(22 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)
Loading...In this Readers’ Mailbag I’ll deal with two questions that involve modern myths about the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. Is it true that this is when the church fathers decided which books would be in the New Testament? And that these authorities also removed all references to reincarnation from the Bible? If you have a question you would like me to address in a future Mailbag, go ahead and ask!
QUESTION: I’ve noticed many people have the misconception that the NT canon was decided at the Council of Nicaea. Where are people getting this misconception, and can it be quashed?
QUESTION: I have often heard that original scrolls make reference to reincarnation but that such references were removed at the Council of Nicaea to strengthen the Church’s position that the imperative for living a Godly life this time around necessitated immediate adherence. Is there any truth to this claim?
RESPONSES:
First, on the canon of the New Testament, let me say categorically that the Council of Nicaea did not debate or decide which books should belong in Scripture. We know this because we have actual records of the Council’s issues and decisions. So where do people today get the idea from? I suppose it is mainly from reading The Da Vinci Code, where it is stated as a historical fact.
Now, you may say that the novel is fiction and so shouldn’t be taken seriously. I completely agree. BUT, if you’ve read the novel, you’ll know that…
The Rest of this Post is for MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs less than a Quarter-pounder with Cheese a month, and is so much better for you! And remember, every penny goes to charity.
The Nicene Creed came from the Council of Nicaea. Thanks in some part to Brown, some of today’s Christians may be confused between the Creed and the Canon. They both begin with a C. … Bart, would you give them “partial credit” on an exam?
Ha! No way.
“Credulous” also begins with ‘C’.
In a New Testament class at Ouachita Baptist University, I remember being taught that the New Testament cannon was decided at the Council of Nicaea. This was in 1972, long before Dan Brown got it wrong.
Wow. (But yes, the idea has been around for a very long time. You would think a university professor would know better!)
It’s a shame that such a popular book spread so much false information. I’m gonna try my best not to do that with mine. So, if my bestselling novel has an inaccuracy, just be nice to me. That’s all I ask. 🙂
funny you should say that: i know a few other hugely popular books–supposedly read by billions worldwide–that spread false information 🙂
do let us know when you publish your novel.
I will!
Admittedly, Jerome isn’t “contemporary” with the council but there is this curious passage:
Jerome’s Prologue to Judith
“Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word.”
Yes, he is not saying that the Council specified a collection of canonical books, but that bishops there cited the book as an authority.
Neo-platonists believed in reincarnation (i.e.The Transmigration of Souls) and there seems to have been rather heated debates between Neo-platonists and Christians. For example, Porphyry was a noted Neo-platonic critic of Christianity of the 3rd century. Maybe that’s where some are getting the idea that Christians originally believed in reincarnation, later disavowing it, because they wanted to distinguish themselves from their Neo-platonic enemies.
Yes, and Origen, who was very much a Platonist, held to a view of reincarnation.
https://youtu.be/1jCdOjOaJsU
Dr. Ehrman, do you have a take on the conjecture that Constantine’s 50 copies of the “sacred scripture” commissioned through Euseubius 6 years after he called the council of Nicea lead some to the conclusion the Canon was also decided at Nicea?
Do you think Siniaticus and / or Vaticanus were of the 50?
Normally scholars don’t see any connection: there were certainly copies of the Bible before anyone decided, finally, which books were to be included, and we don’t know of Constantine was requesting a complete set of Scripture or just hte Gospels. In any event. Eusebius, from whom he made the request, is himself explicit that there were some books whose canonical status was undecided (and he was a prominent figure at the Council!). No, I don’t think any of our surviving copies was one of the 50. But there’s no hard evidence either way, of course.
Another misconception about the Council of Nicaea was that the Council made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. I’ve found that notion even in the writings of professional historians who should know better. As is well known it was not until the reign of Theodosius that Christianity was elevated to that status (380).
Right! I should have mentioned that too! Another huge misconception (I deal with it at some length in my new book The Triumph of Christianity)
Is there anything in Irenaeus or Tertullian (or other heresy hunters) that indicate that there were alternative schools of Christianity that taught some form of reincarnation?
