Welcome to the GTP show. I am your host Dylan
and I'm with my co -host as always. I'm Jason.
That's right. He's Jason. I'm Dylan. This is
what we do. We're totally on schedule and we're
not forgetting to do things. This is awesome.
Look at that. Three weeks strong. Ain't nobody
going to stop us now unless God decides we're
done. But that's the point. Something else is
going on at that point. yeah you know who knows
who knows so this week um i mean jason you want
to get into the topic i mean like you know what
is the title of this segment because you always
you say it somewhere eloquently more than i can
you know hmm i i think a title i don't know before
this episode is finalized i don't know what the
title is going to be but it's going to be um
regarding biblical cool canon why and how yeah
okay so like we're talking about books that are
canon books that aren't canon why they aren't
there what was the problem you know there's some
books that were problematic so they were removed
or didn't line up necessarily um right so like
go ahead uh well we had a comment from someone
saying like um They were saying, well, the old
Testament, you know, Protestants say there's
39 books. Catholics say there's 46 Orthodox say
there's 51 Ethiopian Christians say there's 81.
Did, did Christians just take books out that
didn't line up or like, is it, is it just the
most popular books is what's the Bible? Like
what is the Bible? How did it become the Bible?
And what are we talking about in the long run?
Yeah. And that's going to be a little bit more
of a history. I mean, there's supposed to be
some history into this episode. I mean, the first
thing I think of, too, like we mentioned it last
episode, the tail end, was Martin Luther and
the Reformation of the Catholic Church, where,
you know, then there were things that were taken
out for the general public because, you know,
with the fluidity of the Bible and all things
like that. Like, you know, removing the book
of Enoch, the last final chapter of Daniel, the
gospel of Thomas, things like that were removed
for certain reasons. So we're going to dive a
little bit into that. We may actually even do
like a part two on this later on, because there's
a lot I feel like we can fit in that we won't
be able to fit in actually in this episode. Yeah,
that's a shoot. This is a topic I've studied.
hardcore so i'm ready for it yeah and i feel
like it's a one of those that's a very highly
debated and hot topic thing uh with i mean just
believers in general it's like well you know
because you have people that you know some well
i don't say branches of christianity because
i wouldn't call it that added to this you know
added to the bible Then there's the fact that
some of them kept books, which is fine, but it's
adding the books, like with the Mormons, adding
the whole book of Mormon. Sorry, I misspoke there.
Not really. I think of the book as a Morano.
It's one of the books. I always say that. So
just things like that where people added, and
we've talked about that too a little bit, and
then there's, you know, like with the Catholics,
they have the book, I believe they kept the book
of Enoch, and they have some other things in
there too that they kept. So, I mean, there's
a lot you went into. First thing I always think
about is the book of Enoch. I mean, that talks
about the whole structure of heaven and all that
stuff, you know, that thing, but it was a late
composition. And there's inconsistencies, you
know, in the book, like angels falling and, you
know, Nephilums and, you know, and then the whole,
there's not a lot of recognition for the book.
And it's not really, it doesn't really flow with
the, the whole, the flow of the whole Bible.
I mean, not so that, you know, like the Jewish,
it's not even included in the Jewish, you know,
not the Pentateuch, but the Torah. It's not even
recognized by that. It's basically like a set
of stories. But it's not like official, you know.
And there's also concerns with the authorship,
the consistencies, you know, in developing, you
know, with the Jewish. It does a lot of inconsistencies
with that book. So, I mean, it has to be taken
with a grain of, you know, a grain of salt. But,
I mean, it's got interesting stuff in it, not
to say, like, the hierarchies of angels and stuff,
but it's also, again, it's like, it's not 100
% positive that this is, you know, legit. So,
you have to guard your heart and have wisdom
when going into this. So, I'll add two things.
First, Well, we need to understand the term canon,
which came from the Greek word canon, which means
to rule or measuring stick. It refers to the
collection of books recognized as divinely inspired
and authoritative for faith and practice. The
canon was not instantly decided but emerged over
time through Jewish tradition, early Christian
use, councils, and debates over the first 500,
600 years. So if we're looking at Book of Enoch,
for example, this is something that I've greatly
debated with people about regarding it. Because
specifically of the book of Enoch, a lot of times
people who say a book of Enoch is something that
should have been in the Bible because Jude and
Jude 1, 14 to 15, it refers and directly quotes
Enoch 1, 9. But quoting does not equal canonizing
when it comes to scripture. Because Paul actually
also quoted pagan poets in Acts 17 .28 and Titus
1 .12 without endorsing their works as scripture.
Jude likely used Enoch as respected Jewish tradition,
not as authoritative text. Now, I know some people
are like, well, that's likely, but it could be,
etc. So, first off, there's a lot of, like you
mentioned, there's a lot of questions about authorship
and dating, as well as theological concerns.
It's also known as pseudepigraphal, which means
it's though attributed to Enoch from Genesis
524. If you want to know Enoch, scholars will
consistently agree is written around third to
first century BC. There is no apostolic connection
whatsoever because unlike the New Testament books,
for example, it couldn't be tied back to Moses,
the prophets or Jesus apostles in any given way.
Exactly. And I believe it was written. after
Malachi, if I'm correct. I want to say, which
is the last book of the Bible. All right. Right.
That's where it's like Malachi. What did I say?
I don't even know. Yeah. Malachi. Yeah. You said
it right. It's just, there was no more. God was
not speaking to the people anymore. There was
no more books to be written until the receiving
of Jesus Christ. That was the next step. so that's
why I mean like two words that's where it throws
in a lot of that where I'm saying the questioning
of it because of how it was written late it's
like well you know it kind of goes the idea of
did they meet the cutoff or was it past the cutoff
time that's why it's a questionable book and
like you said too the other issues that you know
it has yeah the only thing too that makes me
interested is too is like you know it talks about
enoch uh he didn't die how he was just like uh
no which one is it elijah eliza elijah elijah
you know how he was picked up in a cherry and
taken yeah and that's you know they said enoch
is the same thing he was basically you know beam
me up scotty um you know and that goes the end
time prophecy too with the two people that you
know men that would be there in israel preaching
and who says that those aren't those two guys
but that's a that's a theory you have to get
it all on itself and there's no lividity you
know or yeah yeah right i will mention i will
mention because i said it a little bit earlier
but the protestant canon catholic canon orthodox
and ethiopian canon those are the most common
canons when it comes to the old testament Protestant,
if you don't know, because this is obviously,
like I said, it's 39, 46, 51 and 81 books. Why
the variable? Well, Protestant canon actually
follows the Hebrew Masoretic text aligned with
the Jewish Tanakh, though ordered differently
than what they do. It rejects the Deuterocanonical
books, which is like Tobit and Maccabees as non
-inspired. The Catholics, they actually include
the Deuterocanical books affirmed at the Council
of Trent, which was actually in 1546 in response
to Protestant rejection. And these books were
part of the Greek Septuagint, which is widely
used by early Christians, which Greek Septuagint
is LXX. So Orthodox canon, they include additional
books like Esdras and the Maccabees and Psalms
151. And they take that from the broader Septuagint
tradition, which there was a growth of that tradition.
