The Chosen has been a cultural phenomenon in the Christian community for several years now, with many people absolutely loving it and saying that it has helped them to deepen their faith in Jesus or lead them to start going back to church and being a better Christian.
Excellent article. I remember hearing that Jewish scribes wouldn’t use the same writing tool when writing God’s name, simply because He is so holy and we are not. Now we have no problem with a show using the guise of “creative freedom” to unashamedly commit heresy. If only any real or thoughtful pains had been taking to revere the One true God, how powerful this show could have been at pointing people to the true Christ.
Thank you for pointing all this out. I agree there are "problems, errors and outright heresies" in The Chosen.
I am Protestant and I think a lot of other Protestants would agree with your points and do not support the show. From my perspective, Dallas Jenkins is a False Teacher.
I see Mormon influences, also. For instance, the name of the series- The Chosen. Mormons believe Jesus was the one chosen by God to redeem mankind.
If you have ever experienced a sermon from any preacher, priest or Rabi, you have experienced false teachings. Everyone of them imparted their life experiences and best guess of what the scripture might be saying. The last group I will listen to about the exploitation and false teachings, not to mention the intentional remove of entire books from the Bible is the Catholic Church. I am continually blown away by their judgement of just about everyone else and yet there continues to be sexual perversion and child molestation from their leadership while doing little if anything at all to right the wrongs of hundreds of years of wrong doings by their top brass and clergy. Might consider staying in your lane and taking it up with God if you ever in fact make it to Heaven. The Chosen on the other hand has done more to help people understand why Jesus came to earth. He came not to judge but to serve by example and ultimately pay the highest price for our salvation. The back stories while a guess at what it might have been like serve as an excellent example of how when you invite God into your life with all earnestness and humility miracles happen. You can’t earn your way to Heaven. It is a gift given freely to all, first to the Jews and the Gentiles. My two cents.
It appears you believe you know more than Biblical scholars who have studied the scriptures throughout the past 20 centuries. I'm wondering where did you acquire this "knowledge"?
Without preachers and priests, how was Christianity to be spread throughout the world since the time of Christ? The Apostles had only the words and actions of Jesus to convey. They had no scriptures except for those written before Christ. There are no writings by Jesus himself (none that I have seen). The Apostles taught and made Disciples of men based on the verbal instructions and parables that Jesus taught them and based on the guidance given to them by the Holy Spirit. Acts 6:1-7 explains how the Apostles "ordained" new Disciples to become priests to minister the word of God as the early church began to grow exponentially.
I'm also wondering what Bible you are talking about when you say that the Catholic Church removed books from it. Where is this Bible you mentioned? I didn't know there was a Bible (a canon of writings) prior to the one that was affirmed in the 4th century, which included 73 books, 7 of which the Protestant reformers of the 16th century rejected.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Neither were any of the NT books mentioned. Why do you believe the NT is the Sacred Scripture?
Every time you quote NT Scripture you affirm the authority of the Catholic Church for going through the process of weeding out that which was worthy being included in the New Testament. Whether you like it or not.
The argument about the post destruction of the Temple Jews has been proven wrong since the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. As some of the OT scripture that Protestants label “apocryphal” were found written in Hebrew. The main reason for their exclusion from the OT which Luther used to also, conveniently, use to eliminate from the OT. They were too Catholic for Luther and too Christian for the Jews.
Just a few examples of the importance of the dueterocanon:
Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
"Every time you quote NT Scripture you affirm the authority of the Catholic Church for going through the process of weeding out that which was worthy being included in the New Testament. Whether you like it or not. "
My response:
No, I do not affirm the authority of the Catholic Church at all.
The letters were just that...letters...and they circulated. All you guys did was get a copy and put staples in it.
The Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms is all that Jesus mentions.
By the way, I'm not a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, either. Both have Catholic baggage.
Your Apocrypha is no different than Mormons having a Book of Mormon that they say compliments the Bible.
The Tanakh is mentioned quite a few times. The Law and the Prophets. Especially by Jesus. Not once is the Apocrypha mentioned by Jesus. If you want it in YOUR bible, so be it. But I could care less about it. I'm not Catholic.
Let me ask you something, tho....
What's up with your Transub...whatever that word is?
Not a chance! I'm not a Protestant. I'm not a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant's are a part of the REFORMATION. I'm not. I don't buy into Luther, or Calvin, or any of the splinters. They still have Catholic baggage, even to this very day.
It’s ridiculous to say the dueterocanon, which was included as part of all Sacred Scripture since the 4th century are like Mormons. Mormons weren’t around until the 19th century. The books in the Christian Bible were there the whole time UNTIL Luther took them out. I’m not concerned about the Jews after Titus. They had to change to survive a world with no temple and Jews bailing for Christianity.
As for the letters, there were many more letters than just what’s included in the NT. But there had to be uniformity to and a process to ensure purity of message. Even after Christianity was made legal in the aroman Empire, it still took several councils and nearly 70 years, to have all the letters pass the scrutiny to be included into the NT. Not one letter claimed to be divinely inspired. Not one letter fell from the heavens on a cloud. There was a process that the Christian world accepted. They accepted because of the authority they had to make such proclamations.