There certainly were some Christians who held to some such idea, especially the church father Origen, one of the greatest (probably the greatest) of the first three centuries.
With regard to reincarnation,maybe the Nicean Council idea had to do with the fact that some folks think Origen believed in reincarnation and he was involved with the Council?
I spent some time trying to figure out what Origen really thought. Seems like he was for universal salvation, but some say he did not specify a mechanism (more lives on earth vs. learning/punishment on the Other Side). I didn’t have time to look deeper. Do you or others on this site know about this, or of a fair-minded publication about Origen’s thinking on this topic?
I also think it interesting that the authors of Sefer HaBahir and the Zohar drew upon passages from the Hebrew Bible in their discussions of reincarnation. It seems that they are giving interpretations, and perhaps those are less of a stretch in the Hebrew Bible than in the New Testament?
Yes, Origen did hold to some view of reincarnation, but he was, of course, long dead by the time of the Council.
Yes, his corporal body was dead, but his ideas on the nature of Christ, were still floating around/important to the Council. It was just my random thought as to why people could have linked “him” (ideas) to the Council.
And yet, having decided Jesus was in essence coterminous with God the Father (for certainly that is implied by what the council decided), they kept those passages in the New Testament books that contradict that interpretation. Paul obviously did not believe this, and he was probably the first important figure in the Christian church to think of Jesus as a divine being who had existed long before his incarnation in human form. Jesus is called “A man chosen by God” in both Peter and Acts–the earliest view of him among his followers was clearly that he was a mortal man born of human parents, who had miraculous abilities and insights given to him by God, in order to perform a task.
But monotheists can’t worship a man (or even a subordinate divine being). And the worship of Christ, that more personalized human representation of the godhead, was inherent to the still new and growing Christian church. Nor could they alter sacred texts to agree with them (that would be the same thing as admitting those texts proved them wrong). So you could argue they had no other choice but to simply pretend the contradictions in their own holy books were not there. And they’ve been doing that ever since. And the same thing happens in all religions, and really, all believe systems, including secular ones.
But it’s still irritating. 🙂
Doc, you’ve briefly gone over your take on the exact nature of Paul’s persecution and how the early Christians were treated. I’d like to know more about this subject because I think it’d help explain the apocalyptic mindset (which I *don’t* believe started with Jesus himself). Are there any books entirely about the early persecution which you’d recommend? Anything lengthy and detailed?
I’m afraid we don’t have much information outside of what can be found in Paul and the book of Acts themselves. There are lots of good books on persecution, from the now-dated but still important classic by W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, to the more recent works by people like Candida Moss (The Myth of Persecution)
Since I am currently researching the topic of apocalypticism in that period, I’d like to chime in here: The apocalyptic mindset of the Jesus movement is not tied to the early (or later) persecutions of Jesus followers, since this mindset preceded Jesus. Most likely it started in the Hasmonean period (Daniel has apocalyptic elements, which are later taken up in 1 Macc. partly as a response to Daniel), and certainly the feeling that the end of the world was coming any moment was enhanced by Rome’s rough handling of Judaea even in the early years of the first century CE. The Dead Sea Scrolls show lots of this mindset.
Paul seems to have had the apocalyptic mindset from the beginning; I don’t find any suggestion that he came to it after being “persecuted” for his belief in Jesus (“persecuted” in quotes because I think that overstates the case).
(In saying this, I am taking “apocalyptic mindset” to mean what is technically “eschatology” – the expectation of the end times; apocalypse originally meant a revealed vision which may or may not be eschatological, but we now use it to mean pretty much the same as eschatology.)
Thank you very much for clarifying because I too had been taught at University that the counsel at Nicea determined which books were canon. Also, I had read sometime ago even decades ago Geddes McGregor’s book and that too influenced regarding reincarnation. https://www.amazon.com/Reincarnation-Christianity-Rebirth-Christian-Thought/dp/0835605019 Thanks for setting the record straight!
