Aa a former academic, and university lecturer, I'm glad to hear that you're laying out theological camps and their various biases. This is standard across the academy in all disciplines. Every discipline (science, history, social science, etc) has major conflicts with their own biases. Outsiders think that they all agree. Insiders know that there is all sorts of disagreement.
Hi from Leicester England. 1st time I’ve caught Remnant live, been watching since COVID. I love the show and appreciate the thoughts on various topics 🔥👑
The more interesting argument for the paganizing of Easter is related to the holiday from which the name Easter and the German name mentioned by the other poster derive: Eostre. This was a Saxon fertility goddess celebration. I would love to hear an episode on how this was or wasn’t paganized into Resssurection Sunday celebrations.
Please help. If there were only 3 Arian heretics among the bishops at nicea, then how did we get to the place where we could say athanasius Contra Mundo? Did arianism become very popular after the council or was it just really underrepresented at the council? If it was the universal belief of the church with very few exceptions why did athanasius have to fight it so hard just a few years later?
Nicea solved the doctrine but there were still a lot of Arians and Arian bishops after the council. There were more Arians than Christians at one point.
Thank you for clarifying what at the council of Nicaea was about. But concerning St. Nicolas you could have done some more research. Here a very short summery: That Bishop of Mira was a generous man and did secretly during the night contribute gifts to families, who had not enough money for living. But somehow his church found out. After he had died, they kontinuet to support needy families secretly, guess when? Always in the night ot the Bishopes death! Athers copied the habit and it surrvived till our time.
Fact: Constantine was never saved. He murdered his wife and Christian son after using Chrisitanity to win his civil war. He was baptized by his Arian cousin Eusebius of Nicomedia at his death. Back then, they held ot a superstiious baptismal regeneration, and people believed that getting baptized right before you die was the surest way to make sure your sins were forgiven. The gospel was completely corrupted by Nicea, and the council failed by just one vote to enforce clerical celibacy at the council, even tryting to force all married elders and deacons to be no longer legally able to sleep with their wives. Nicaea was a sham.
I hear the term Forced Conformity. I'm surprised most people did not go along with that. They might have said, "All that you have for doctrine is fine. I see nothing wrong with it, but I'm not going along with your forced conformity. Count me out." However, somebody always wants to exercise authority over another like an HOA or something.
Thank you for your excellent videos on the Nicene Creed. My question is off-topic but still about a Creed and our Christian confession. I wonder what your thoughts are concerning someone who claims to be Christian but; according to 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7; are they antichrist? They refused before the whole world to confess Christ-to even read their copies of the Apostles’ Creed, at Bush Sr’s funeral. Thank you for discipling Christ’s Church! So needed today. ❤
Ummmm.... native German speaker from Switzerland here. We don't call Easter "Pasca" or anything similar in German. We call it "Ostern". If I had to guess I would say that that's where English gets "Easter" from. Although there are many countries in Europe that have a word that is derived from "Pasca" not all of them do. In Eastern European countries the root is completely different.
Luke's statement was original to Jesus. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 right after quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. And he refers to both quotes as scripture. The quote from Luke is found only in those two verses (and, of course, in later Christian writings who are quoting one or the other).
Fact: There was no agreed upon doctrine of the Trinity before Nicea. The closest extant document expressing an idea close to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity was by Novatian of Rome, who was held as a heretic by the Alexandrians, Romans, and Carthaginians. Even he mixed Stoicism and Monadism into his doctrine, but was closer to the Scriptural idea that what was held in Rome (Modalism) or Alexandiria (Arianism). The fact of the matter was, Origen of Alexandia, who was contempoirary with Novatian, taught that the Son and the Spirit were created. He led a school at Caesarea, and his brother led the school at Alexandira, becoming the bishop Heraclas of Alexandria. Paul of Samosata taught adoptionism at Antioch. No one with any knowledge of the Ante-Nicene writings can make a case that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity was established before Nicaea. In fact, the term Trinity is the Latinized version of the Greek Triados, which wad invented by the Pagan philospher Pythagoras, who was dedicated to Apollos. The term was then adopted by Christians as they begaen to mix Stoicism and Pythagoraeanism into Christianity, openly declaring that men like Plato, Zeno, and Pythagoras were inspired by God.