As for transubstantiation, I’ll simply say that when Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you. We believe it. When He said, “This is My body” we believe it. Christ was so serious about it that He didn’t care if all his disciples left see John 6:66
Coincidentally the chapter and verse they turned away from Christ is also related to being against a Christ in The Revelation of St John.
I left you a link with all the NT references to the deutercanon.
On one hand you speak of men making decisions as to what is scripture. Then you go onto say men removed and added to scripture. So who is to say which men made mistakes and that mistakes are still all over the word?
You say Christian’s accepted it because of the authority of the writers, true but then by what authority did they conclude at the time of canonization what was authentic when it was put together? The apostles were long dead and who’s to say through those 100s of years what was really their word?
These points have all been argued over for eons. Proof doesn’t come from authentic texts alone it comes from the spirit of god conveyed from those texts
The Apocropha was NOT part of the OFFICIAL books of the Hebrew Bible, the TENAKH. Why do you keep saying that Luther took them out, when they were never put in, except when the Septuagent was INVENTED?
I don't care about the Deutercanon references. I care about what the Jews call the Tanakh.
AS for EATING FLESH/DRINKING BLOOD, Jesus was speaking in terms that he knew the Jews would NOT UNDERSTAND.
It pertained to the Passover MEAL, as a REPRESENTATION. That's why Jesus was crucified on Passover. Because he's the lamb of God.
Jesus was the LAMB. The Blood goes back to the original Passover, just like the lamb does.
However...what you made into a RITUAL, called Transwhatever, is really about a Church Banquet:
Have you ever read how Paul talked to Gentiles? He basically gave a history lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures. Acts 26...it's pretty simple. No parables. Oh, and those 7 books you say were rejected? Why did you include them? The Jews, themselves don't include them in their Tanakh, which is the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. It wasn't until the Septuagint that the Apocrypha was included.
However, there is a hint that not all WITNESS statements are included in the gospels.
Take for example Paul's statements in 1 Cor 11.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Keep in mind the instruction on EACH, bread, "do in remembrance of me", and wine, "in remembrance of me".
Now, do a cross reference in the gospels of those Jesus statements, and try to find the word REMEMBRANCE.
Matthew 26:26-30...NO to either.
Mark 14:22-24...NO to either
Luke 22:19-20...Yes to bread, NO to wine:
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
But, Paul tells us that Jesus said:
" this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."
Where is that statement from the gospels?
But, thanks for stapling the recirculating letters for us. That was nice of you.
Dude...or are you dudette? I know who wrote the book of Acts. But Paul is quoted in the book of Acts, as saying things. And again, Luke, as you prefer, didn't mention a thing about parables.
And as you just noted, someone in the 4th century included books. But you don't? Yes, you do. When Jesus speaks, he doesn't mention anything from what those in the 4th century include. Prophesy is in the Law, the prophets, and the Psalms. It is therefore meaningless for your 4th century pretenders to include anything other than the Tenakh.
Oh, and I'm not looking for a response...I do know what I'm talking about.
Peter is not the only one to bind and loose. In Matthew 18:18 Jesus speaks to all the disciples: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Ye" is plural. The Greek, Latin and Aramaic versions all use the plural 2nd person personal pronoun. Peter was given no special authority the other disciples were not given.
Correct. They have authority to bind and loose, to exercise authority over their particular diocese. The bishops together also have authority to formally define Christian beliefs and doctrines when they act together in unison (i.e. like the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc)
What no bishop has authority to do is to change, add, or eliminate any beliefs or doctrines of the faith that have been handed to the Church.
This is the way I see it. There were 12 Disciples chosen by Jesus to follow him. It was to the 11 remaining Disciples (after the Resurrection) that Jesus gave the "Great Commision" as written in Matthew 28:16-20. Regarding Matthew 18, the 12 Disciples were with Jesus at that time. Other people were certainly present also because there was a child present, but there is no indication that Jesus was instructing everyone who was present that they could all "bind and loose"; however, we can be certain that Jesus was speaking to the 12 Disciples in Matthew18.
The same people who claim that the Apostles held no special authority in the Christian faith....at the same time claim that the NT Scriptures hold authority because they were written by an Apostle or a close associate of the Apostles....
It's self refuting.
The truth is that there is an authority structure in the Christian faith and it's false to claim that all believers have the same authority.
Paul is MY DUDE! I'm a Gentile. Since Peter is your dude, you must be a Jew!
Romans 15:16 (Paul Speaking)
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Ah, you're one of those Protestants who think there's two gospels, one of Peter and one of Paul. So you reject all the books of the NT except the letters of Paul.
Christians don't do that. You've created your own new and false religion.
Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.
Gentiles have to listen to both Peter and Paul. And Gentiles are part of the Kingdom of God and part of the New Covenant. There is not a separation between the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God.
Acts 15:13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ 18 things known from long ago.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Common Protestant error. You think that a verse from Scripture that you like can somehow cancel out or negate a Scripture verse you don't like.
