วีดีโอ

Christians didn't have a BIBLE until the end of the 4th century. They had some books (letters), the larger cities had somewhat complete collections of NT writings. They also had the Septuagint version of the OT which was more dispersed than the Hebrew version. We have a complete collection of the 73 books by the mid 3rd century or end of the 4th century.

Mr. Kruger speaks to the audience as if they are stupid and uninformed, he has an arrogant way about him, that speaks self love thy self, and he does.

Wow someone recommended me to listen to him and I honestly had a great hope I was optimistic ready to listen the most important point for me was his first one and I man I couldn't believe it.. yes he offers an explanation thanks for that but nevertheless that's just an idea, an inference or hypothesis at best.. I was ready to listen to something more definitive. For a Christian protestant obviously this will be sufficient since you already believe in Martin Luther sola scriptura ideology but not for someone that is not into protestantism. Well I tried and I tried hard for my girlfriend only for here but someone must follow the truth and the most reasonable path which is that the early church was oral tradition, Christ founded a church not a scripture and the Bible also requires us to follow tradition. I will not leave my orthodox Christian faith and if that's the reason of she breaking out with me then I will accept it and trust Jesus Christ my lord

Campus ! Please you mean a church !!!!!

This is so beneficial to so many!

14:29: Respectfully sir, Jesus did not say, "Behold I am making a New Covenant." He said, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20, NKJV). So... the New Covenant is not simply some sort of agreement. The New Covenant, according to Jesus, is a cup filled with the blood of Jesus. Pretty clear. Sure, it can be argued that the idea of writing down the nature of the covenant into a document could have been a factor in assembling the NT canon, but let's not allow ambiguity regarding what the New Covenant actually is. The New Covenant is the physical blood of Jesus (and, one can easily argue, the bread which is his body as well). Our Lord tells us so. No, Jesus did not say, "Behold I am making a New Covenant." Sounds like the Catholic Eucharist to me, according to the document. :)

It is astonishing that in 2023, people believe all these ancient mythologies. To this day nobody knows what God is let alone what God did or will do. Can anyone here tell me what Drook did? Does Drook exist? Did Drook created the Universe? No one can answer these questions because none of you have any idea what Drook is. We all agree that no one knows what God is, right?

He gave me reasons to question the Bible I never thought of

He's just making stuff up

Speaking to an audience eager to have presuppositions confirmed, his lecture makes sense. People have to be ready to ask hard questions and hear uncomfortable answers. I don’t think that was his audience. When out in the ocean, you don’t drill holes in the hull of the ship in which you want to be, no matter how curious you are about its integrity and solidity.

Ahh, but the authority of the scriptures DOES come from the Church, specifically the Catholic Church, which was the ONLY Church in existence for the first 1000 years. The Bible itself says, in 2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter." This tells us that the REAL authority is in the Apostle's teaching, which is referred to as TRADITION, both in the Oral form, and in the Written form as letters. We know that these letters were passed around from church to church. Multiple copies were made, and they were sent out from place to place. The actual authority of the Bible comes FROM the Church. Is there a place that the bible confirms this? Yes, there is: 1 Timothy 3:14-15 14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these things 15 in case I am delayed, so that you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. So, by looking at this verse in 1 Timothy, we can ask, what is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? NO! It is the Church of the Living God. So, Mr. Kruger is correct. If the Bible is a late book, then the authority for it comes from the Church! Exactly! Jesus gave us a Church, not a bible. The Church gave us a Bible, and the main reason was to combat confusion in the 4th century, which is when a lot of books were being produced. Prior to this, books were very expensive and hard to come by. Also, the format was scrolls, which were bulky and hard to carry around. The growing popularity of the Codex (our present book format) really caused more people to learn to read, and more books to be produced. Even with this, it was only a small fraction of people who could actually read, so people relied on going to Mass in order to hear the Bible read out loud. By the 4th century there were MANY books floating around Christendom, and this was causing a lot of confusion. People did not know which books were actually from REAL Apostles, and which were fakes. This prompted the Catholic Church to undertake the task of producing a canonized New Testament. The Catholic Bishop of Antioch, St. Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon. Earlier, in the year AD 331, Emperor Constantine commissioned 50 bibles to be produced. This was a huge undertaking, because they all had to be produced by hand.