At 10:33 - These men are horribly misinformed. There was a "christian gnosticism" which was essentially the mixture of Christianity with Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism that began with the Jewish Philo of Alexandira and continued with Tatian the Assyrian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria. Clement even calls it "gnosticism" dozens fo times in his "Miscellanies," suggesting that it is the more mature way to understand the Christian "mysteries." This school of thought was fully represented at Nicea as Eusebius of Caesarea was the head of Origen's school at Caesarea, and one of the top 3 leading voices at Nicaea, along with Hosius of Cordoba and Alexander of Alexandria. He was responsible for adding the gnostic term "homosousian" to the Creed after it was agreed upon, which had only been used by gnostics and other heresies before then. After the death of Constantine, he wrote his Ecclesiastical History, claiming that it was Constantine who wanted it added, but Eustantius of Antioch, (who was there at the council) said it was Eusebius, because he knew that Eusebius was the guardian of Origen's secret doctrine, that was 100% gnostic (claiming that men were fallen angels trapped in human flesh, reincarnation, and universalism), and that Eusebius and his mentor Pamphilus had written an apology for Origen, in which they used his usage of the term 'homousian' to defend the claim that Origen believed in the equality of God the Father, and Christ; which was also false, because Origen wrote in his First Principles that Christ and the Holy Spirit were two created angels, and in this Commentary on John that the Father created the Son, and the Son created the Holy Spirit. Epiphanes of Salamis and Jerome would prove that Origen was a heretic and the true author of what is called 'Arianism," but all of this was lost to the power politics of Alexander and Athanasius, and the gnostic secrets of Eusebius. Nicaea was a complete sham, and led to a complete shattering of Christian unity that has never recovered since. In fact, I am in India now, where the Mar Thoma (Saint Thomas) Christians reject Roman authority compeletley and see it as idolotry, and have about 1500 years.
@@charleslasley2604 I wrote a book called "Rightly Dividing: That They Be One." Otherwise, you'll want to read Philo's complete works, Plato's Timaeus, and Phillip Schaffs Ante-Nicene Fathers series.
The Passover was not so much paganized at Nicaea as it was brought under Roman authority. 170 years before Nicaea, Anicetus of Rome tried to convince Polycarp of Smyrna (John's disciple), to change the tradition in the East from celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ around the Jewish passover to celebrating it on a Sunday that the Romans would calculate. As Polycarp said he was taught his tradition by John the Apostle, he declined to submit to the new Roman tradition. The Romans then convinced the Alexandrians to follow them, and the Romans and Alexandrians were the two cities most obsessed with exalting their own authority over other churches in the region; so, at Nicea, they got Constantine to lead everyone to submit to the Roman Easter celebration, which helped lead to the idea of Rome being the head of the whole church. The churches in the East continued to celebrate according to the tradition put forth by John the Apostle, and this tradition was eventually part of the the traditions among the anti-Niceans.
This is a rather specious argument, as the Quartodeciman Controversy centered around Polycarp and Polycrates demanding that Rome observe the Passover as the apostles did and the Jezebel church wanting to reject the Passover altogether and and demanded that Christian churches celebrate the pagan Easter festival instead.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Only pompous people use terms like "specious arguement" and then go on to cite lame SDA propaganda as if it is factual. Try backing up your counterclaim with an actual citation. That will be the end of that.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
100% False. The JWs had nothing whatsoever to do with Arius or anything he taught, nor did Arius start the movement that Athanasius called "Arianism." The movement was a mixture of disaffected groups who did not like the results of Nicaea, which created the Roman Catholic Pentarchy (Archbishops) who Constantine gave the power over all the church offices in 5 districts (diocese) of the Roman Empire. Basically, they were against two things: 1) The marriage of the church to the Roman State and the creation of the Pentarchy 2) The use of the term homoousian in the Nicene Creed, which was added after the Creed was agreed upon. This term was only used by gnostics, modalists, and adoptionists before Nicaea, and had been rejected by bihsops from Alexandria and Antioch in the previous generation, inlcuding in regional synods (councils). Athanasius was a propagandists and made up most of what is now believed about the Arians. Before him, his predecessor Alexander was calling Arius an adoptionist, which was an entirely different heresy that Jesus became divine at his baptism. Arius was simply being slandered because he corrected Alexander publicly and the Alexandrian bishops beleived they were of a higher authority than the othr bishops in the region. The Council of Nicea was about creating that authority through the Roman State. Nothing more...nothing less. Your average megachurch pastor lacks the research skills and reading comprehenison to be a teacher of the Word of God. They are professional communicators and stage performers who know more about the timing of a good joke then the technical specificity of historical theology.