You miss that in that same chapter, Paul tells them the gospel he has been preaching to make sure it is the same as theirs, because there is only one gospel and it had to match the gospel preached by the Apostles. If the gospel Paul preached was different, he would have been preaching in vain.
There is not a separation between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant. There are not two gospel messages.
You REALLY need to read and keep reading this passage from Ephesians. You have fallen for Protestant nonsense about "rightly dividing the word" based on a bad translation.
Ephesians 2:11 So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.
seeing as YHVH (God the Father ) had Malachi write "I am YHVH I change not" and had Paul write in Hebrews 13 that Yeshua ha Mashiach is the same yesterday, today, and forever" not to mention the numerous places in scripture that tell us God is no respecter of persons, then Yeshua not only commissioned His disciples but all who believe. He isn't about to equip believers since 2000 yr ago with less spiritual weapons, power, authority, or "power of attorney" than those. He doesn't want a weak, anemic, body to operate thru but rather onw that totally manifests Him and His Holy Spirit power working thru them
Yes, he was instructing ALL followers of Christ that bind and loose. Let me tell you who the FIRST one to use that bind and loose instruction...It was STEPHEN, who was being stoned to death. The word "DISCIPLES" is INCLUSIVE of the Apostles and Disciples. The words "THE TWELVE" is exclusive Apostles. Or, when Judas was out of the picture, "The Eleven". And, as Captain Obvious, the word Apostles are exclusive to the Apostles. Stephen was NOT an Apostle. But he was being murdered, and he LOOSED that sin from them who were stoning him.
Your claims here are just objectively wrong. St Stephen didn't bind or loose anything.
Protestants and their religions are founded upon a rejection of the authority that Christ gave His Church. That's why you deny the authority of the Apostles, while at the same time pretending that you believe Scripture contains authority and that one of the reasons it has that authority is because it was written by an Apostle or their close companion.
Well, then, apparently we have a difference of opinion on what "Bind and Loose" really is.
Acts 7:60
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
It goes with the topic of FORGIVENESS. Jesus first used it when he said, "FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHA THEY WERE DOING"
Right? Isn't that what Jesus said? I know some old school Catholics who are mad at the Jews for killing Jesus...and yet, Jesus said FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, for they know NOT what they do.
Why didn't they know?
Oh, and when Jesus said, "Father forgive them", he wasn't telling a Pope to forgive them.
I'll bet them old school Catholics didn't WANT Jesus do die on the cross to SAVE ANYONE from their sins, huh? That's why your hero Peter sliced off an ear! Jesus rebuked him for that, but WHY?
Because the mission of Jesus was that cross...to save people, and the Jews played a part in that...but the old school Catholics wanted Jesus to live a full life until he died of old age. So...they got mad at the Jews.
Dude, we should be THANKING the Jews for killing Jesus! Shake their hands. Give them "an holy kiss". Their actions brought forth salvation. Instead, a lot of Catholic Jew haters in the world.
Yes, you don't understand what bind and loose means.
It means that a person can speak with authority and declare doctrines and beliefs that must be accepted by the faithful. It gives authority to determine how the Church is run and organize it. It gives authority to ordain other men who carry that same authority.
The authority to forgive sins is separate from that, and different from a person forgiving someone for sins that have been committed against them personally. The Apostles and those they have ordained have authority to forgive sins eternally no matter who they were committed against. It is the authority of Christ to forgive sins that He gave to them. St Stephen wasn't giving them absolution and forgiveness for their murder of him, but forgiving them on his own part. They still would need to go to a priest or bishop to receive absolution.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mark 8:31-33
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
And then remember that Peter sliced the ear off of a soldier in order to DEFEND Jesus, but Jesus rebuked him, because that cross was the mission and destination of Jesus. He had to get to that cross. Jesus told Pilate that if his kingdom was of this world, that his disciples would fight...and that is what Peter was trying to do. Fight to defend Jesus. But Jesus had to rebuke Peter AGAIN.
Did you see the episode when Jesus is almost thrown off the cliff for calling out the Pharisees sins or when he talks to Nicodemus about being saved from sin? We shouldn’t cancel the chosen because it isn’t perfect. Good point about the women being perfect though. But we don’t know Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Scripture only says she had 7 demons. She might have been but it is because Gregory the Great linked the woman from Luke 7 with Mary from Luke 8.
This is patently ridiculous. The show is portraying mostly moments we have no records of, that are plausible, and applying mostly obvious human detail to. It’s not hermeneutics on film. Foolish write.
No one who makes a movie from the written word can do so without also using creative license to do so. There just isn’t enough material to make the story flow. Any producer will tell you this.
If you take a book, any book, even a comic book, and turn it into a movie you have to add all sorts of material to make it make sense on film.
Adding fictional scenes would be fine if they were open and clear that these were fictional scenes, plus those scenes cannot contradict the Christian faith. The Chosen violates these rules.
Isaiah 22:22 is quoted in Rev 3:7 as referring to Christ: "And to The Messenger of the assembly in Philadelphia write: Thus says The Holy One, The True One, he who has the key of David, The One who opens and there is none who shuts, and he shuts and there is none who opens."