Ethiopian canon, well, they include Enoch, Jubilee,
other texts because of tradition, not because
of authoritative understanding of what scripture
is. They took it as this is tradition for us
to include these. just like Hebrew tradition
or Jewish tradition in that sense was to understand
and read these extra readings. They did not take
it as scripture, as authoritative scripture.
They took it as tradition. So Ethiopian canon,
for example, they take those as tradition. And
that's what their Bible is based upon is a lot
of scripture and tradition, both considering
it's worthwhile. The good news is New Testament
wise, New Testament canon was largely settled.
by the fourth century. I mean, um, it was based
upon the four gospels, acts, Paul's letters,
most general epistles, a few books like revelation,
Hebrews, James, second Peter were disputed early,
but they've been accepted. Um, mostly due to
like, if you ever look into it, the moratorium
fragments, which came out of the second century
or, and then, uh, Athanasius Easter letter in
three 67 AD, all kind of really closely resemble
today's new Testament and what we have. I didn't
mean to hijack. I do that a lot. No, that's a
good point. And it's kind of like, put it that
way, as Christians, we don't have to celebrate
Christmas. It's a tradition. Nowhere in the Bible
does it talk about celebrating Christmas. I was
just thinking that when you're talking about
the Ethiopians for traditional, it's a tradition
that we have now that, you know, Yeah, we, you
know, do gifts, service, and Jesus, but it's
nothing in biblical sense where it says this
is what you must do. That's what I was thinking,
you know. I know the kids would be upset about
that, you know. Oh, man. Gifts. You know, I would
be upset, too, because how am I going to get
my socks and underwear? and stuff like that yeah
there is those books and stuff and it's more
traditional to keep you know and have record
of this is what we do like with the maccabees
and stuff like that are important historical
figures in you know not necessarily in scripture
but in the culture itself i think there's some
more cultural things like you know and it's different
with everywhere you're at like look at you take
it now still Ethiopian Christians that are in
Ethiopia right now compared to Christians like
us that are in the States. Completely different
walks we have. Same thing with us here and those
who are in the Middle East. You're not worried
about some Islamic person going like, I'm going
to kill you. We don't really live in fear of
that here. Right. True. You know, we don't worry
about bombings constantly happening. And we're
like, for me, it's like, oh, is that an earthquake?
Okay. A little side note. It does talk about
that, too, that, what is it, when God was upset
with the people, or the believers, the earth
shaked, something like that. I think it was Paul.
Was it Paul? That's why the angel came down and
shook the earth, because he was upset. Something
like that. You're talking about... What's that
verse? Are you talking... I know Jesus' death
there was, right? Yeah. You saw that in Psalms
18, it talks about the earth shakes, but that's
talking about his glory kind of thing. Yeah.
The foundations of the mountains trembled and
they were shaken because he burned with anger.
That's Psalms 18. Okay, so that's Psalms 18.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I was
reading songs. The daily songs they give you.
It's a song for every day. And I was thinking
to myself, hmm, explains there's a lot of earthquakes
here in California. Jeez. I will say, just to
mention the Christmas thing, I mean, yeah, it's
tradition. I know we're not going to get into
Christmas, but Christmas is Christus Missus,
which means Christ's Mass. And if you don't know
the historical context of this, is that actually
We understood it from celebrating Jesus' birth
all the way back to 336 A .D., like that early
within the Christian churches and Christian celebrations.
And Rome actually would formally observe it on
December 25th and 336 A .D. In order to get rid
of the winter salsa celebration when more likely
he was born in spring, the time of his death.
It's interesting because like like winter solstice
was close by, but it wasn't because December
25th was not the pagan holiday. No, it was it
was close, but it wasn't it. And it wasn't because
of that. They choose it because at the time,
the understanding was Jesus birth was this time
frame. And so or they understood it because of
scripture saying that. Mary was pregnant and
this is this time frame and then they took that
and added months to it said okay so that puts
it around December and it was just understood
around December 25th it was actually because
they did math and it was just chosen by early
Christians they're telling me that there's actually
factual backing up that it was actually during
the time that it is what yeah it was just it
it was a coincidence that there was pagan festivals.
Um, the Bible doesn't really specify, but in
the timeframe that that was there, they were
doing math and trying to figure it out so that
they can add more traditions to remind themselves
of who Christ is so that no one would forget.
That was the whole point of traditions and, um,
uh, different things, religious activities that
they did and still do today is because they do
it to remember Christ teaching and Christ message,
et cetera. So it was really important to understand
that these were not to earn salvation or to be
more righteous, but to remind yourself and to
keep your mind focused on God and centered around
God. So that was important. But yeah, it is.
There are reasons why there are some popular
books that are not in canon. Like you mentioned
Book of Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas. That was a
popular one. The Dache was a popular one. Gospel
of Thomas, which you mentioned as well. They
were all widely read. It was more of a Gnostic
gospel, though. Well, yeah. They were ultimately
excluded because three reasons. Apostolic connection.
They lacked clear apostolic authority. authorship
and were written too late orthodoxy which their
theology conflicted with core christian teachings
so there were gnostic texts and usage while they
were popular they weren't universally read in
worship or cited as scripture by major church
fathers they were there as uh coming from a hebrew
tradition of books and works just like if you
and me are as christians go and pick up a book
at our local church that says like heaven bound
or something like that. And we read it. We don't
take that as scripture. It's good to read, to
have more knowledge and more insight, but it's
not there as authoritative scripture. And that's
what people need to understand is that a lot
of Jewish tradition had that as a thing that
was important, which is why you see. That from
the Ethiopian canon, for example, where they're
like, look, this is good to read. You should
read it. And they just said this is like just
traditionally accepted as something you should
read, not as authoritative, but in addition to.
So I mean, it is a lot of things like the late
writing of Thomas. There's no narrative. The
lack there's no like. Credibility to it. in a
sense. There's, you know, the gospel, it's not
considered a reliable source because it's a late
date, and then it's Gnostic origins, and there's
a lack of a narrative. There's just so many things.