Fortunately for us conspiracy theorists, lol, they didn’t quite scrub *all* the references to reincarnation, Bart:
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
lolol! 🙂
In all seriousness, people seem to have kept asking of Jesus was Elijah returned, and Herod Antipas supposedly thought he might be John the Baptist returned from his beheading (yeah, I don’t buy that either). So clearly the idea of returning from the dead was widely disseminated, but it was seen as something that might happen to a very special person. Not a routine event. Tellingly, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains all tend to see the cycle of reincarnation as something it is their ultimate goal to escape from.
I’d be all for reincarnation if you could remember all the mistakes you made the last time. Without any kind of learning curve, I don’t know as I much see the point of it.
My wife would like to return as one of her cats.
Since Jesus was around 28 or so when John the B. was beheaded, one has to wonder what reincarnation theory would account for those first 28 years?
But just to follow up on your speculation on the Indian reason for reincarnation: Postulate that we think reincarnation is real because we have memories of past lives, however fuzzy and imperfect. If so, then that would amount to a learning curve, albeit a very shallow one. It also raises interesting questions about nature vs nuture – but that’s REALLY getting far afield here!
Yup, good point! I suppose you have to argue that these people weren’t aware of a previous 28 years of life (just as later Marcion claimed Jesus descended from heaven as a full-grown adult)
I once had a discussion with a lady who believed reincarnation was taught in the Bible. She used John 9:1,2 as her basis by claiming the man sinned in an earlier life and thus was born blind.
Yes, it’s a puzzling verse! And the one usually cited. (Niceae didn’t remove it!)
Here’s how I see it; it’s a spiritual rebirth, which occurs within. John 9:1-7, The disciples asked Jesus, “who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.” How is it possible for the unborn to sin, unless we have a previous life? Jesus could’ve stopped them and said there is no such thing as reincarnation, but he didn’t. He said, “Neither hath this man sinned, or his parents.” Moving on, Jesus made a peculiar statement, saying “The works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” The day here isn’t referring to blue skies, it’s an inward oneness with God. No man can work at night, because the night is symbolic for being in the presence of the carnal mind. God doesn’t dwell here. Therefore, to manifest the wisdom of God, Jesus rebuked the wisdom of the lower by spitting on the ground and rubbing the mud in the man’s eyes and washing away the intellect of the lower carnal mind with the divine water (wisdom/truth) of God.
A number of years ago I was invited to sit in on few weeks of lectures and teaching from a Chabad-Lubavitch Rebbe regarding “The Seven Noahide Laws.” He believed it to be his moral obligation to teach gentiles about these laws as a way to save them. Sometime during one of his lectures he mentioned that Jews believe in reincarnation and that its roots go back to the Torah. Unfortunately, he refused to answer any questions, especially about reincarnation. My question: Does this belief in reincarnation exist only in various groups of Jews, or is it a more common belief? Perhaps I should ask whether this Rebbe was interjecting his own personal beliefs about reincarnation, speaking only for himself.
My sense is that it is a completely marginal belief within Judaism. Maybe someone else could fill us in more here.
There is a belief in reincarnation among some Jews; to my (limited) knowledge, it was not unknown among medieval Ashkenazi Jews – who also believed in dybbuks (possession by the dead). But even those who believed in it didn’t do so as a general rule. A soul could be reincarnated or return as a dybbuk only if there was some essential act that he or she was supposed to have done in life but failed to do. Also, a dybbuk (the word comes from the Hebrew “dabaq” – to cling) can be a soul that isn’t willing to give up on life and move on, often because of some romantic obsession.
It is not a particularly mainstream belief, as you said. But some Hasidim (whose origins are in medieval Ashkenazis) may well hold to it; there is a large mystical strain in Hasidus. As for finding it in the Torah, it’s not hard to find support for almost anything if you look at it in just the right way. 🙂
Interesting. Thanks.
“Belief in reincarnation is also one way to explain the traditional Jewish belief that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d. (Another explanation: that the soul exists before the body, and these unborn souls were present in some form at Sinai). Belief in reincarnation is commonly held by many Chasidic sects, as well as some other mystically-inclined Jews.”