Maybe you should stop ignoring the Bible. Your Matthew 16 is PLURAL, i.e., KEYS.
Revelation 3:7 and Isaiah 22 is SINGULAR, i.e., KEY.
In addition, Peter's key doesn't fit the lock:
Isaiah 22: so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Revelation: he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
NO MAN OPENS. Not even Peter. Why? Because Jesus has the ONLY KEY (SINGULAR).
Matthew 16 states, KEYS, plural. Besides, The Rock is not Peter...the Rock is a FOUNDATION, and the FOUNDATION of the Church is that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Christ is the ROCK upon which the church is built.
Not only that...Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Babylon is not code for Rome. After the Babylon Captivity, a lot more Jews stayed behind...as well as moved to all parts of the world, than those who came back to Israel. They STAYED in Assyria. The BABYLONIAN TALMUD was written there. And that Talmud was not FINISHED being written until sometime in the 6th Century.
Peter had a lot of Jews to convert to Christianity. Both of his epistles are to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Just like James's and John's letters...including Revelation...but that's another topic.
Peter had no business in a Gentile Rome. Paul did...he was a citizen already.
Every single Protestant thinks their interpretation of Scripture is infallible and that they alone are the one who determines and defines the Christian faith. LOL
For anyone who wants to know the truth about how the Roman Catholic church is a false religion it is laid out here verse by verse from scripture not man made documents heresies and blasphemous worshipping of idols.
Stopped reading this garbage when you started with the false notion that Pe ER has any special role in the church. He was not the foundation that was Christ.
Wow, didn’t expect you to move into denial mode. Too bad, I thought you made some good points but when you can’t see the beam in your own eye it’s hard to take you seriously as you attempt to remove the mote from others. After over 500 years I thought it quite settled that the indulgences scandal was quite settled history.
I suppose this is how you’d respond to the pedophilia within the priesthood? The failed crusades and the silliness regarding all the relic worship that took its place. All overblown? Not even a modicum of ownership?
I like your article, you make many good points. Overall it is a nice defense of the gospel.
One criticism is that by defending the church’s acquisitions and building program to the extent you do you have whitewashed the church’s many past oppressions of its people especially in times where it’s power over the people was much stronger than today.
We have certainly discovered some nasty cartel activity within the heirachy of the church in recent years to substantiate this reality.
Your point about why it is proper to build wonderful monument to God is correct. It is also correct that Protestants have criticized some of this because there was in fact undue oppression of parishioners from time to time in order to fund such projects.
Both sides can be right, by denial of sin no one benefits.
The claims about oppression by the Church to build the cathedrals is overblown nonsense. And the current corruption in the hierarchy today has nothing to do with that period of time.
There will always be tares among the wheat and Judas bishops/priests. That doesn't undermine the Church or its authority.
Wow, you must have been watching for things you didn't like. It's kind of presumptuous to say that you know the reason that certain choices were made. You have interpreted specific scenes very differently than I did. You might want to watch all the roundtable discussions with the Catholic priest, messianic Jew and Evangelical Seminary professor. Those are so interesting. They try very hard to get everything to not contradict the Bible or the cultural times, however. It's a TV show also meant to entertain.
There would be no problem if the show was creatively showing fictional scenes imagined by the writers, as long as those scenes didn't contradict the Christian faith, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Very good points. Insidious visions that poisons the truth, so be anathema!
The basis of an apostate religion that worships a false Christ. Ironic that the author claims this is what Jenkins did while doing it himself.
This might be the most ironic comment ever written on Substack.
Excellent article. I remember hearing that Jewish scribes wouldn’t use the same writing tool when writing God’s name, simply because He is so holy and we are not. Now we have no problem with a show using the guise of “creative freedom” to unashamedly commit heresy. If only any real or thoughtful pains had been taking to revere the One true God, how powerful this show could have been at pointing people to the true Christ.
Thank you for pointing all this out. I agree there are "problems, errors and outright heresies" in The Chosen.
I am Protestant and I think a lot of other Protestants would agree with your points and do not support the show. From my perspective, Dallas Jenkins is a False Teacher.
I see Mormon influences, also. For instance, the name of the series- The Chosen. Mormons believe Jesus was the one chosen by God to redeem mankind.
If you have ever experienced a sermon from any preacher, priest or Rabi, you have experienced false teachings. Everyone of them imparted their life experiences and best guess of what the scripture might be saying. The last group I will listen to about the exploitation and false teachings, not to mention the intentional remove of entire books from the Bible is the Catholic Church. I am continually blown away by their judgement of just about everyone else and yet there continues to be sexual perversion and child molestation from their leadership while doing little if anything at all to right the wrongs of hundreds of years of wrong doings by their top brass and clergy. Might consider staying in your lane and taking it up with God if you ever in fact make it to Heaven. The Chosen on the other hand has done more to help people understand why Jesus came to earth. He came not to judge but to serve by example and ultimately pay the highest price for our salvation. The back stories while a guess at what it might have been like serve as an excellent example of how when you invite God into your life with all earnestness and humility miracles happen. You can’t earn your way to Heaven. It is a gift given freely to all, first to the Jews and the Gentiles. My two cents.