And plus that, his doctrine, like, contradicts,
like, the divinity, you know, the divine nature
of his relationship with God. It's one of those
things, like, you read it, and it's like, ah,
this doesn't... You know, like, it does contain
some of the same teachings, like, some things,
but it's more like, like, Jesus said this. Jesus
said this. Jesus said this. It's not like anything
that actually has any, like, there's no backbone
to it. And that's more the issue. Yeah. Well,
there's no meat. There's no like, hey, we were
in this city at this time. This was the leader.
This is what was going on. This is the people
that were around him. This is us talking and
this is what he said. It was literally like...
Oh, he said this at one point. He also said this
at one point. He ordered a cheese pizza. He ordered
it on a Monday. Okay. Jason likes to eat spicy
things. I gave him a spicy chicken nugget one
time. oh you did yeah i yeah he really liked
it yeah it's like oh okay you know but what date
was that when was that i mean i could probably
look up and find it but like there's if i just
say that there's no structural backing to that
plus jason does not explain see he can't do spicy
right at least no no i've definitely been given
spicy yeah i've been given spicy I'm over here
going like, like you say, Mongolian. Yeah, that's
true. 2 .5 million on Google. Let's go for it.
I'm going to hurt later. So I will say with that
in general, I think it's important to understand
that Protestant canon came from the Hebrew Masoretic
text with orthodox and catholic um coming more
influenced with the greek septuagint which was
translated translated third and second bc for
the old testament and it was the bible of the
early church and its broader canon shaped later
divisions obviously creating multiple branches
of this um those greek septuagint included books
like tobit wisdom soraks baruch and maccabees
and they were written in Greek or preserved only
in Greek, not Hebrew. Early Christians like Paul
and some church fathers frequently quoted these
books. So with Catholics and Orthodox, they accept
them because the New Testament alludes to them.
In Hebrews 11 .35 mirrors 2 Maccabee 7, wisdom
influenced Paul's theology. The Council of Carthage,
actually in 397, actually formally affirmed.
The Greek Septuagint -based canon, later solidified
by the Council of Trent in 1546. Orthodox tradition,
like the Eastern churches, accepted additional
books like 3rd Maccabees and Psalms 151 because
based on local Greek Septuagint manuscripts.
For the Protestant rejection, you had Jerome's
influence, which his Latin Vulgate in the fourth
century distinguished between Hebrew canonical
books and Greek ecclesiastical books, which was
the deuterocanical ones. So the reformation,
which you hear a lot, you hear Baptist reformed
or reformed Christian, reformed Protestant, reformed
doctrine, reformed whatever. Protestants aligned
with Jerome's Hebrew -based canon, arguing that
the Deuterocanon lacked Hebrew originals and
contained doctrines like prayers for the dead
in 2 Maccabee 1245, conflicting with sola scriptura.
The Greek Septuagint widespread use in early
church led to It's books being retained by Catholic
and Orthodox while Protestant reformers reverted
to Hebrew canon, which is why you see that variable,
that difference with the Old Testament between
the different branches of Christianity. Yeah,
that's a lot there. I'm well studied on this
one. But it's important, though, to be studied
in all this because, like you were saying, you
look at the early church and you look at, you
know, how they had people who are well -versed
in the Latin and the Greek and all that stuff
so that they can make that call, you know, because
the whole goal there, you know, we hope that
their goal was to preserve the word. You know,
we have to believe to then have that faith. I
forget. Oh, we talked about the last episode.
the faith that the word is, you know, that God's
hand is in it and that God has a plan and that
God would not let his word, you know, be diminished
or anything, but that it would be used. People
that have the knowledge would then re reaffirm,
you know, and strengthen his word. And that's,
you can say it's trusting man, but I say it's
trusting a brother or sister in Christ, um, who
are charged. And I think, you know, to do that,
it's the same thing as being a teacher. I think
there has to be a calling and something on your
heart. Like, well, this needs to be addressed.
So when they address that and they go in there
to fix it, they're going, okay. It's also then,
you know, deciding, you know, look at the Jewish
people. Look how they handled it. What did they
say was actually canon? Yes, there's these other
books. There's other scriptures that, you know,
were taken out. You know, I think, like, last
chapter of Daniel. It's almost because it was,
it was, it was removed. It wasn't removed. I
mean, like Catholics have it, but it's also more
kind of redundant in a sense of, you know, you
know, because the book was to encourage people
and then it was more gloomy, do me talking about
the dragon, but it's not physically removed.
I mean, it's not really missing anything in a
sense because it still has the prophecy in it.
It's more like it was reduced down because it
was too bulky, which is, I mean, yeah. Talking
about Daniel 13, because that's the chapter you're
referring to. If you go look into it, obviously
there's a lot more. There's Psalm 151, which
we don't consider through Maccabees, any of the
Maccabees, honestly. But when it comes down to
Daniel 13, it's also known as the Susanna, which
is one of the most fascinating and debated additional
books of Daniel. It's part of the Deuterocanonical
books or the Apocrypha. It means that it's included
in Catholic or Orthodox Bibles, but not in most
Protestant ones. And here's why. A self -contrary
story about a virtuous woman, Susanna, falsely
accused of adultery by two corrupt elders. And
then Daniel intervenes, exposing the elders'
lies through clever cross -examination, leading
their... execution and Susanna's vindication.
The theme here is divine justice, wisdom, and
moral purity. Why it was disputed, because not
in the Hebrew Masoretic text, the early Hebrew
manuscripts of Daniel don't include it at all.
The Greek Septuagint, or actually it does appear
there in early Greek translations suggesting
it was added later, likely 2nd or 1st century
BC when the Greek Septuagint became a thing.
Catholics affirmed it in the Council of Trent,
like I mentioned, 1546. Orthodox accepted it
because it was part of the Septuagint tradition.
Protestants followed the Hebrew canon, which
we explained, which considers it edifying but
not scripture, and Jewish tradition just says
it's not in the Tanakh. That's the thing, too.
I think when it comes to Old Testament, probably
take the lead of the Jews because That is something
that they have passed down and passed down and
passed down. There's not really anything to be
refined from that because this is what it is.
This is what it has been. This is what it will
be. It's the same dang thing that Jesus read.