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm#Resurrection
A helpful book for me when I took a class on the Jewish Mystics was Does the Soul Survive?
A Jewish Journey to Belief in Afterlife, Past Lives & Living with Purpose Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz. Many Hasids do believe in reincarnation and trace those beliefs back to the Kabbala. Here’s a link: http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380599/jewish/Judaism-and-Reincarnation.htm
Short answer, it has a long history within Judaism.
But that history post-dates the split with Christianity. Still, I can’t think of a reason why if Jews believe in it, it wouldn’t be OK for Christians too. Since Jesus in Christian scripture, never said “no, don’t believe in it.” Church institutions may have, but that’s a different deal.
Since persecution has been raised in this post, do we know the persuasion (proto-orthodox, gnostic etc) of those who suffered either in local or empire-wide persecutions? Or were ‘Christians’ just rounded up indiscriminately as trouble-makers?
There are debates about this — some groups are reputed as being enthusiastic about martyrdom (e.g., the Montanists), others as being opposed to it (some groups of Gnostics). But it’s not clear if these generalizations always hold.
Bart 2 questions –
Pontius Pilate – Jesus having the supper with him..
Offered his son instead of jesus. Judas Kiss and Jesus a shape shifter. Have you heard of this Bart? lol
Pontius Pilate’s son reminds me of Mark 14:51-52
Right after the kiss there he was ..
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
And second question Bart, who was Mark 14:51?
Mark 14:51: there are about 963 theories about that. The one most people, in my experience, seem to like is that it was Mark himself. I think that’s highly unlikely and unconvincing — but people find it a fascinating idea.
What I heard from evangelicals was that the Catholic Church never thought that the deuterocanonical books were scripture until Trent. The Catholic Church added these books to the Bible because they tend to support Catholic teachings and traditions that were opposed by the Protestants.
I later learned from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox that it’s not true. The Protestants removed the apocrypha from the Bible because they didn’t like how they supported Catholic teachings, such as praying to the dead. So Protestants are using a partial Bible, edited to support their beliefs.
Yeah, that’s more Protestant imagination than historical reality!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Regarding the idea of reincarnation hints in the NT. There are two that always throw me: 1. Jesus is asked by his disciples if “this man was BORN blind due to his own sin or the sin of his father…” (something like that)…implying he could have sinned before his own birth???, and 2. Revelation: “I will make you a pillar and you will go out NO MORE.” Go out from where? Like souls continually go out somewhere???
What do you make of these passages?
Thanks and Happy New Year!
I”m not sure about the Revelation passage, but the one from John is one that is often referred to. A very curious verse.
Bart, isn’t the question being asked to Jesus in John 9:1-2 the result of the teachings in the OT (Numbers 14:18 “…he (God) punishes the children for the sins of their parents..”?
Yes indeed. But with respect to reincarnation the puzzling bit is the query of whether the man himself had sinned so that he was born blind! How could he have sinned before he was born?
Didn’t some Gnostics believe in reincarnation?
Yes, apparently so.
I found a very long answer to the question of where the notion comes from (that the Council of Nicea determined the biblical canon).
From Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus by Baron Paul Tiry d’Holbach. Critical Edition and Revision of George Houston’s Translation from the French
“It is well known, that among some fifty gospels, with which Christianity in its commencement was inundated, the Church, assembled in council at Nicaea, chose four of them only, and rejected the rest as apocryphal, although the latter had nothing more ridiculous in them than those which were admitted. Thus, at the end of three centuries (i.e. in the three hundred and twenty-fifth year of the Christian era), some bishops decided, that these four gospels were the only ones which ought to be adopted, or which had been really inspired by the Holy Ghost. A miracle enabled them to discover this important truth, so difficult to unearth at a time even then quite remote from that of the apostles. They placed, it is said, books apocryphal and authentic jumbled together under an altar; the Fathers of the Council betook themselves to prayers, in order to obtain of the Lord, that he would permit the false or doubtful books to remain under the altar, whilst those which were truly inspired by the Holy Ghost should rise and place themselves on it, which did not fail to occur.”