Yes Constantine was so dedicated to the "one true faith" established at Nicea and Arius was such a heretic that 10yrs later at the First Synod at Tyre Arius' view was deemed orthodox and Athanasius was sent in to exile. Arius was allowed back to communion and Constantine before his death was baptized by an Arian bishop...you guys are so intellectually dishonest, do better research and check your bias at the door.
Fact: There was no agreed upon canon at Nicaea. Different churches held to books like Hermas, Barnabas, Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Apocrypha, and rejected or questions books like Esther, 2nd & 3rd John, and 2nd Peter. There was never an ecumenical council that upheld the modern protestant canon, to the exclusion of all other books. Prove me wrong.
Sure, no council held the Protestant canon, but different church fathers did. Other church fathers held to the Roman Catholic canon. The canon in Protestantism is not dogma. In fact there isn't actually anything wrong with believing that the Apocrypha is inspired for historical protestants.
@@Deww-ez Show me an example of the Protestant canon prior to Nicaea. That would be all of the Protestant books and no additional books. (That's what canon means). Also, most of the Apocyrpha are provably false and contradict both common history and the other books of the OT. They are 100% not-inspired.
@@undergroundpublishing No, Protestants don't hold to an official canon. The idea of a canon being established is only something in the Roman Catholic church when they dogmatically defined the canon at the Council of Trent. Jerome held a view that is similar to what most modern Protestants believe. As for whether or not the Apocrypha is inspired or not, I don't really care since it doesn't contradict any biblical teachings and I still believe they are valuable to read.
I am so disappointed in your collective acceptance (and especially willingness to ignore) the growing influence of pagan thought through these false holidays. They are not benign. I encourage you all to study further into not only their origins and connections(not in just one or two cultures, but across the world), but also look at the puritans views of them, and how they have slowly crept into our culture today. Most disappointing was the argument that (paraphrasing) the whole world views it differently than we Americans, so let’s follow them. C’mon, man! 😆
What pagan thought? There is absolutely zero historical evidence that any notable holiday has pagan roots. And absolutely zero historical evidence that any of the traditions currently associated with these holidays have pagan roots (pretty much all of them post-date the death of paganism by centuries). The fact that some of the puritans thought that there was some pagan influence on some of these things doesn't mean that they were right. If you think that there are problematic elements to these holidays then the best way to warn others about them is to point out those specific elements and explain why they are problematic. But appealing to pagan origins for which no evidence actually exists is not an effective way to communicate that warning. I'm struggling to think of any point where the guys talked about differences between Americans and those of us who live outside the US. The closest I can think is when they pointed out that the argument that "Isthar sounds like Easter" only works in English, because pretty much every other language (including both Greek and Latin) calls Easter by a name derived from the Hebrew word for Passover. Which isn't an America vs the rest of the world thing, since there are many countries in the modern world which speak English.
@@stephengray1344 oddly enough, nobody can agree on whether "Easter" in English derives from an old German word for "east/dawn", or from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility. If the latter, it may indeed have some long-forgotten derivation from the much older idolatries, but only in English etymology that long post-dates the early church.
@@aaronvienotEaster is a pagan holiday for the goddess of fertility, Ishtar; thus the rabbit egg hunts. It has absolutely nothing to do with resurrection. And Christmas celebrates the winter solstice and idolizing the tree cut down from the forest and decorated with silver and gold. Forbidden by God, Jeremiah 10:3-4. The celebration of birthdays was started by the Roman Caesars and is pure worship of mans ego. The very thing the NT says must go, the old carnal man. Love of SELF. Not to celebrate it. There are even worse pagan practices within Christianity because the religion was created by the Romans soon after 70 ad so they mixed lies with truth from different pagan beliefs (I.e. virgin birth, son-god, trinity, bodily resurrection after death, etc). If you believe in ANY doctrine of the Catholic church, it's a false doctrine. ANY DOCTRINE of the CC is a false understanding of the truth and it's core beliefs are based in mythraism and other religions all mixed together. Mystery Babylon in the bible.