You know what I mean? Nothing's changed with
it from that time to my understanding. It's,
you know, it's a knock. It's, you know, the Pentateuch.
the first five books, it has all been really
the same. It's been preserved because it's tradition,
but it's also the religion that has been going
on long, long time. They've had it there. You
look at it like the Bible has been around for
a long time too. yes that's true but there's
also like you know the you know was the old testament
was already refined and done by the time you
know the old test new testament came to be so
there's less issues i feel with besides you know
wanting to add certain things and do certain
things i will add in because early church debates
happened often um for example jerome which he
included it He included in his Latin Vulgate,
which noted he didn't know in there. It's not
in the Hebrew origin, which if you don't know,
origin was a philosopher. He was an ancient philosopher
in the sense. And he was on Alexandria. Really
cool guy. If you go read his stuff, he was apologetics,
Christian theology, textual criticism. um hermeneutics
that was all his main interests and stuff like
that and he would study and point out different
things he he would defended daniel 13 in this
example arguing the jews had hidden some inspired
texts which is why catholics and orthodox kept
it in the kept it in because the septuagint which
was um primarily used by christians of the early
church as the main source of biblical Old Testament
was the Septuagint. Because the Greeks, the Greek
Septuagint was to preserve scripture. And that's
why it was so hardcore. But Protestants go off
of like, hey, this wasn't Hebrew tradition because
the Bible says, you know, they were supposed
to be keeping the scripture clean. that's where
the debate is so you know that's why you see
such a diversity in that but it doesn't change
how and what we do as christians you know um
that's where a lot of times you say where does
it come down to who is jesus and that's like
the important part who is jesus what is his mission
what what part does he play in this and then
what's our part for salvation those are the things
that stand out for christian uh theology and
ideology like i mean i've already said that but
yeah uh it is like you said it goes in you know
early christian churches too like you get a theme
of that too there is so much because you're gonna
have people from different different you know
there's the people who were jewish first They're
going to be like, well, no, this is the Jewish
law. This is the way it's always been. Traditionalist.
I keep saying tradition. All I can think about
is the fiddle on the roof. Tradition. And...
Tradition. Anyways. But, you know, I think about
that. Then you have, you know, the Gentile who's
like... Oh, well, you know, we know some of these
stories. You've heard this story. It's like,
it's a story, but it's not, you know, what we
believe in that it's going to create. And that's
why also you saw the, not division, but the dividing
of the church too. And like the way, you know,
you have the early church and then you have,
you know, it splits off into different ways of
doing it. Yeah. Yeah, man, this is a good topic.
I like this topic. This is some good stuff. This
is some good stuff. Okay, so let's do... So if
we're talking about regional canon differences,
obviously Christianity was outspread. Go read
Acts if you haven't. Or go read the blog post
regarding Acts that were written by Dylan. I
forgot about those. Yeah. Right. Right. No, no,
no. Yeah. I, I, I posted it, but yeah. Listener,
have you read it? But, uh, so this is where you
could see regional Canon difference. Now this
is interesting. So if you go to Syrian, right.
The Pishita, uh, which Canon emissions, new Testament
lacks second, Peter, second, third, John, Jude,
and revelation. and it later adapted it in the
6th century. Why? Because these books were rarely
used in Syriac -speaking churches. Revelation
was actually viewed as too mystical or tied to
Roman persecution, and they said that doesn't
apply to us. Let's move on. Old Testament, they
followed a Hebrew -like canon, rejecting a Deuterocanonicals.
So let's go to Egypt, for example, Alexandrian.
Clement of Alexandria, if you haven't read his
writings, read it. 100 % recommend it. He quoted
Shepherd of Hermas and Adache of Scripture in
origin. He actually, third century, he listed
disputed books like Hebrew and James, but noted
doubts regarding their origin and stuff at the
time. Ethiopian Orthodox, we talked about. They
also included Enoch, Jubilee, 4 Baraks. you know,
stuff along those lines. New Testament, they
added this book called Synodos and Clement. Again,
Clement of Alexandria stuff, local liturgical
text. And they did that because isolation from
the Mediterranean debates preserved earlier Jewish
Christian traditions. So they have a little bit
more of a traditional vibe to what they stand
for. There's the Armenian variations, which include.
Third Corinthians, which was a second century
pseudo -depigraphon, which they included it until
the 12th century. And they're like, never mind,
I'll take this back, forget it. They're like,
yeah, it's not as much as we thought it was.
Regional canons reflect local liturgical use,
theological priorities, and isolation from broader
debates that happen. During the church fathers
disputes. Like Origen, Aesibus, Athanasius. And
Cyril of Jerusalem. Who hardcore debated these
things. Little things though. Nothing that changed.
The foundation of Christianity. Or the fundamentalism.
But just had additional books. Like Origen. He's
like yes Hebrew. Yes James. He said no shepherd
of Hermas. He was conflicted on 2 Peter. for
example he was like oh um 20 homoglobulia let's
agreed and then rejected revelation sometimes
sometimes he was like oh yeah i accept and then
he was 50 50 on james and jude um yeah a 27 book
new Testament, which is the Easter letter, which
is actually the closest to what we have today.
Um, they, uh, Anthony, uh, uh, Athanasius rejected
the Dache and the apocalypse of Peter and was
back and forth on Esther of old books. Um, serial
Jerusalem. 22 New Testament books, no revelations,
basically, and rejected anything that was considered
apocrypha and was 50 -50 on nothing. I mean,
like, I can appreciate the whole, like, he's
not wishy -washy. He's like, yes, no, yes, no,
yes, no. Black and white. Yeah. That's nice.
Yep. Very, very black and white. So, Nero of
Jerusalem was during the church. you know, 300,
400, uh, or 380. Um, definitely go read some
of the writings and stuff from Cyril Jerusalem.
Um, we're talking like, you know, like there
are a couple of generations in now to like removed
from the disciples and everything. Yeah. So now
it's like, you're still talking about people.
I feel like it's really, still really fresh for
them where, you know, like, yes, they, Like,
you know, their grandfather could have been walking
with Jesus. Like, that's crazy. Like, it's such
an interesting thing. Like, oh, yeah, my grandfather
was there when he fed the 5 ,000. You know, it's
like stuff like that where it's like, whoa. You
know, I can't say that. You know, it's like,
oh, my grandpa fought in World War II. My grandpa
fought in Korea. You know, like, that's. Which
is still, to put it in that perspective, where
it's not that far in time, like 100 years ago,
we had World War II. Which is crazy. It feels
like that's a long time ago, learning it as a
history. Yeah, we talk about it really well.
But it's still relevant. We're like, hey, yeah,
you can still see things from it. That's the
same comparison I think about that for them.
That must be cool because you could walk around
like, oh, yeah, right here. See this right here?
