrine of the Trinity was already well established, as you claimed?
@@johnnylollard7892 So what then is that singular name he commands us to baptize in? Because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not singular names and they’re not even names to begin with, but titles. So tell me what that ‘name’ is. And how did the Apostles do it in the book of Acts?
Yes. You are right. God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. But in 367 AD. St. Athanasius had already the list of the 73 books. In 382 Pope Damasus 1 approved it buy the church council of Rome. 📖✝️🔥🔥🔥🔑🍞🍷
@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve athansius professed a 66 book canon. And he is the earliest one to mention the list of accepted books if we not include Origen who also gives the protocanon as the true canon.
@Averyaveragedeskin yeah. Baruch was part of jeremiah in greek. Idk why he left out esther maybe because like judith esther was not considered authentic by some jews.
@@gamerjj777 yeah, at the time of Jesus there wasnt a definitive jewish canon, so Athansius probably chose what traditions he liked along with what books he enjoyed.
In 367 AD. St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was approved by Pope Damasus 1 in 382 AD. And was formally approved by the Church council of Rome in that same year. Later councils of Hippo 393AD. And Carthage 397 AD. Ratified this List of 73 books. Etc. Etc. God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. "WHERE THE BISHOP APPEARS THERE LET THE PEOPLE BE. JUST AS WHERE JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. St Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD. 📖🍷🍞🔑⛪️📿🕊🔥🔥🔥
Athansius professed a 66 book canon. And he is the earliest one to mention the list of accepted books if we not include Origen who also gives the protocanon as the true canon
@Soviet.Christian 72 books. If so why was it barely around Lutheran time that those other books where removed. Even the first original King James version had the 72 books... And later Lutheran STILL KEPT them just put then in the middle or back of the bible as Apro...... 😎🙏🏻✝️📖📖📖🔑⛪️🔑
That was the most mealy-mouthed side-stepping of the question concerning who chose the present day Biblical cannon I have seen in quite some time. "Oh, it just kind of happened "organically". Nobody _really_ chose or excluded any writings of any saint or apostle. "People" just "recognized" and agreed upon which books were "inspired" and included in the New Testament. ( " _and which books were not_ . . . . . . _you know_ . . . _despite being likely referenced by Jesus Christ himself._ ) Do you people ever actually watch yourselves in these clips before you post them? Or do you watch them and simply fail to see / hear how you sound / look to others because of a remarkably obtuse lack of self-awareness?
@@Ericmccabe1917 Oh, I love him too. I pray for him. I appreciate him. But the Biblical Canon is an issue, and side-stepping it with logical fallacies is neither useful, nor good for acquiring or maintaining confidence in his work. Better to say we just don't know.
@@MrSeedi76 No. It is not. It is definitely NOT, " _exactly what he said_ . It isn't even _close_ to what he said. Why would you ask such a question if you watched the video? Were you unable to follow or understand, " _exactly what he said?_ " Perhaps you should watch it again. Maybe take it sentence-by-sentence? He only spoke maybe 7 or 8 sentences. It should not be difficult for the average person to follow. He is well spoken. But If you need me to -uhm - _simplify_ it for you I will.
@@MrSeedi76 "It was pretty clearly recognized pretty early on rather organically which books were inspired." Recognized by whom? Early on as in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century? Suggesting that the canon happened organically is like saying the OT canon was organically accepted by the groups of Jews in Jesus' day. Martin Luther famously said that "we got the Word of God from the Papists." Also, not knowing just hurts the case for sola Scriptura. Still much love for Dr. Coops.
Charges? Where are there "charges [brought] against [him]." Apparently you believe any disagreement with a fellow Christian brother equals a " bringing of charges "? Please think that comment through and consider deleting it for your own sake. And examine your thought processes concerning legitimate debate and searches for truth. Your present ones are flawed and not useful to you or anyone else.
They are entirely off topic... The claim in question is usually raised by skeptics against the nt. The comments are Catholics arguing over the old testament canon.
@@maxxiong I am not Catholic. 99% of the time, Catholics defeat themselves is such arguments. One simply need let them talk. Here, the claim in question is NOT " _raised by skeptics against the nt_ " so your attempt to deflect and redirect the argument is obvious. Never weasel away from a disagreement or argument based in fact.