@@jdaze1 Virtually everything you say here is completely false. There is no historical evidence for a connection between Easter and Ishtar. There is no historical evidence that the association it's had with rabbits for the last three centuries or so comes from Ishtar. There's no evidence that Christmas was chosen to coincide with the winter solstice. The Christmas tree comes from medieval mystery plays re-enacting the story of Eden that were performed on 24th December. And they don't resemble what's described in Jeremiah 10 (where the wood is physically shaped into an idol). And Christianity can't have been created by the Romans in 70 AD because we have Christian texts (such as most of the books of the New Testament) that were clearly written before then. And the doctrines you say were adapted from paganism are either things that clearly have Jewish roots (bodily resurrection, the trinity) or things that aren't actually found in paganism (virgin birth), with the possible exception of the idea of god having a son (where the Christian conception of that is completely different from the pagan one). However, the most bizarre thing you say is that every single doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is false. Are you seriously claiming that God does not exist, that Jesus was neither crucified or raised from the dead, or that scripture does not come from God? Because those are all doctrines that the Roman church preaches. If you want to persuade us that you are right about any of this, then you need to bring some evidence. Show us historical sources that show that the things you claim are pagan were actually believed or practiced by pagans. Show us historical sources that show that they were adapted by Christians at a time when the pagans who practiced them were still around, rather than being adopted many centuries after paganism had died out in the relevant parts of the world.
@@stephengray1344 This argument of yours' is entirely false. Not only is it based on a desire to ignore the plethora of evidence about the pagan origins of most cherished holidays, it is also based on a desire to continuing observing these festivals despite their blatantly obvious pagan origins.
Aa a former academic, and university lecturer, I'm glad to hear that you're laying out theological camps and their various biases. This is standard across the academy in all disciplines. Every discipline (science, history, social science, etc) has major conflicts with their own biases. Outsiders think that they all agree. Insiders know that there is all sorts of disagreement.
Hi from Leicester England. 1st time I’ve caught Remnant live, been watching since COVID. I love the show and appreciate the thoughts on various topics 🔥👑
The more interesting argument for the paganizing of Easter is related to the holiday from which the name Easter and the German name mentioned by the other poster derive: Eostre. This was a Saxon fertility goddess celebration. I would love to hear an episode on how this was or wasn’t paganized into Resssurection Sunday celebrations.
Please help. If there were only 3 Arian heretics among the bishops at nicea, then how did we get to the place where we could say athanasius Contra Mundo? Did arianism become very popular after the council or was it just really underrepresented at the council? If it was the universal belief of the church with very few exceptions why did athanasius have to fight it so hard just a few years later?
Nicea solved the doctrine but there were still a lot of Arians and Arian bishops after the council. There were more Arians than Christians at one point.
@@Deww-ez
Nope. There were more Christians before Trinitarians took over.
@@eew8060 Imagine believing Arianism is true
@@Deww-ez
It's a fulfillment of Christ wheat and tares parable. Trinitarians are the false wheat/tares (Matt 13:24-43)
Josh has moments it sounds like he talks In fast forward lol
Thank you for clarifying what at the council of Nicaea was about. But concerning St. Nicolas you could have done some more research. Here a very short summery: That Bishop of Mira was a generous man and did secretly during the night contribute gifts to families, who had not enough money for living. But somehow his church found out. After he had died, they kontinuet to support needy families secretly, guess when? Always in the night ot the Bishopes death! Athers copied the habit and it surrvived till our time.
Fact: Constantine was never saved. He murdered his wife and Christian son after using Chrisitanity to win his civil war. He was baptized by his Arian cousin Eusebius of Nicomedia at his death. Back then, they held ot a superstiious baptismal regeneration, and people believed that getting baptized right before you die was the surest way to make sure your sins were forgiven. The gospel was completely corrupted by Nicea, and the council failed by just one vote to enforce clerical celibacy at the council, even tryting to force all married elders and deacons to be no longer legally able to sleep with their wives. Nicaea was a sham.
Hey guys! Edmond here. Love your show!
I hear the term Forced Conformity. I'm surprised most people did not go along with that. They might have said, "All that you have for doctrine is fine. I see nothing wrong with it, but I'm not going along with your forced conformity. Count me out."
However, somebody always wants to exercise authority over another like an HOA or something.