This is something that he did right here in this
time, in this place. And, you know, oh, this
is where, you know, Peter was here when he denied
Jesus. And, you know, they have that. It's still
there. Even to this day, there's still those
places, some of them. But then that were, you
know, it really is interesting to think is like
you still had that closeness to it all. And then
with the scripture that, you know, where it really
I don't think would have you wouldn't think it
would, you know. changed or differing, you know,
so much. This is an interesting thing. Two people
can say something that happened, you know, last
week we could talk about, oh, this is in the
podcast. And we could have totally two different
ideas about it, but it's still going to be somewhat
close. Or now, you know, we talk about our podcast
we did the first time when I was in Mexico. Our
memories might be completely different than that,
you know? you know i can be like oh yeah i remember
that it was really awesome i recorded on my phone
and i was super tired and we were in the same
time zone which was cool because i was in i was
in mexico um you know but things will be completely
different on the way you do that and it's the
same thing like with all these early people like
there would have been similar things but then
once you get past that I feel like around the
time that we're talking about that 300 AD, there's
going to be some differences that start to appear,
but it just makes it interesting to hear that
and like really study that timeframe of the early
church. Yeah. Well, so let's get an example.
So like early church, let's say a Gnostic text,
which we mentioned a little bit of. And I know
over time we've discovered more, you know, more
doctorate and more, more doctorate, sorry, documents.
That's the word, more documents and stuff like
that. They were like, Hey, this is written in
this timeframe or written in this timeframe.
For example, one of the main ideas is I had someone
come up to me and say, well, you're ignoring
the gospel of Judas. We discovered this in 2006.
That's recent. But we know, we now know, after
studying it and reading it, that it was written
in 150 AD. But the claim for Gospel of Judas
was that Judas was a hero and he obeyed Jesus'
orders. Which that contradicts Mark 14, 21. And
it promotes docetism, which is Jesus only seemed
human kind of thing. That he wasn't actually
born of the flesh. But we can look into this
so we can actually look into it a little bit
more because Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas,
and Epistosophia all claim the same thing, Gnosticism.
We look at it and theological heresy was dualism,
which Gnosticism despised the material world,
but John 1 .14 says the word became flesh. Denial
of Christ's humanity, many Gnostic texts... Docetism,
which 1 John 4, 2 -3 condemn this directly. Pseudepigraphy,
which falsely attributed to apostles. Like, for
example, Gospel of Philip claimed Philip wrote
it. So it itself said, oh, Gospel of Philip because
Philip wrote it. I, Philip, wrote this, whatever,
etc. All these things were written 100 years
after the apostles, lacking eyewitness ties.
For example, the irony in this is the Gospel
of Judas was known to Irenaeus, which we mentioned
once. He was in 180 AD, who mocked it as fiction.
He's like, this is stupid. He's like, yeah, that's
fiction. Whatever. But modern discoveries confirm
the early church's vigilance, right? You can
actually read that in the book Against Heresies,
and it's a really good book to read, especially
for understanding why. These are rejected. Yeah.
I don't have a copy physically. I have a digital
one on my phone. I have tons of books on my phone.
Doing a lot of reading. You know what? I can
do my audio book and listen to Wild Drive. There
is an audible. I don't know if you have a membership
or something for it. Let's help me and the wife.
I read all my books and she gets it on the Kindle.
so that she can read it and i can listen so we
can talk about her books i'm gonna i just texted
it to you so you are on discourse so you have
that i i think uh an important mention is that
we should talk about martin luther's canon he's
like i feel like the only thing you ever get
taught about like about really biblical anything
church related in school you know was about the
reformation of the Catholic church and Martin
Luther, the 94 reformations. That's it. Like
the most little time we talked about church,
I feel ever was talking about that. And I was
like, Oh wow. That's all we get. I'm like, you
know, we got like a whole, what is it? Like three
days on, yeah. Catholicism and Christianity,
three days on Judaism. And that we had a whole
week on Hinduism and, uh, islam and all that
i'm like well why is my my i'm getting gypped
man why is my religion gypped but you know oh
it's cool system you know what i expect well
yeah because the 16th century reformation shattered
western christian unity on the canon especially
over the over old testament exactly and that's
where you start seeing the split mark that you
know All these churches now, because before it
was, you know, you had, you know, the early church
Catholicism. That's basically what you had. You
had like those basically like two branches in
a sense. I mean, didn't really, really dumb it
down. And then it just made it completely just,
you know, went from like, there's like two or
three options to like, no, now, you know what?
Just, you don't like it. Make a church. Right.
Yeah, sure. I, I think there's a pretty good...
I would say overall, from a world perspective,
there is Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant for the
most part. Everything kind of breaks down to
that as the primaries of understanding Christianity.
Martin Luther, when he came into the New Testament,
was questioned. He questioned James. We know
Jason doesn't like Martin Luther now. He's upset
with him. God, remind James. he's a bad bad monster
and he questioned revelations too he was like
it's too symbolic whatever but um because yeah
he did and then he still included them in his
german bible but moved them to the end of the
book because he didn't want them being read yeah
right Old Testament. He followed Jerome's Hebrew
canon, demoting Deuterocanonicals to Apocrypha,
useful but not scripture, was the idea. His key
argument was Jews never accepted them and they
lacked Hebrew originals. But I will say, though,
with the question, James, James is very important
because it doesn't contradict. solo fide, which
solo fide is by faith alone, doesn't contradict
that. It shows exactly what Galatians 5 does,
which is that if it's true faith, it brings works.
It brings a heart that wants to serve. It brings
fruit. That is a very important understanding
because anybody can go say, oh, I believe in
Jesus. Do you? Because I've seen many Christians
who are the worst people I've ever met in my
life who are not biblical, who are not loving,
who are not Christian when it comes down to how
we're supposed to treat others. Absolutely horrendous
people. Does that mean I look at them and say
I'm wrong because of that? No, because the Bible
sets a standard to it. I'm not going to get on
to that topic, but, you know, it's just. It doesn't
contradict solo feeding. As Christians, sometimes
you feel like the worst people you know are from
the church or claim to have a walk. That's not
to say that, you know, everybody's not working
on themselves somewhere or that you've got something
going on. It's very true. I just think enough.
We're watching a documentary right now on Hulu.