Some RUclips theologian I don't remember who posted the agenda of the Council of Nicea. I think there were four items but it may have been three.
The Arian heresy that Jesus is man but not God
Another heresy that Jesus is not man but only God was also declared anathema Thus the doctrine of the Trinity was established as Orthodox and the first version of the Nicene Creed was written.
The third issue was the date of Easter.
If there was a fourth item I would have remembered if it was the canon.
The claim that Rome invented Christianity at Nicea is an obvious lie. The Bishop of Rome wasn't there. Or missed.
The real prototype of Santa Claus was there though. Bishop Niclaus of Myra. He is known for his charity ( reality doesn't live up to the legends but he was remarkable). He is also known to have come to blows with the heretic Arius.
Also Constantine called the council of Nicea and opened it but he was not qualified to discuss theology, even less to decree it.
However some of the delegates remained after the Council of Nicea closed. They authorized and funded copies of the Bible.p They must have had a defacto discussion on canon since they decided what to include. As Dr. Cooper said nothing official.
Thank you. This was useful and informative. I fact checked you a bit. Solid comment.
Not exactly- Arius, that is Arians, thought that the Son pre-existed but claimed he wasn't eternal. They called him God but they refused to admit he was eternal. So yes, they denied the true Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But their false heretical view of Jesus wasn't that he was only a man.
There are probably two cultural phenomenona that lead to more silly beliefs about Christianity than anything else - Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" and that nonsensical "Zeitgeist" movie.
You must be a modern Christian. Point your finger at others, but never take responsibility for a "cultural phenomenon" yourselves.
@@zippitydoodah5693Both those books make claims that dont align with the historical data. Get better educated before you say something stupid.
@@zippitydoodah5693😂 what are you even talking about.
@@CHRISTISKING4EVER222 LOL! Logic isn't your strong point it seems. 🤣. I must assume that you are simply a really young person or a well-meaning older person who lacks an elementary foundation in reading comprehension or basic reasoning. I did not mention any books and the original commenter only referred to one. Do you need me to diagram the sentences in my comment so that you can more easily identify the subject vs. the object? The predicate? The issue I addressed with them? Because you address _none_ of these in your hilarious non sequitur / ad hominem / strawman argument. If I decide to say something stupid, I'll contact you first for advice - you seem to have mastered the craft. An education beyond what I obviously already have is neither required, nor sufficient to comprehend my two sentence post. _However_ , I believe my four university degrees and two professional licenses suffice for the achievement of so lofty a task.
In the meantime, I'll keep my posts based upon the opinions they address, thereby avoiding stupid utterances and leave them in your obviously more capable, expert hands.
@@MrSeedi76 Mercy, this section is filled with mentally-challenged people - _your truth claim, Mr. Seedi._ That is what I am talking about., of course.
Which of the two sentences did _YOU_ struggle to comprehend? I'm happy to simplify them a bit if that helps you understand more easily.
The recognition of the canon is like when somgwriters put out a lot of songs but only some become hits. Their "canon" would be the or hits. The audience were moved by some nut not the others. The Spirit is in the church forming what the church recognized as what is canonical.
Could you please cite one statement from history up until and including the council of Nicea that shows that the doctrine of the Trinity was already well established, as you claimed?
They cannot.
Go ahead. When was it cited
Yeah, it's a statement known as the Holy Bible, written by God, who commands to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
@@johnnylollard7892 So what then is that singular name he commands us to baptize in? Because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not singular names and they’re not even names to begin with, but titles. So tell me what that ‘name’ is.
And how did the Apostles do it in the book of Acts?
I can't believe be didn't even mention Santa Claus throwing hands. That's the most important part. So disappointed!
And, what about the Council of Rome in 382 AD? Wasn't that a council that decided on the biblical cannon?
Yes. You are right. God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. But in 367 AD. St. Athanasius had already the list of the 73 books. In 382 Pope Damasus 1 approved it buy the church council of Rome. 📖✝️🔥🔥🔥🔑🍞🍷
@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve athansius professed a 66 book canon. And he is the earliest one to mention the list of accepted books if we not include Origen who also gives the protocanon as the true canon.