Thank you for your excellent videos on the Nicene Creed. My question is off-topic but still about a Creed and our Christian confession. I wonder what your thoughts are concerning someone who claims to be Christian but; according to 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7; are they antichrist? They refused before the whole world to confess Christ-to even read their copies of the Apostles’ Creed, at Bush Sr’s funeral. Thank you for discipling Christ’s Church! So needed today. ❤
Ummmm.... native German speaker from Switzerland here. We don't call Easter "Pasca" or anything similar in German. We call it "Ostern". If I had to guess I would say that that's where English gets "Easter" from. Although there are many countries in Europe that have a word that is derived from "Pasca" not all of them do. In Eastern European countries the root is completely different.
Could someone talk about Lady Babylon cannel and Ammon Hilton please?
Josh! The Nicene creed ≠ Nicene council.
I've lost track of how many times you've conflated the two. 🤦🏼
Hey everyone, watching from Salem, Oregon PNW USA 🇺🇸
So when Paul quoted Luke, was Luke’s statement original or quoting from the Old Testament or another apostle?
Luke's statement was original to Jesus. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 right after quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. And he refers to both quotes as scripture. The quote from Luke is found only in those two verses (and, of course, in later Christian writings who are quoting one or the other).
Greetings from Orange county CALIFORNIA USA
Just a question I just don't ever see the relevance of the song of Solomon Enoch probably should be in there more so than it
Fact: There was no agreed upon doctrine of the Trinity before Nicea. The closest extant document expressing an idea close to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity was by Novatian of Rome, who was held as a heretic by the Alexandrians, Romans, and Carthaginians. Even he mixed Stoicism and Monadism into his doctrine, but was closer to the Scriptural idea that what was held in Rome (Modalism) or Alexandiria (Arianism). The fact of the matter was, Origen of Alexandia, who was contempoirary with Novatian, taught that the Son and the Spirit were created. He led a school at Caesarea, and his brother led the school at Alexandira, becoming the bishop Heraclas of Alexandria. Paul of Samosata taught adoptionism at Antioch.
No one with any knowledge of the Ante-Nicene writings can make a case that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity was established before Nicaea. In fact, the term Trinity is the Latinized version of the Greek Triados, which wad invented by the Pagan philospher Pythagoras, who was dedicated to Apollos. The term was then adopted by Christians as they begaen to mix Stoicism and Pythagoraeanism into Christianity, openly declaring that men like Plato, Zeno, and Pythagoras were inspired by God.
At 10:33 - These men are horribly misinformed. There was a "christian gnosticism" which was essentially the mixture of Christianity with Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism that began with the Jewish Philo of Alexandira and continued with Tatian the Assyrian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria. Clement even calls it "gnosticism" dozens fo times in his "Miscellanies," suggesting that it is the more mature way to understand the Christian "mysteries." This school of thought was fully represented at Nicea as Eusebius of Caesarea was the head of Origen's school at Caesarea, and one of the top 3 leading voices at Nicaea, along with Hosius of Cordoba and Alexander of Alexandria. He was responsible for adding the gnostic term "homosousian" to the Creed after it was agreed upon, which had only been used by gnostics and other heresies before then.
After the death of Constantine, he wrote his Ecclesiastical History, claiming that it was Constantine who wanted it added, but Eustantius of Antioch, (who was there at the council) said it was Eusebius, because he knew that Eusebius was the guardian of Origen's secret doctrine, that was 100% gnostic (claiming that men were fallen angels trapped in human flesh, reincarnation, and universalism), and that Eusebius and his mentor Pamphilus had written an apology for Origen, in which they used his usage of the term 'homousian' to defend the claim that Origen believed in the equality of God the Father, and Christ; which was also false, because Origen wrote in his First Principles that Christ and the Holy Spirit were two created angels, and in this Commentary on John that the Father created the Son, and the Son created the Holy Spirit.
Epiphanes of Salamis and Jerome would prove that Origen was a heretic and the true author of what is called 'Arianism," but all of this was lost to the power politics of Alexander and Athanasius, and the gnostic secrets of Eusebius. Nicaea was a complete sham, and led to a complete shattering of Christian unity that has never recovered since. In fact, I am in India now, where the Mar Thoma (Saint Thomas) Christians reject Roman authority compeletley and see it as idolotry, and have about 1500 years.
where can i read about this?