Natalia Grace. This girl who might be an adult,
but might have dwarfism. And they straight up,
like, treat her terrible. And they're supposed
to be this loving Christian family that has it
all together. And I'm sitting there going, like,
oh, my gosh. I'm like, the things I'm hearing,
I'm like, I'm like. And then, you know, somebody
asked them, like, hey, you know, can you watch
how you speak with your language? You know, we're
supposed to, you know, this is, you know. I'm
a man of Christ. I don't appreciate that. And
then he freaked out. I'm like, you're supposed
to be a believer. You should have understanding
for your fellow brother. And so he don't appreciate
that. You know, if your brother don't like that,
don't be. Right. Yeah. Yeah. It was one of those
things where I'm like, man, this is terrible.
I'm like, please don't put this. Don't show that
they're Christian so much during this whole thing.
I don't want it to be known. Like, it's embarrassing
and sad as a Christian that there's people that
are portraying, you know, that, oh, yeah, you
believe the same thing as them. It's like, no,
I promise you Christ wouldn't act like that.
But anyways, yeah, I digress. Well, that was,
so with, obviously with Martin Luther's canon,
that was like 1520, 1534. Catholics obviously
had to respond. Catholics responded with the
Council of Trent. No, not yet. Catholics responded
with the Council of Trent. They decreed the Deuterocanonicals
as fully inspired and they condemned those who
rejected them. The reasoning was that ancient
councils like Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage
affirmed them as truth and as doctrine. The Greeks
Septuagint was the apostles Bible and the book
like wisdom and Maccabees supported doctrines
like purgatory, et cetera. They stood by, um,
the Protestant reaction. This came up. Calvin
agreed with Luther on the old Testament, but
kept James and Jude in the new Testament, arguing
they didn't truly contradict solo fide Anglicans,
which the 39 articles in, uh, 1563 called, uh,
deuterocanonicals. read for example of life,
but not to establish doctrine. Radical reformers,
some like Karlstad, wanted to ditch Hebrews and
Revelations entirely. But modern Protestant Bibles
either omit the Deuterocanon or print it as an
intertestamental section kind of thing, like
mention it kind of thing. But yeah, in that sense.
Um, it's to me, it's interesting because like,
um, with this situation, you have a lot of Christians
falling under the same standpoints with this.
You have Catholics who like to stand by the,
the, a lot of the acts, the doing of as religious
tendencies to live a life proved. by god in that
sense they want to have standards based upon
you know the pocket what we call a lot of people
say nowadays is apocrypha um and saying that
it is scripture when a lot of times it wasn't
accepted it's been debated over and over centuries
the first couple hundred centuries etc that's
why you're saying oh we we follow the greek no
we follow the hebrew But it doesn't change the
foundation of salvation and who Jesus was. So
that's an important note to make here for people
listening. Can I mention one thing I just thought
about that annoys the crap out of me every time
I hear it? Please do. Please do. And you'll probably
have the same reaction I did. The Council of
Nicaea. You hear people talk about this one?
Yeah. Go ahead. So. All right, so one thing with
this is that a lot of people always bring up,
and this is something I debate about a lot online,
with the Council of Nicaea, a lot of people are
like, oh, well, they created the Bible and the
Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was
not for Scripture. It was a very... I would say
one of the most important gatherings in early
Christian history was 325 AD, but it was not
about the Bible or biblical canon. It was actually
there to address was Jesus truly God or a created
being? Arius, a priest from Alexandria, taught
there was a time when the Son was not. Jesus
was subordinate to the Father, and Athenius argued.
Jesus is eternally God. John 1 .1, Colossians
1 .15 -17, they backed it up with scripture.
The outcome, the Nicene Creed, was written declaring
Jesus true God from true God, begotten, not made
of one substance with the Father. That was the
standpoint of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene
Creed. So when people, you'll hear a lot from
or Muslims or atheists or people who are trying
to be saying that they have the secret or they
have the full understanding of Christianity and
how it's wrong or incorrect, etc. They have a
standpoint that the Council of Nicaea somehow
was where the Bible was created. And that's not
even true because the Bible was not even debated
when the Council of Nicaea. So I'm putting it
out there so people understand. It was not about.
the bible or biblical canon it was about who
jesus is because they wanted to establish this
because there was um for example arias there
were some people who were starting to teach oh
well jesus wasn't like he wasn't god like he
obviously wasn't but then you had all these other
um second generation third generation apostles
or multiple generational apostles who were direct
lines of uh the original apostles saying hey
read scripture John one, one Colossians one 15
to 17, read this, read that. You will see that
you're wrong. And then establishing this so they
can all move forward in a unison to what the
truth is. That was the whole point of it. So
that was something that. They did not establish
Bible's canon. New Testament canon was still
debated for decades after, like we've just been
saying. The Muratorian Fragment, for example,
and Athanasius' Easter Letter 367 were closer
to canon decisions. The Council of Nicaea did
not invent the Trinity. It clarified biblical
teachings against Arianism, because Arianism
was becoming more... popular, more prevalent.
So this is something where people, if you don't
know where that idea came from, and you're going
to kind of probably laugh at this. It came from
the Da Vinci code because the Da Vinci code falsely
claimed Nicaea invented Jesus's divinity. And
the conspiracy theory suggests that canon was
decided there, but no, there's, it's not evident
and nor is there any historical understanding
of that. It was a lot of different other councils
over time. And there's good reason why there
was debate amongst it, because one was following
the Hebrew tradition and one was following the
Greek tradition, even though they both agree
to what salvation is and how a Christian should
look like in the sense of act and who Jesus was.
That was the important takeaway to this. So the
Council of Nicaea defended Orthodox Christianology,
not the Bible's book list. the cannon developed
gradually through church users later and other
councils like council Carthage in three 97. I
think it's. Good to know these things so that
when people bring it up to you, listener, and
say, hey, the Council of Nicaea is where they
created the Bible. Ha ha, laugh it off. You're
like, actually, no. Council of Nicaea, you have
this information. Information is wisdom. Wisdom
is a sword. And it's really good to know these
things so that you have a standpoint to stand
on and say, actually, no. You can't just throw
false information at me and expect me to roll
over and say, I guess you're right because I
don't know better. Know better, learn better,
read more, understand more. I had a note about
this, actually. Of course, you always have notes.