It is comical to see Romanist make claims about how they defined the cannon. Same arguments that atheists make. News flash, nobody in the early church was running around distraught not knowing what was scripture and what wasn’t and they were just waiting for Rome to tell them. The fathers weren’t sitting around wondering what to read or believe. There was nearly universal agreement in the early church what was scripture and what wasn’t, what took time was to combine them into a “cannon”. Nobody needed Rome for that. Nobody in the early church, NOBODY, affirmed or believed what Rome now believes about itself or many of its dogmas. There is zero biblical or historical evidence for their dogmas that they claimed from pagan, mystic and gnostic sources-see the Marian Dogmas, and the papacy was invented out of whole cloth and is now desperately crammed back into scripture by taking verses out of context and twisting them into pretzels. In fact, there were ecumenical councils in the early church that Rome wasn’t even invited to, much less consulted for their “primacy”. This “authority” Rome claims for itself was invented hundreds of years later. They don’t have and never had the “authority” that they claim they have. Difference between now and then, is in the early church even those in Rome didn’t believe what Rome now does. The Catholic Church is the universal church. All those who have been saved by grace, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s not Rome, or the East or any one place. It is Christ’s church, handed to the fathers by the Apostles. There was no imaginary succession from Peter. Not even Peter believed that, just read scripture. Rome’s “official cannon” that they use now wasn’t canonized until the 1500s. Don’t try and pretend what the early church did is by extension now Rome. It isn’t. Rome has departed from the faith and over hundreds of years introduced all manner of heresy. In fact, Rome’s cannon added books that the Jewish Cannon didn’t recognize. The Reformers simply returned to scripture and the early church and away from the accretions of Rome. Scripture has been scripture from the moment it was written. It didn’t take hundreds of years for that to be recognized. It did take time and some development to organize them and combine them into an “official cannon” but that is something that happened organically as the Lord lead his people. It wasn’t Rome, never has been, never will be.

Praise God!

While Jesus Peter Paul John etc… never cite the apocrypha books as scripture, it does seem like Jude does, at least with 1 Enoch. In Jude 14-15 Jude says ”But Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, also prophesied about these men, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Jude here quotes directly from 1 Enoch 1:9 and says that Enoch prophesied this, meaning Jude thought the writer of Enoch was under the influence of the Holy Spirit when he said this. Now I don’t think that 1 Enoch is inspired but i think Jude clearly thought it was. So if Jude that an uninspired book was inspired, I think that raises serious questions of whether Jude was inspired. ‭

There is more happening here than we even know. Beautifully put together, Kevin, and all those involved 🤩

Who is the guy on the right? Kruger was fine on his own, lol.

If we found a letter of Paul today this guy doesn’t know if it’d be canon or not? What a scholar, doesn’t even understand God’s promise of preservation. If it wasn’t preserved to every generation then it isn’t inspired.

This message moved my heart deeper into the presence of the shepherd. Which brings pure clarity and peace and gentle action. In the green pasture 🙏🏼💫

This guy is not giving facts. He’s giving assumption. He think he knows what happened almost 2000 years ago. The way he’s talking is the same way Muslims say the Quran is the word of God. or Judaism say the Hebrew bible is the word of God. Please be open minded that people wrote these books. Also be open that Jesus (Yeshua) was talking about something that even the disciples didn’t fully understand.

Gnostics are not real Christians. They were trouble makers to the first century church. The gnostic scriptures ARE NOT real scripture. Gnostics did not follow Jesus as the disciples did. The gnostics even taught Jesus did not die on the cross because God can't die. Don't be fooled, because gnosticism is a lie of satan

“Busyness can choke out a lot of things” yes 🕊️🙏🏼

Stunning. Well made. And honored both what has been, what is, and what will come. In Christ’s love 🙏🏼🕊️

would have liked to see the Q & A

Confirmation bias, speculation and very little evidence of the early church and their involvement in Canonization. Besides academic thought and because God did it... Let's all swim with Alligators, and note God's holyest of work. By who survives...