@@charleslasley2604 I wrote a book called "Rightly Dividing: That They Be One." Otherwise, you'll want to read Philo's complete works, Plato's Timaeus, and Phillip Schaffs Ante-Nicene Fathers series.
The Passover was not so much paganized at Nicaea as it was brought under Roman authority. 170 years before Nicaea, Anicetus of Rome tried to convince Polycarp of Smyrna (John's disciple), to change the tradition in the East from celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ around the Jewish passover to celebrating it on a Sunday that the Romans would calculate. As Polycarp said he was taught his tradition by John the Apostle, he declined to submit to the new Roman tradition. The Romans then convinced the Alexandrians to follow them, and the Romans and Alexandrians were the two cities most obsessed with exalting their own authority over other churches in the region; so, at Nicea, they got Constantine to lead everyone to submit to the Roman Easter celebration, which helped lead to the idea of Rome being the head of the whole church. The churches in the East continued to celebrate according to the tradition put forth by John the Apostle, and this tradition was eventually part of the the traditions among the anti-Niceans.
This is a rather specious argument, as the Quartodeciman Controversy centered around Polycarp and Polycrates demanding that Rome observe the Passover as the apostles did and the Jezebel church wanting to reject the Passover altogether and and demanded that Christian churches celebrate the pagan Easter festival instead.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Only pompous people use terms like "specious arguement" and then go on to cite lame SDA propaganda as if it is factual. Try backing up your counterclaim with an actual citation.
That will be the end of that.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Arius, is considered the spiritual founder to the International Bible Students/ Jehovah witnesses movement
100% False. The JWs had nothing whatsoever to do with Arius or anything he taught, nor did Arius start the movement that Athanasius called "Arianism." The movement was a mixture of disaffected groups who did not like the results of Nicaea, which created the Roman Catholic Pentarchy (Archbishops) who Constantine gave the power over all the church offices in 5 districts (diocese) of the Roman Empire. Basically, they were against two things:
1) The marriage of the church to the Roman State and the creation of the Pentarchy
2) The use of the term homoousian in the Nicene Creed, which was added after the Creed was agreed upon. This term was only used by gnostics, modalists, and adoptionists before Nicaea, and had been rejected by bihsops from Alexandria and Antioch in the previous generation, inlcuding in regional synods (councils).
Athanasius was a propagandists and made up most of what is now believed about the Arians. Before him, his predecessor Alexander was calling Arius an adoptionist, which was an entirely different heresy that Jesus became divine at his baptism. Arius was simply being slandered because he corrected Alexander publicly and the Alexandrian bishops beleived they were of a higher authority than the othr bishops in the region. The Council of Nicea was about creating that authority through the Roman State. Nothing more...nothing less.
Your average megachurch pastor lacks the research skills and reading comprehenison to be a teacher of the Word of God. They are professional communicators and stage performers who know more about the timing of a good joke then the technical specificity of historical theology.
Yes Constantine was so dedicated to the "one true faith" established at Nicea and Arius was such a heretic that 10yrs later at the First Synod at Tyre Arius' view was deemed orthodox and Athanasius was sent in to exile. Arius was allowed back to communion and Constantine before his death was baptized by an Arian bishop...you guys are so intellectually dishonest, do better research and check your bias at the door.
Amen
Founder of there erroneous theology
Fact: There was no agreed upon canon at Nicaea. Different churches held to books like Hermas, Barnabas, Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Apocrypha, and rejected or questions books like Esther, 2nd & 3rd John, and 2nd Peter. There was never an ecumenical council that upheld the modern protestant canon, to the exclusion of all other books. Prove me wrong.
Sure, no council held the Protestant canon, but different church fathers did. Other church fathers held to the Roman Catholic canon. The canon in Protestantism is not dogma. In fact there isn't actually anything wrong with believing that the Apocrypha is inspired for historical protestants.
@@Deww-ez Show me an example of the Protestant canon prior to Nicaea. That would be all of the Protestant books and no additional books. (That's what canon means).
Also, most of the Apocyrpha are provably false and contradict both common history and the other books of the OT. They are 100% not-inspired.
@@undergroundpublishing No, Protestants don't hold to an official canon. The idea of a canon being established is only something in the Roman Catholic church when they dogmatically defined the canon at the Council of Trent. Jerome held a view that is similar to what most modern Protestants believe. As for whether or not the Apocrypha is inspired or not, I don't really care since it doesn't contradict any biblical teachings and I still believe they are valuable to read.