Unless you wanted to jump in on this, I know
that you might have, it seems like you might
have a handful with Baby. Oh, no, no. She's loving
it right now. She's just watching you talk, and
she's like, ah, ah. So, no. She's like, listen,
she's like, yes, right. Preach it, Jason. No,
there is. Yeah. I mean, oh my goodness, you can't
eat the mic, though. I'm just trying to grab
it, which is so cute right now. No, but I think
it's interesting to say, you know, you think
that you would have, you know, those people that
bring up the scriptural knowledge, like you said,
too. So anybody, you know, it's this false, the
backing that the scripture has, basically anything
that's going to be falsely said, like that, that
people are like, oh, well, this was said here,
and this is, you know. yeah you know da vinci
code and all that it's like well no it literally
talks about i am and talking about you know jesus
says how he was you know um sorry about that
the baby decided to click the mouse and but no
it's like there's so much The biblical structure
and the fact that we have the answers then and
there to confront those who are trying to falsely
teach. It goes back to the importance of being
equipped in the word and having the knowledge,
which is awesome. You know, like you're talking
about like that. And then you have people that
they just say, oh, look, I found the loophole.
It's right here. It's like what you're quoting,
though, is a misquoting of something else. You're
misquoting a misquote. Like, you're two things
so far off of what's actually correct that you've
believed a lie of a lie. You know what I mean?
In a sense, it's like people that fall for that.
You're so wrong on so many levels. It's like
you fell for a lie that is a lie. You know what
I mean? You're not even on the original lie.
You're on a secondary lie from the lie. It's
it's, you know, it's it's it takes me. It really
it really irks me. I think I can agree to that
because there there's a place to where the truth,
if you don't have a foundation of truth, it's
easy to build upon it until it collapses and
you can keep building whatever you want on it.
And as long as it clicks to you, that's it. The
foundation of Christianity. is is like let's
go to the bible when you see it where it's like
built upon the rock right and compared to built
upon the sand jesus is the foundation to build
upon um the general consensus among christians
regarding the early uh ecumenical councils is
that the first seven councils held between the
fourth and eighth century are widely accepted
as authoritative by catherine Orthodox, and most
Protestant traditions. Though with some differences
in interpretation and emphasis, these councils
define core Christian doctrines. They resolved
major heresies and established foundational church
practices. And Council of Nicaea, like I said,
affirmed Christ's divinity. First Council of
Constantinople, 381. Finalized the Nicene Constantinoplean
Creed, which affirms the Holy Spirit's divinity.
Council of Ephesus in 431 declared Mary a God
-bearer, confirming Christ's unity as God and
man. Condemned Nestorianism, which separated
Christ divine and human natures. So it said they're
one. Council of... Chalcedon, I think it's pronounced,
but defined Christ as one person and two natures,
defined and human without confession, change,
division, or separation, and rejected monophysitism,
which is claiming Christ had only one nature.
Second Council of Constantinople in 553 actually
reaffirmed Chalcedon and condemned writings seen
as Nestorian, which is the three chapters. controversy.
You can go read that. It's really cool. Third
Council of Constantinople concepts rejected monotheism,
which claimed Christ had only one will. It affirmed
Christ had both a divine and human will. And
then finally, another example, Second Council
of Nicaea approved veneration of icons, not worship,
but they ended the first iconoclasm. controversy
some protestant groups later rejected icons as
idolatrous which you could definitely see that
the idea was uh that icons uh with this in general
so you understand the veneration of icons that
people who stood by christ who were close to
god and spoke wisdom christianly wisdom were
um remembered so that you can there's more to
it but it was Let's just say it was for remembrance
purposes. But those right here are going to be
things that unite all of us under the Christian
faith. Christ's divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection
are non -negotiable. Scripture's authority, though
canon differs slightly, the Scripture's authority
is non -negotiable. And I see in creed, both
first and second are the most universally accepted
statement of faith when it comes to Christians.
And I think when you see these things, I think
it's very important to understand that history
and under a Christian history in the sense of
where we come from is so important to back your
foundation of what you believe in. back your
understanding of Christianity, what it's gone
through, what it's dealt with, why you believe
what you believe, why this, why that. And that's
why it's so good to study, read more. And anybody
or any religion that tells you not to look into
other things or read things or get into studying
is going to be false because the truth is revealed
through time, patience, studying, reading, and
consulting. So that stuff is built over time.
Exactly. And like, we have to, we have to, you
have to know if you don't know your history,
you don't know what, what's gone through and
everything. And yes, that's right. If you don't
know, you know, then you're bound to fall for
things too. Like, like those people that, you
know, believe the spinoffs believe the things
that aren't necessarily true. It's not going
to be, you know, if you don't have that. firm
understanding and foundation of not only the
scripture and knowing what it says, but then
knowing the history of the church so they know
where it came from and what, you know, what things
were done and what things, you know, where there
could have been things that were mis -screwed,
just screwed up and done wrong. And you have
to know, you know, what to do and how to proceed.
you don't fall for those same things because
those it goes on the same you know those who
don't know history about to repeat it so if you
don't know the word you don't know how you know
what the history of the church is you'll fall
for things that the early church that you know
those who weren't strong or didn't know fell
for you know fall for these false teachings and
all these things that aren't true yeah that's
right we don't want none of that and so This
is, yeah, this is the baby girl making her first
appearance. That's for sure. She's going to be
a talker. Our first guest on the podcast. I feel
bad for my wife. Both kids are going to be talkers.
They are. One's already a talker. But, oh, and
just, I think it's like you were saying, too.
You know, if it gets away from the ABCs, the
basics, you know, accepting, believing, confessing
Christ died for your sins, knowing that, as soon
as it gets away from that, that's when I feel
like the serious issues begin, where it starts
saying, well, Jesus wasn't, you know, wasn't
God sent. It wasn't, you know, it wasn't. He's
not part of the Trinity. You know, there is none
of that. Like, that's where the big issues are.
But it's also the little issues that we cannot
fall for because that's when you start creating
separation from the truth and little things can
sneak in and there's little chinks in the armor.
You know, after hearing all this, I'm thinking
about is like, you know, you have those false
teachings like, you know, the Mormons have, you
know. they talk about things where it's like
no that's not biblical at all i guess you had
the the basis of christianity but then you also
have the extra stuff you added that is no way
biblical and you know you have things to like
the jehovah witness things that are very close
to christianity but have you know you allow you
allow the little lies you know, and believe little
lies like that, it allows for false doctrine
to emerge. And that's what you have to be, you
know, have the knowledge of the early church
and the word of God, or else you don't know and
you won't know. Like, oh, that sounds pretty
close. That sounds pretty similar. There's nothing
wrong with that. Okay, they just have a different
way of believing. Like, no, it's not a different
way of believing. It's a whole different system.
It doesn't make sense. yes it doesn't add up
and it's a thing too is to be taught early to
be equipped early on in life like you were i
you know like you growing up as a pk you know
i grew up in the church but knowing those things
and you know it's important to teach those you
know not everybody grew up with the same back
uh -huh that's right all right so it's important
to you know that we share this knowledge and
if you believe this stuff it's not necessarily
anything on you If you believe that, you have
a difference of opinion. Talk with us. Discuss
it with us. We're not going to be like, you idiot.