Does this lecture/sermon from you contain false teachings?
Or are you infallible?
It appears you believe you know more than Biblical scholars who have studied the scriptures throughout the past 20 centuries. I'm wondering where did you acquire this "knowledge"?
Without preachers and priests, how was Christianity to be spread throughout the world since the time of Christ? The Apostles had only the words and actions of Jesus to convey. They had no scriptures except for those written before Christ. There are no writings by Jesus himself (none that I have seen). The Apostles taught and made Disciples of men based on the verbal instructions and parables that Jesus taught them and based on the guidance given to them by the Holy Spirit. Acts 6:1-7 explains how the Apostles "ordained" new Disciples to become priests to minister the word of God as the early church began to grow exponentially.
I'm also wondering what Bible you are talking about when you say that the Catholic Church removed books from it. Where is this Bible you mentioned? I didn't know there was a Bible (a canon of writings) prior to the one that was affirmed in the 4th century, which included 73 books, 7 of which the Protestant reformers of the 16th century rejected.
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
No Apocrypha mentioned.
Well that doesn't mention the historical books. Or the wisdom books. etc
That doesn't cover a lot of the OT books.
You have refuted your own theology.
Neither were any of the NT books mentioned. Why do you believe the NT is the Sacred Scripture?
Every time you quote NT Scripture you affirm the authority of the Catholic Church for going through the process of weeding out that which was worthy being included in the New Testament. Whether you like it or not.
The argument about the post destruction of the Temple Jews has been proven wrong since the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. As some of the OT scripture that Protestants label “apocryphal” were found written in Hebrew. The main reason for their exclusion from the OT which Luther used to also, conveniently, use to eliminate from the OT. They were too Catholic for Luther and too Christian for the Jews.
Just a few examples of the importance of the dueterocanon:
Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
The whole list is here:
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/
Andy,
You had said:
"Every time you quote NT Scripture you affirm the authority of the Catholic Church for going through the process of weeding out that which was worthy being included in the New Testament. Whether you like it or not. "
My response:
No, I do not affirm the authority of the Catholic Church at all.
The letters were just that...letters...and they circulated. All you guys did was get a copy and put staples in it.
The Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms is all that Jesus mentions.
By the way, I'm not a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, either. Both have Catholic baggage.
Your Apocrypha is no different than Mormons having a Book of Mormon that they say compliments the Bible.
The Tanakh is mentioned quite a few times. The Law and the Prophets. Especially by Jesus. Not once is the Apocrypha mentioned by Jesus. If you want it in YOUR bible, so be it. But I could care less about it. I'm not Catholic.
Let me ask you something, tho....
What's up with your Transub...whatever that word is?
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2021/06/20/communion-wine-cheese-crackers-and-a-chicken-dinner/
Well I hope and pray that one day in the future you are willing to put aside your sin of pride and become Christian and leave your Protestantism.
Not a chance! I'm not a Protestant. I'm not a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant's are a part of the REFORMATION. I'm not. I don't buy into Luther, or Calvin, or any of the splinters. They still have Catholic baggage, even to this very day.
It’s ridiculous to say the dueterocanon, which was included as part of all Sacred Scripture since the 4th century are like Mormons. Mormons weren’t around until the 19th century. The books in the Christian Bible were there the whole time UNTIL Luther took them out. I’m not concerned about the Jews after Titus. They had to change to survive a world with no temple and Jews bailing for Christianity.
As for the letters, there were many more letters than just what’s included in the NT. But there had to be uniformity to and a process to ensure purity of message. Even after Christianity was made legal in the aroman Empire, it still took several councils and nearly 70 years, to have all the letters pass the scrutiny to be included into the NT. Not one letter claimed to be divinely inspired. Not one letter fell from the heavens on a cloud. There was a process that the Christian world accepted. They accepted because of the authority they had to make such proclamations.
As for transubstantiation, I’ll simply say that when Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you. We believe it. When He said, “This is My body” we believe it. Christ was so serious about it that He didn’t care if all his disciples left see John 6:66
Coincidentally the chapter and verse they turned away from Christ is also related to being against a Christ in The Revelation of St John.
I left you a link with all the NT references to the deutercanon.
We still
On one hand you speak of men making decisions as to what is scripture. Then you go onto say men removed and added to scripture. So who is to say which men made mistakes and that mistakes are still all over the word?
You say Christian’s accepted it because of the authority of the writers, true but then by what authority did they conclude at the time of canonization what was authentic when it was put together? The apostles were long dead and who’s to say through those 100s of years what was really their word?
These points have all been argued over for eons. Proof doesn’t come from authentic texts alone it comes from the spirit of god conveyed from those texts
Dude,
The Apocropha was NOT part of the OFFICIAL books of the Hebrew Bible, the TENAKH. Why do you keep saying that Luther took them out, when they were never put in, except when the Septuagent was INVENTED?
I don't care about the Deutercanon references. I care about what the Jews call the Tanakh.
