Thank you, you are welcome! Just happy that you enjoyed the talk. Happy new year, 2024! All the best for a great year ahead 🙂

Some groups removed them earlier. They still don't have a uniform canon

@SeekTheCross The biblical canon was established by the Catholic Church in AD 382, at the Council of Rome.

@@fantasia55 I booted him. He decided to get stroppy elsewhere.

The Protestant historical narrative, when examined, makes little sense, and appeals heavily to heresy and Gnosticism.

@LloydDeJongh I'm starting to see that. I'm also starting to see the resemblance between Luther and other suspect religious figures.

@@tanyaandtheark Matthew, mark, Luke and John were the Scriptures all over the region And empire before nicea.

@jaryd_yarid Didn't say the Gospels weren't used as scripture before Nicea, they used scripture to debate the heresy of Arianism at Nicea I. I'm saying the assessment and compilation of the official canon began in 382 AD by the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo etc, held by the Catholic church.

Thank you very much for the support!

I would tend to agree it seems more than a little bit odd

I've heard there are dozens of contradictory theories, including that Hesus never existed, that Jesus was the sun god Ra and that Jesus was a Muslim. They probably aren't all correct.

I went where history and facts took me, with all this research. Living in Poland, it's not easy to find English services, but I attend Catholic mass, which is very similar to the High Church Anglican mass, as in nearly identical. We know which came first. In a sense, I haven't gotten round to it, but I have questions I need to answer first, because Catholics have made a mess of confusion, and I'm trying to straighten it out in my head. The badly catechised are legion, right now.

​@@LloydDeJonghI'm a credo Catholic but with all going on for years with their bank and the Skittles blessing, I'm considering Orthodox. What's your take on the orthodox church?

@@user-vl3dh8kz3m I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole. I'm not into fiction

I'm an ex Catholic and now non-denominational, though I attend protestant services. This video was very illuminating as I wasn't open to the Deuterocanon but certainly am now. I understand your push for 'the establishment', within the ecclesia, but just like you said, tradition can also be based on error and that's the spirit behind the reformation, regardless the depravity of its most popular agent Luther. I'm for being grounded in the scriptures over people or authorities. Paul himself declared that he should be accursed if he were to preach another gospel. That being said, the scriptures need to be interpreted and tested through the spirit and not the letter, which means canonization isn't the god we all seem to have made it.

​@@markwaki3950You're for repeating the exact error of Luther and the Gnostics, and you're a qualified spirit tester with special voices in your heard and special feelings to guide you. Gnostic.

Just remember, even though David is a heretic, he was unrightfully raided on legal grounds.

I wouldn't take him seriously, or his guests. It's fiction

A simple response to the claim that Judaism is a copy of religions such as Zoroastrianism would be that it is not supported by historical evidence. Judaism is older, for a start. Comparative studies of religions reveal common themes and influences, it is incorrect to assert that Judaism is a direct copy of Zoroastrianism or any other religion. 1. Chronological order: Judaism predates Zoroastrianism, with the origins of Judaism dating back to at least the 2nd millennium BC, while Zoroastrianism emerged in the 6th century BC. Thus, it is historically implausible for Judaism to be a copy of a religion that came after it. 2. Unique theological beliefs: Judaism has distinctive theological beliefs, such as the monotheistic worship of Yahweh, the concept of chosenness, the importance of the Torah, and the covenant between God and the Jewish people. These elements are not found or emphasized in Zoroastrianism, indicating clear differences between the two religions. 3. Textual evidence: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) provides a detailed record of Jewish religious beliefs, practices, and history, which significantly predates the formation of the Zoroastrian Avesta. Jewish texts, such as the Torah and the Prophets, are fundamental to the faith and predate Zoroastrian texts by centuries. 4. Cultural distinctiveness: Jewish culture, rituals, customs, and historical experiences have their distinct character, which cannot be fully explained or attributed to Zoroastrian influence. Judaism has roots in the ancient Near East, with its unique history, traditions, and customs shaped by factors specific to the Jewish people. While religions may influence each other to some extent over time, asserting that one religion is a mere copy of another oversimplifies the complex and multifaceted nature of religious development. It is important to approach such claims with a critical perspective, considering the historical context, theological differences, and cultural distinctiveness of the religions in question. Can one find evidence that Zoroastrianism may have had an influence on some practices found within elements of Judaism today? I'd say there is room for that.

@@LloydDeJonghthank you. I knew you would have a good response. I think it’s all a money grabbing act

@@LloydDeJonghmuch appreciated. Have a happy new year

Yeah, I have no defense against that burning feeling. Maybe some healing cream? The "burning in the bosom" is a Mormon term, though similar concepts are used by Calvin, Luther and obviously the Gnostics.

Gaviscon

German or Swedish?

@@LloydDeJongh potato or potawto

@@TheGushroom termarto or termayto?

No one agreed with your view throughout the first fifteen centuries of Christianity.

Unfortunately you have to remember the whole history behind the Protestant reformation that included the renaissance, age of reason, that encouraged Protestants to try and reinterpret scripture that was already interpreted by apostles and men that knew Jesus. Being a Catholic this one is one of the hardest to answer. I can just say the same reason it’s easy for me to understand is the same reason it’s hard to understand for you. I have to pull the card on tradition for this one, that is why I am against sola scriptura. We can agree Jesus was a Jew and Old Testament plays a big role in what Christianity is today. When Moises went up to mount Sinai He came back with 2 physical and one personal. He came back with the commandments = we would consider it the Bible The whole Torah as the oral law= apostolic tradition. And the authority to teach= made up of our magistrates. The importance of the number 3 is complete you are founding your beliefs on one of the most important things that is the Bible, but you are missing at least one more piece. I came back to Catholic Church after trying to learn true unfiltered Christianity made way to apostolic father. And how they use to teach in the first 200 years of Christianity, you may not become a Catholic, but it will help you understand your Christian faith. The faith of the early fathers 3 book collection written by William a Jurgen. Or anything on apostolic church father.

@@SeekTheCross No one agreed with your interpretation throughout the first fifteen centuries of Christianity.

I'll be doing From Luther to Hitler in a while