We're going to be like, hey, let's talk about
it. We're going to have a discussion. As soon
as you close off discussion is when we lose the
ability to be human. Yeah. I think we'll wrap
it up here pretty quick. I think it's important
to know that it's really easy to with all this
to try to get involved in saying, oh, I'm this
denomination, this denomination. I'm not saying
that that's dangerous. I'm saying it's dangerous
only if you say that that denomination is the
only way truth. I think even I do just I think
you can read this and see that the foundation
of Christianity is Jesus. Faith in Jesus Christ
and who he is. Like I said earlier, there's non
-negotiables to Christianity, and that's not
just my opinion. That is decided over history
of Christianity, agreed by Catholics, Orthodox,
Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists.
There is a standard to these are the non -negotiables
to Jesus and following Jesus. These are non -negotiables.
With that, I'd say that I was born into a Christian
household as a pastor's kid. I actually grew
up very Pentecostal, very charismatic. And over
time, it's been kind of funny. Over time and
over the years, studying, reading, and learning
more, I've fell into a little bit more of an
Anglican ideology, which is fine. just as Protestantism
or Catholics or Orthodoxy, like we'll have variable
discussions regarding the little things that
changes how we are like little, I would say little
things in a sense of like how we interact with
certain things like the, the saints are interacting
with Mary or interacting with each other in a
way that's uniform. So I'll, And my side of this
and say that with this, do your research, read,
read and study Christian history. Don't be afraid
to research. Research strengthens the foundation.
If it's truth, it will strengthen you. If it's
false, then you'll get away from it. That's the
beauty of truth is that there's an ultimate truth
out there. And you studying and researching will
only build your foundation on that truth. Yeah,
I agree. And I think that's true. You said, you
know, you can say, oh, it's better to say you're
a Christian. As soon as you start doing that,
like, you know, if you have a bad taste in the
mouth from different churches or whatever, but
it's like, it doesn't matter. At the end of the
day, you know, like I can say, I started as in
the Nazarene church and now I'm more, you know,
of that. vineyard -y Baptist. We're more spirit
-leading, you know, and more like that, which
is, you know, just where I'm at now. Pentecostally.
And I like that. You know, that's right. My wife
was more, you know, was raised Nazarene like
I was, so for her, she's looking like, what the
heck is, you know, like, this is cool, but like,
whoa, there's a lot of people like yelling and
talking and, but, you know, it's different and
it's, the thing is, like I said, it really comes
down to it. We believe in Christ died for our
sins, you know, and that we are believers and
that's what it matters. It doesn't matter, you
know, where we worship or whatever. It just matters
that we worship the one true God. Uh, yep. And
that's the basis of it all. Um, yeah. Yeah. There's
still so much more. I feel like we can talk about
with this, but I think like you said, maybe wrap
it up in almost this continuation or do a part
two later on. Yeah, we could do a part two later
on, maybe actually start delving into the, the
first couple of generations of Christians and
what they had to deal with in this sense. And
even like, you know, because they even said in
the Bible too, it talks about that early church
too. And now people were like, I think that one
couple that was told to give everything, they
were told to give everything, give all your money.
And they didn't. And then God went Old Testament
on him. People say that, you know, and not really.
God didn't change. God's the same. And then he
literally, you know, the husband came in. Hey,
did you give us everything? Of course. Boom.
Smited. Wife came in. Yeah. Smited. Boom. You
know, that's what I'm talking about. You know,
it talks about that God was there. You know,
it's a different thing because it changes from
like where you, you know, now you have the Holy
Spirit with you as well. So I think that's a
good, yeah. Interesting to talk about that too.
I mean, there's even scripture that talks about
the early church. So be interesting to look into
that as well. Yeah. Check out our blog. There's
a blog post called is the Bible trustworthy,
where we go into a little bit more in depth of
how do we know the manuscripts that we have are
evidence or accurate and preserved. So check
that out when you get the chance. You better
check it out. Jason works hard on a lot of this
stuff, everybody. Please do. I check it all out
too. And then we talk about it, but you guys
can check it out too. We're going to, you know
what? I'll read it to you too. Little girl, you're
going to be equipped and ready. Exactly. You
know, talk about that. It's cool. It's like actually,
uh, it's a hospital. We are our nurse that we
had this really nice lady, older lady, but I'm
more talking about this. I'm like, yeah, talking
about. you know oh it's friday i'll go like we'll
get back to time for church on sunday and it
was like saturday i think we were getting out
of the hospital she was a nurse she's like oh
i just got done with doing a whole week of vbs
vacation bible school my husband's a pastor I'm
like, Oh sweet. Before we leave, you get to pray
for my little girl was pray. And like, it doesn't
matter. I don't know what church, you know, she's,
I'm a, we're a Christian. It didn't talk about
church and all this. And I said, this is what
we do. And, you know, and being able to pray
from day one is cool. And like I said, it is
the community that you build and everything.
Yeah. No, I think definitely it's a heck. Just
wrap it up. I mean, we go on for a good little
bit too. So, uh, yeah you want to pray this out
you want to i pray this out about the last two
times so i think this is your turn yeah no i'm
100 repeat repeat now i'm down to do it because
um this is a topic that i hold close dear and
near to my heart so i'm down all right lord i
thank you for the time that we get to spend together
i thank you for your daily provision in our lives
that we have food, we have house, we have shelter,
we have transportation. I thank you for everything
in our lives that you provided for us. I pray
that you continue to move in us, use us, and
I pray that we can advance your kingdom, that
you guide us in your will, not ours. I thank
you that we're able to sit here and discuss this
freely without persecution, without fear of persecution,
that we get to live in freedom and freedom of
sin through you. I thank you for the preservation
of biblical ideology as well as biblical truths
over the years and that you've had your hand
in it through the whole way. And I thank you
for that. And I thank you that you are. alive
today as you have been forever past and forever
future, that you are there for us, that your
spirit strengthen us, guides us. And I pray that
we glorify you in everything we do. I pray that
this podcast, as well as our conversations, have
nothing to do outside of glorifying you. That
is all the glory to you forever. That is not
our ministry, but your ministry that we are sharing.
And I thank you for your grace and I thank you
for your love. And I pray that you continue to
use us to expand your kingdom. Jesus name. Amen.
Guys, this has been the GDP show and I'll see
you on the flippity flop. Bye.