AS for EATING FLESH/DRINKING BLOOD, Jesus was speaking in terms that he knew the Jews would NOT UNDERSTAND.
It pertained to the Passover MEAL, as a REPRESENTATION. That's why Jesus was crucified on Passover. Because he's the lamb of God.
Jesus was the LAMB. The Blood goes back to the original Passover, just like the lamb does.
However...what you made into a RITUAL, called Transwhatever, is really about a Church Banquet:
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2021/06/20/communion-wine-cheese-crackers-and-a-chicken-dinner/
By the way, where did the TRADITION of waving a smoke filled canister back and forth come from?
Have you ever read how Paul talked to Gentiles? He basically gave a history lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures. Acts 26...it's pretty simple. No parables. Oh, and those 7 books you say were rejected? Why did you include them? The Jews, themselves don't include them in their Tanakh, which is the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. It wasn't until the Septuagint that the Apocrypha was included.
However, there is a hint that not all WITNESS statements are included in the gospels.
Take for example Paul's statements in 1 Cor 11.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Keep in mind the instruction on EACH, bread, "do in remembrance of me", and wine, "in remembrance of me".
Now, do a cross reference in the gospels of those Jesus statements, and try to find the word REMEMBRANCE.
Matthew 26:26-30...NO to either.
Mark 14:22-24...NO to either
Luke 22:19-20...Yes to bread, NO to wine:
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
But, Paul tells us that Jesus said:
" this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."
Where is that statement from the gospels?
But, thanks for stapling the recirculating letters for us. That was nice of you.
"Have you ever read how Paul talked to Gentiles?"
--- I have read the New Testament all the way through at least 3 times. Yes, I know how Paul spoke to the Gentiles.
"He basically gave a history lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures. Acts 26...it's pretty simple. No parables."
--- According to tradition, Luke wrote the book of Acts, not Paul.
"Oh, and those 7 books you say were rejected? Why did you include them?"
--- My dear, I did not include them, the Christian leaders of the 4th century included them.
I will not address any further statements you made. I simply do not believe you know what you are talking about.
Dude...or are you dudette? I know who wrote the book of Acts. But Paul is quoted in the book of Acts, as saying things. And again, Luke, as you prefer, didn't mention a thing about parables.
And as you just noted, someone in the 4th century included books. But you don't? Yes, you do. When Jesus speaks, he doesn't mention anything from what those in the 4th century include. Prophesy is in the Law, the prophets, and the Psalms. It is therefore meaningless for your 4th century pretenders to include anything other than the Tenakh.
Oh, and I'm not looking for a response...I do know what I'm talking about.
Peter is not the only one to bind and loose. In Matthew 18:18 Jesus speaks to all the disciples: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Ye" is plural. The Greek, Latin and Aramaic versions all use the plural 2nd person personal pronoun. Peter was given no special authority the other disciples were not given.
The bishops/Apostles who are in communion with St Peter also have authority to bind and loose when they act as a body.
No one else besides the bishops have authority to bind and loose.
You seem to suggest a bishop is the same as an apostle?
Am I following you correctly?
Correct. They have authority to bind and loose, to exercise authority over their particular diocese. The bishops together also have authority to formally define Christian beliefs and doctrines when they act together in unison (i.e. like the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc)
What no bishop has authority to do is to change, add, or eliminate any beliefs or doctrines of the faith that have been handed to the Church.
This is the way I see it. There were 12 Disciples chosen by Jesus to follow him. It was to the 11 remaining Disciples (after the Resurrection) that Jesus gave the "Great Commision" as written in Matthew 28:16-20. Regarding Matthew 18, the 12 Disciples were with Jesus at that time. Other people were certainly present also because there was a child present, but there is no indication that Jesus was instructing everyone who was present that they could all "bind and loose"; however, we can be certain that Jesus was speaking to the 12 Disciples in Matthew18.
The same people who claim that the Apostles held no special authority in the Christian faith....at the same time claim that the NT Scriptures hold authority because they were written by an Apostle or a close associate of the Apostles....
It's self refuting.
The truth is that there is an authority structure in the Christian faith and it's false to claim that all believers have the same authority.
Paul is MY DUDE! I'm a Gentile. Since Peter is your dude, you must be a Jew!
Romans 15:16 (Paul Speaking)
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Ah, you're one of those Protestants who think there's two gospels, one of Peter and one of Paul. So you reject all the books of the NT except the letters of Paul.
Christians don't do that. You've created your own new and false religion.
Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.
Gentiles have to listen to both Peter and Paul. And Gentiles are part of the Kingdom of God and part of the New Covenant. There is not a separation between the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God.
Acts 15:13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ 18 things known from long ago.
The book of James is specifically addressed TO EVERYONE, JEW AND GENTILE... right?
Galatians 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Common Protestant error. You think that a verse from Scripture that you like can somehow cancel out or negate a Scripture verse you don't like.
You miss that in that same chapter, Paul tells them the gospel he has been preaching to make sure it is the same as theirs, because there is only one gospel and it had to match the gospel preached by the Apostles. If the gospel Paul preached was different, he would have been preaching in vain.