@@Deww-ez I'll leave you to your imagination then...
I am so disappointed in your collective acceptance (and especially willingness to ignore) the growing influence of pagan thought through these false holidays.
They are not benign.
I encourage you all to study further into not only their origins and connections(not in just one or two cultures, but across the world), but also look at the puritans views of them, and how they have slowly crept into our culture today.
Most disappointing was the argument that (paraphrasing) the whole world views it differently than we Americans, so let’s follow them.
C’mon, man! 😆
What pagan thought? There is absolutely zero historical evidence that any notable holiday has pagan roots. And absolutely zero historical evidence that any of the traditions currently associated with these holidays have pagan roots (pretty much all of them post-date the death of paganism by centuries). The fact that some of the puritans thought that there was some pagan influence on some of these things doesn't mean that they were right. If you think that there are problematic elements to these holidays then the best way to warn others about them is to point out those specific elements and explain why they are problematic. But appealing to pagan origins for which no evidence actually exists is not an effective way to communicate that warning.
I'm struggling to think of any point where the guys talked about differences between Americans and those of us who live outside the US. The closest I can think is when they pointed out that the argument that "Isthar sounds like Easter" only works in English, because pretty much every other language (including both Greek and Latin) calls Easter by a name derived from the Hebrew word for Passover. Which isn't an America vs the rest of the world thing, since there are many countries in the modern world which speak English.
@@stephengray1344 oddly enough, nobody can agree on whether "Easter" in English derives from an old German word for "east/dawn", or from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility. If the latter, it may indeed have some long-forgotten derivation from the much older idolatries, but only in English etymology that long post-dates the early church.
@@aaronvienotEaster is a pagan holiday for the goddess of fertility, Ishtar; thus the rabbit egg hunts. It has absolutely nothing to do with resurrection. And Christmas celebrates the winter solstice and idolizing the tree cut down from the forest and decorated with silver and gold. Forbidden by God, Jeremiah 10:3-4. The celebration of birthdays was started by the Roman Caesars and is pure worship of mans ego. The very thing the NT says must go, the old carnal man. Love of SELF. Not to celebrate it. There are even worse pagan practices within Christianity because the religion was created by the Romans soon after 70 ad so they mixed lies with truth from different pagan beliefs (I.e. virgin birth, son-god, trinity, bodily resurrection after death, etc). If you believe in ANY doctrine of the Catholic church, it's a false doctrine. ANY DOCTRINE of the CC is a false understanding of the truth and it's core beliefs are based in mythraism and other religions all mixed together. Mystery Babylon in the bible.
@@jdaze1 Virtually everything you say here is completely false. There is no historical evidence for a connection between Easter and Ishtar. There is no historical evidence that the association it's had with rabbits for the last three centuries or so comes from Ishtar. There's no evidence that Christmas was chosen to coincide with the winter solstice. The Christmas tree comes from medieval mystery plays re-enacting the story of Eden that were performed on 24th December. And they don't resemble what's described in Jeremiah 10 (where the wood is physically shaped into an idol). And Christianity can't have been created by the Romans in 70 AD because we have Christian texts (such as most of the books of the New Testament) that were clearly written before then.
And the doctrines you say were adapted from paganism are either things that clearly have Jewish roots (bodily resurrection, the trinity) or things that aren't actually found in paganism (virgin birth), with the possible exception of the idea of god having a son (where the Christian conception of that is completely different from the pagan one).
However, the most bizarre thing you say is that every single doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is false. Are you seriously claiming that God does not exist, that Jesus was neither crucified or raised from the dead, or that scripture does not come from God? Because those are all doctrines that the Roman church preaches.
If you want to persuade us that you are right about any of this, then you need to bring some evidence. Show us historical sources that show that the things you claim are pagan were actually believed or practiced by pagans. Show us historical sources that show that they were adapted by Christians at a time when the pagans who practiced them were still around, rather than being adopted many centuries after paganism had died out in the relevant parts of the world.
@@stephengray1344 This argument of yours' is entirely false. Not only is it based on a desire to ignore the plethora of evidence about the pagan origins of most cherished holidays, it is also based on a desire to continuing observing these festivals despite their blatantly obvious pagan origins.