The editor, Andrew Hunwick, adds the following footnote to this passage:
“The question of authentic and spurious gospels was not discussed at the first Nicene Council: the anecdote is fictitious. It occurs in the clandestine text La Religion chretienne analysée (‘Christianity Analyzed’, ascribed to Dumarsais, and published by Voltaire in an abridged form in the Recueil necessaire (‘Essential Collection,’ 1765), where the source is given as the Sanctissima concilia (1671-1672, Paris, vol II, pp 84-85) of Pierre Labbe (1607-1667), which purports to follow the Year 325 § 158 of the Annales ecclesiasti (1559-1607) of Baronius (1538-1607), though be it noted that Baronius, while recording the adoption of certain gospels, and the rejection of others as spurious, does not recount by what means the distinction was made.
Voltaire repeated the fictitious anecdote several times, giving Labbe as his source: see B. E. Schwarzbach, p. 329 & n. 81. Doubts had earlier been expressed, notably by Tillemont (see L. S. Le Nain de Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastique [‘Memoirs by way of church history’, 1701-14, 2nd ed., Paris, Robustel – Arsenal 4° H.5547], vol VI, p .676.)
In fact the anecdote pre-dates Baronius by over six hundred years: it occurs in an anonymous Synodikon containing brief surveys of 158 Councils of the first nine centuries. Brought from Greece in the sixteenth century by Andreas Darmasius, this document was purchased and edited by the Lutheran theologian Johannes Pappus (1549-1610). It was subsequently reprinted, notably in the Bibliotheca graeca… of Fabricius, the first edition of which was published in 1705-1707, and which D’Holbach may well have consulted. The anecdote may be found in Synodicon vetus section 34, ‘Council of Nicaea’ (Johannes Albert Fabricius, Biblioteca graeca… [1790-1809, Hamburg: Bohn], Vol XII, pp. 370-371.)”
Wow. Interesting. Many thanks.
Given that the records of the Nicaean Council show no discussion of the contents of the canon, have you any thoughts on why these later writers would try to insist that they had done so? I can’t think of any reason offhand for the council records to have been altered to excise such a discussion; can you?
They would do so in order to score a theological point, that the canon was officially decided already.
Cool. Thanks!
I remember watching “Out on a limb,” the Shirley McLean TV movie when I was a kid, around 1987. I seem to remember a scene where her “mentor” tells her that reincarnation was in the scriptures until Constantine had them removed at the council of Nicea. Thats the first time I’d ever heared any of that ” history”. Undoubtedly many others did also.
Interesting.
Well then it must be true! : )
I have read somewhere, perhaps in the Catholic Catechism, that the present Catholic canon was first accepted by the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa in 393 C.E., but the acts of this council have been lost. I have also read somewhere that a summary of the acts of this Synod of Hippo was accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 C.E. and 416 C.E. If this information is true, then canonization may have been done at a council during the late fourth century. I may have read this in the Catholic Catechism, but am not sure. Do you think this information is correct? Thanks.
Yes, that’s right about the Synod of Hippo and the councils of Carthage. But these were very regional affairs, not “ecumenical” councils with authority over the church at large.
The Zohar teaches reincarnation. Tibetan Buddhism teaches reincarnation. Psychology teaches reincarnation. The mysticism built on top of the Hebrew Bible is probably not wrong about reincarnation. Exoteric aspects of religion are notorious for skipping over truths. We’re no longer in the Age of Belief. The Age of Reason has come. We’re now in the Age of Information. Holding on to an Age of Belief document like the Bible, with its scientific, historical, psychological, philosophical, and spiritual inaccuracies is a “swim at your own risk” proposition. For Age of Information Christianity as Opposed to Pre-Age of Reason Christianity, Reincarnation Should Be Part of Our World View
Jewish eschatology is made up of three basic pieces:
“The Era of the Messiah.”
“The Afterlife.”
“The World of Resurrection.”
The Messiah, according to traditional Jewish sources, will be a human being born of a flesh and blood mother and father, unlike the Christian idea that has him as the son of God conceived immaculately. In fact, Maimonides (1135-1204) writes that the Messiah will complete his job and then die like everyone else.