There is not a separation between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant. There are not two gospel messages.
You REALLY need to read and keep reading this passage from Ephesians. You have fallen for Protestant nonsense about "rightly dividing the word" based on a bad translation.
Ephesians 2:11 So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.
seeing as YHVH (God the Father ) had Malachi write "I am YHVH I change not" and had Paul write in Hebrews 13 that Yeshua ha Mashiach is the same yesterday, today, and forever" not to mention the numerous places in scripture that tell us God is no respecter of persons, then Yeshua not only commissioned His disciples but all who believe. He isn't about to equip believers since 2000 yr ago with less spiritual weapons, power, authority, or "power of attorney" than those. He doesn't want a weak, anemic, body to operate thru but rather onw that totally manifests Him and His Holy Spirit power working thru them
Yes, he was instructing ALL followers of Christ that bind and loose. Let me tell you who the FIRST one to use that bind and loose instruction...It was STEPHEN, who was being stoned to death. The word "DISCIPLES" is INCLUSIVE of the Apostles and Disciples. The words "THE TWELVE" is exclusive Apostles. Or, when Judas was out of the picture, "The Eleven". And, as Captain Obvious, the word Apostles are exclusive to the Apostles. Stephen was NOT an Apostle. But he was being murdered, and he LOOSED that sin from them who were stoning him.
Your claims here are just objectively wrong. St Stephen didn't bind or loose anything.
Protestants and their religions are founded upon a rejection of the authority that Christ gave His Church. That's why you deny the authority of the Apostles, while at the same time pretending that you believe Scripture contains authority and that one of the reasons it has that authority is because it was written by an Apostle or their close companion.
Well, then, apparently we have a difference of opinion on what "Bind and Loose" really is.
Acts 7:60
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
It goes with the topic of FORGIVENESS. Jesus first used it when he said, "FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHA THEY WERE DOING"
Right? Isn't that what Jesus said? I know some old school Catholics who are mad at the Jews for killing Jesus...and yet, Jesus said FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, for they know NOT what they do.
Why didn't they know?
Oh, and when Jesus said, "Father forgive them", he wasn't telling a Pope to forgive them.
I'll bet them old school Catholics didn't WANT Jesus do die on the cross to SAVE ANYONE from their sins, huh? That's why your hero Peter sliced off an ear! Jesus rebuked him for that, but WHY?
Because the mission of Jesus was that cross...to save people, and the Jews played a part in that...but the old school Catholics wanted Jesus to live a full life until he died of old age. So...they got mad at the Jews.
Dude, we should be THANKING the Jews for killing Jesus! Shake their hands. Give them "an holy kiss". Their actions brought forth salvation. Instead, a lot of Catholic Jew haters in the world.
Yes, you don't understand what bind and loose means.
It means that a person can speak with authority and declare doctrines and beliefs that must be accepted by the faithful. It gives authority to determine how the Church is run and organize it. It gives authority to ordain other men who carry that same authority.
The authority to forgive sins is separate from that, and different from a person forgiving someone for sins that have been committed against them personally. The Apostles and those they have ordained have authority to forgive sins eternally no matter who they were committed against. It is the authority of Christ to forgive sins that He gave to them. St Stephen wasn't giving them absolution and forgiveness for their murder of him, but forgiving them on his own part. They still would need to go to a priest or bishop to receive absolution.
“Your hero Peter”
What do you mean by this?
Are you denigrating Peter?
No, I'm denegrating Catholics...and ALSO Peter.
Matthew 16:21-23
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mark 8:31-33
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
And then remember that Peter sliced the ear off of a soldier in order to DEFEND Jesus, but Jesus rebuked him, because that cross was the mission and destination of Jesus. He had to get to that cross. Jesus told Pilate that if his kingdom was of this world, that his disciples would fight...and that is what Peter was trying to do. Fight to defend Jesus. But Jesus had to rebuke Peter AGAIN.
I don’t trust your jibberish.. I’m a recovering catholic.. The Chosen is a hit! You are not. dapelham said it best..
I will pray that you become Christian again and reconcile yourself to God and His Church.
Did you see the episode when Jesus is almost thrown off the cliff for calling out the Pharisees sins or when he talks to Nicodemus about being saved from sin? We shouldn’t cancel the chosen because it isn’t perfect. Good point about the women being perfect though. But we don’t know Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Scripture only says she had 7 demons. She might have been but it is because Gregory the Great linked the woman from Luke 7 with Mary from Luke 8.
Beware the yeast of the Pharisees. Even a small amount of heresy can ruin the soul and send them to hell.
The path to Heaven is narrow and not wide. Narrow.
This is patently ridiculous. The show is portraying mostly moments we have no records of, that are plausible, and applying mostly obvious human detail to. It’s not hermeneutics on film. Foolish write.
The big problem is the heresy
Every biblical reenactment is quoted directly from scripture. The fruit speaks for itself.
That's not even close to true. Large swaths of the show are fictional imaginings and not in Scripture at all.
No one who makes a movie from the written word can do so without also using creative license to do so. There just isn’t enough material to make the story flow. Any producer will tell you this.