@@gamerjj777 Athansius technically had a 66 book cannon but it included Baruch and omitted Esther.
@Averyaveragedeskin yeah.
Baruch was part of jeremiah in greek. Idk why he left out esther maybe because like judith esther was not considered authentic by some jews.
@@gamerjj777 yeah, at the time of Jesus there wasnt a definitive jewish canon, so Athansius probably chose what traditions he liked along with what books he enjoyed.
DEBATE JAY DYER
In 367 AD. St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was approved by Pope Damasus 1 in 382 AD. And was formally approved by the Church council of Rome in that same year. Later councils of Hippo 393AD. And Carthage 397 AD. Ratified this List of 73 books. Etc. Etc. God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. "WHERE THE BISHOP APPEARS THERE LET THE PEOPLE BE. JUST AS WHERE JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. St Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD. 📖🍷🍞🔑⛪️📿🕊🔥🔥🔥
Athansius professed a 66 book canon. And he is the earliest one to mention the list of accepted books if we not include Origen who also gives the protocanon as the true canon
@Soviet.Christian 72 books. If so why was it barely around Lutheran time that those other books where removed. Even the first original King James version had the 72 books... And later Lutheran STILL KEPT them just put then in the middle or back of the bible as Apro...... 😎🙏🏻✝️📖📖📖🔑⛪️🔑
Except the Council of Rome is another one of those imaginary claims Rome insists upon. It never happened.
A document cannot derive authority from itself.
Authority comes from the writer, not the paper and ink.
@@ro6ti Is that an argument in your mind? Do you believe your comment even approaches addressing this fellow's claim?
That was the most mealy-mouthed side-stepping of the question concerning who chose the present day Biblical cannon I have seen in quite some time.
"Oh, it just kind of happened "organically". Nobody _really_ chose or excluded any writings of any saint or apostle. "People" just "recognized" and agreed upon which books were "inspired" and included in the New Testament. ( " _and which books were not_ . . .
. . . _you know_ . . . _despite being likely referenced by Jesus Christ himself._ )
Do you people ever actually watch yourselves in these clips before you post them? Or do you watch them and simply fail to see / hear how you sound / look to others because of a remarkably obtuse lack of self-awareness?
I love Dr. Cooper but this is absolutely spot-on.
@@Ericmccabe1917 Oh, I love him too. I pray for him. I appreciate him. But the Biblical Canon is an issue, and side-stepping it with logical fallacies is neither useful, nor good for acquiring or maintaining confidence in his work. Better to say we just don't know.
@@zippitydoodah5693isn't "we don't know" exactly what he said?
@@MrSeedi76 No. It is not. It is definitely NOT, " _exactly what he said_ . It isn't even _close_ to what he said.
Why would you ask such a question if you watched the video?
Were you unable to follow or understand, " _exactly what he said?_ "
Perhaps you should watch it again. Maybe take it sentence-by-sentence? He only spoke maybe 7 or 8 sentences.
It should not be difficult for the average person to follow. He is well spoken. But If you need me to -uhm - _simplify_ it for you I will.
@@MrSeedi76 "It was pretty clearly recognized pretty early on rather organically which books were inspired."
Recognized by whom? Early on as in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century? Suggesting that the canon happened organically is like saying the OT canon was organically accepted by the groups of Jews in Jesus' day. Martin Luther famously said that "we got the Word of God from the Papists." Also, not knowing just hurts the case for sola Scriptura. Still much love for Dr. Coops.
Hey Dr. Cooper you should be addressing these charges that are bringing against you in the comment section
Charges? Where are there "charges [brought] against [him]." Apparently you believe any disagreement with a fellow Christian brother equals a " bringing of charges "? Please think that comment through and consider deleting it for your own sake. And examine your thought processes concerning legitimate debate and searches for truth. Your present ones are flawed and not useful to you or anyone else.
They are entirely off topic... The claim in question is usually raised by skeptics against the nt. The comments are Catholics arguing over the old testament canon.
@@maxxiong I am not Catholic. 99% of the time, Catholics defeat themselves is such arguments. One simply need let them talk.
Here, the claim in question is NOT " _raised by skeptics against the nt_ " so your attempt to deflect and redirect the argument is obvious. Never weasel away from a disagreement or argument based in fact.