The World of Resurrection … “no eye has seen,” the Talmud remarks. It’s a world, according to most authorities, where the body and soul are reunited to live eternally in a truly perfected state. That world will only first come into being after the Messiah and will be initiated by an event known as the “Great Day of Judgment,”(Yom HaDin HaGadol) The World of Resurrection is thus the ultimate reward, a place where the body becomes eternal and spiritual, while the soul becomes even more so.
[This is quite Pauline.]
In comparison to a concept like the “World To Come,” reincarnation is not, technically speaking, a true eschatology. Reincarnation is merely a vehicle toward attaining an eschatological end. It’s the reentry of the soul into an entirely new body into the present world. Resurrection, by contrast, is the reunification of the soul with the former body (newly reconstituted) into the “World To Come,” a world history has not witnessed yet.
Resurrection is thus a pure eschatological concept. Its purpose is to reward the body with eternity (and the soul with higher perfection). The purpose of reincarnation is generally two-fold: either to make up for a failure in a previous life or to create a new, higher state of personal perfection not previously attained. The purpose of resurrection is to reward the body with eternity and the soul with higher perfection. Resurrection is thus a time of reward; reincarnation a time of repairing. Resurrection is a time of reaping; reincarnation a time of sowing.
The fact that reincarnation is part of Jewish tradition comes as a surprise to many people. Nevertheless, it’s mentioned in numerous places throughout the classical texts of Jewish mysticism, starting with the preeminent sourcebook of Kabbalah, the Zohar :12
As long as a person is unsuccessful in his purpose in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, uproots him and replants him over and over again. (Zohar I 186b)
All souls are subject to reincarnation; and people do not know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He! They do not know that they are brought before the tribunal both before they enter into this world and after they leave it…
http://www.aish.com/jl/l/a/48943926.html
= = =
Reincarnation contributes to the solution of suffering and is contributes to understanding how the book of Job ends.
= = =
Tibetan Buddhism holds that there are two ways that someone can take rebirth after death. The first is to be reborn involuntarily, under the sway of “karma”, drawn back to life by destructive emotions and desires. This is the fate of most of us. A few, select others, through the power of compassion and prayer to benefit others, are believed to be able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their parents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10935470/Tibetan-Buddhism-what-is-reincarnation.html
As for Psychology, search amazon.com for books by and related to Michael Newton, author of Journey of Souls. Also see Old Souls by Tom Shroder and Many Lives, Many Masters by Brian Weiss, MD.
(No need to publish this comment, it just seems like the most straightforward way to communicate a heads-up on a specific post)
I presume you meant either “its source”, or “its odd source”, or…something? From what I’ve heard it’s certainly an odd book, but an adjective can’t be what you intended!
Right: source! Scribal glitch…
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:
… we have historical records that tell us what the Council of Nicaea was actually all about. I won’t go into the details here, but simply say that it was focused on the question of whether Christ was fully, and completely God, equal with the Father, or was, instead, a lesser divine being who had been created at some time in eternity past by the Father.
Steefen
YouTube Video Producer, WBFbySteefen
For Jesus to instruct followers to drink his blood figuratively or literally is a gross exhibition of an ignorance of Science – Biology. It is a gross exhibition of not knowing the human body has a digestive system and a circulatory system. Hence, Jesus cannot be one with God and he cannot be present at the creation of Adam.
In the history of blood transfusions, Pope Innocent VII (circa 1336-1406) , Vicar of Christ, was given the blood of boys to drink. The pope died and the boys died due to their gross exhibition of an ignorance of Science – Biology: the human body has a digestive system and a circulatory system. Furthermore, the blood of lambs does not work in human blood transfusions, which was tried in a different case of failed blood transfusions.
Body and Blood remembrance of Jesus is an atheistic stand against the God of Moses as explained in the youtube video, “New Conclusions and Perspectives on Christianity (2016 Forward) by WBFbySteefen. God did not correct Jesus’ act of disobedience.