If you take a book, any book, even a comic book, and turn it into a movie you have to add all sorts of material to make it make sense on film.
Adding fictional scenes would be fine if they were open and clear that these were fictional scenes, plus those scenes cannot contradict the Christian faith. The Chosen violates these rules.
Isaiah 22:22 is quoted in Rev 3:7 as referring to Christ: "And to The Messenger of the assembly in Philadelphia write: Thus says The Holy One, The True One, he who has the key of David, The One who opens and there is none who shuts, and he shuts and there is none who opens."
Isaiah 22 ALSO refers to Matthew 16. Jesus holds those keys and He gave them to St Peter.
Stop ignoring Bible verse just because they contradict your personal theology
Maybe you should stop ignoring the Bible. Your Matthew 16 is PLURAL, i.e., KEYS.
Revelation 3:7 and Isaiah 22 is SINGULAR, i.e., KEY.
In addition, Peter's key doesn't fit the lock:
Isaiah 22: so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Revelation: he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
NO MAN OPENS. Not even Peter. Why? Because Jesus has the ONLY KEY (SINGULAR).
Matthew 16 states, KEYS, plural. Besides, The Rock is not Peter...the Rock is a FOUNDATION, and the FOUNDATION of the Church is that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Christ is the ROCK upon which the church is built.
Not only that...Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Babylon is not code for Rome. After the Babylon Captivity, a lot more Jews stayed behind...as well as moved to all parts of the world, than those who came back to Israel. They STAYED in Assyria. The BABYLONIAN TALMUD was written there. And that Talmud was not FINISHED being written until sometime in the 6th Century.
Peter had a lot of Jews to convert to Christianity. Both of his epistles are to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Just like James's and John's letters...including Revelation...but that's another topic.
Peter had no business in a Gentile Rome. Paul did...he was a citizen already.
And that Transub...whatever that word is...
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2021/06/20/communion-wine-cheese-crackers-and-a-chicken-dinner/
You guys crack me up!
Why are you trying to give me your fallible interpretation of those passages?
I have my own Bible and can read it on my own. I disagree with your fallible interpretation here. So I reject your opinion on these passages.
You do know that your opinions carry no weight in the Christian faith, right?
To show you your strange comprehension of scripture.
It's easy to debunk catholic dogma.
And there it is.
Every single Protestant thinks their interpretation of Scripture is infallible and that they alone are the one who determines and defines the Christian faith. LOL
So what do you say? Chicken Dinner, or a thimble of grape juice and gluten free bread sticks from pizza hut?
I guess the Catholics don't compare scripture with scripture! They need a protestant to teach them stuff!
The. rules he referred to are those of the Pharissees.
Jesus and John the Baptist were discussing Herod and his illegal and immoral marriage. That was not a rule of the Pharisees but of God.
For anyone who wants to know the truth about how the Roman Catholic church is a false religion it is laid out here verse by verse from scripture not man made documents heresies and blasphemous worshipping of idols.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdlczbO5Csc
Says the false prophet and idol worshipper.
Stopped reading this garbage when you started with the false notion that Pe ER has any special role in the church. He was not the foundation that was Christ.
Sorry.
I'm sorry that you reject Scripture.
Let me know if you are ever interested in learning the Christian faith and are ready to leave your Protestantism.
Wow, didn’t expect you to move into denial mode. Too bad, I thought you made some good points but when you can’t see the beam in your own eye it’s hard to take you seriously as you attempt to remove the mote from others. After over 500 years I thought it quite settled that the indulgences scandal was quite settled history.
I suppose this is how you’d respond to the pedophilia within the priesthood? The failed crusades and the silliness regarding all the relic worship that took its place. All overblown? Not even a modicum of ownership?
I like your article, you make many good points. Overall it is a nice defense of the gospel.
One criticism is that by defending the church’s acquisitions and building program to the extent you do you have whitewashed the church’s many past oppressions of its people especially in times where it’s power over the people was much stronger than today.
We have certainly discovered some nasty cartel activity within the heirachy of the church in recent years to substantiate this reality.
Your point about why it is proper to build wonderful monument to God is correct. It is also correct that Protestants have criticized some of this because there was in fact undue oppression of parishioners from time to time in order to fund such projects.
Both sides can be right, by denial of sin no one benefits.
The claims about oppression by the Church to build the cathedrals is overblown nonsense. And the current corruption in the hierarchy today has nothing to do with that period of time.
There will always be tares among the wheat and Judas bishops/priests. That doesn't undermine the Church or its authority.
What would undermine the authority?
Wow, you must have been watching for things you didn't like. It's kind of presumptuous to say that you know the reason that certain choices were made. You have interpreted specific scenes very differently than I did. You might want to watch all the roundtable discussions with the Catholic priest, messianic Jew and Evangelical Seminary professor. Those are so interesting. They try very hard to get everything to not contradict the Bible or the cultural times, however. It's a TV show also meant to entertain.
There would be no problem if the show was creatively showing fictional scenes imagined by the writers, as long as those scenes didn't contradict the Christian faith, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
This show violates all three.