Incredible! I wonder what the next 170 years will hold.

Tears everytime

Wow! Amazing work.

Excellent video telling the story of these two congregations and God's faithfulness.

“In the early church” “The church in the beginning” All these phrases this guys uses makes me laugh. Be honest.. it was the catholic Church!!! The one true church… by the way started by an Apostle.

Your video has issues. Flashing light bars going across the screen.

Just ask Siri. Thank you Catholic Church

Re: translation, this raises the question of who has the authority to translate considering exegesis is part of all translations as you point out. Is this exegesis by the translators infallible? I sure hope so, otherwise sola scriptura is rendered meaningless. But it’s also rendered meaningless if your hold that the translations are infallible- which is why so many Protestants hold that only the *original* scriptures are infallible… which we don’t have. So, in reality, we don’t know if the scriptures we have are infallible… unless they came from an infallible body empowered by God with the authority to “bind and loose.” In other words, no infallible church = no infallible text.

“The church went the extra mile.” What Church would that be? And would this Church consider your theology “biblical?”

Why is Hebrews “scripture?” You just said that Hebrews would be considered scripture because it purports to contain teaching by an Apostle. But how do you know this? Moreover, there are other books which could claim the same thing which are not in the NT canon… like the Didache or I Clement. I would even add Ignatius’ epistles consisting he was ordained and taught by the apostles.

Such poor scholarship. Israel didn’t have unanimity on the OT canon. Pharisees and Sadducee’s disagreed on the canon. Every “reformed” scholar knows this- or should. Moreover, the Dead Sea scrolls contain apocryphal books. And what about the council of Rome including the apocryphal books in its canon list? That was in the 4th century… more than 1100 years before Trent. “Council of Jamnia?” Are you serious? No protestant scholar brings that to a debate because he knows there is little evidence the event took place. Moreover, even if it did, the Pharisees were the dominant voice at that time, so naturally their canon would prevail. And why would Christians in the late 1st or early 2nd century allow unbelieving Jews to determine their scriptural canon? If they tell you to get rid of the a NT books, are you going to comply as well? There are many other things you neglect to mention which are very germane to the discussion which leads me to believe you’re more of an ideologue. I left the reformed faith after 40 years because of these flimsy arguments.

I wld like to see a teaching when the bible was being taught as a whole OT and NT, you know the saintheadreain wldnt allow the two they wld have destroyed any wrighting from gospels are apistels of paul,God done it by his soverign will and they fit like a glove . The decipels lived by OT wrightings ,They cld see jesus all threw sciptures and we can in NT, they cld have had a spiritual resurrection, been a lot eaiser out come been the same. The bodily ressurection cld be when we are raised, No if you really think about it. It all happened the way you cld really exspect it to by God ,If it had been found by one man with no explanation for it .thewld have destroyed it. But God scartered the decilpels and them go wroght the sciptures bring at the right time to accomplish his will.God breathed inspjred

I do not believe that for that history is skewed by Roman powers. Anything the Roman Catholic Church was in on is wrong as far as I'm concerned. They controlled what history would be & what truth should be, just like a bigger CNN. Churches sprang up after Christ & believers dispersed & soread the word. Its been proven they had most ofvwhat is canonized today. It is also a fact that as the Roman Catholic Church became in power that the Popes sent out armies to destroy these believers and destroy their manuscripts. How dare they pocess the word of God.

This is very insightful!

False information

The Book of ENOCH Was Part of the Old Testament for Hundreds of Years AND it was also Found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and It is Quoted from Several Times in the Bible... So Lets Be Truthful and Honest ... It WAS Part of the Old Testament and it Was Removed By "AMATURES" Who Were NOT Hebrew Scholars,, they were NOT Hebrew Scribes... THE "BIG LIE" IS WHEN PEOPLE SAY IT IS NOT PART OF SCRIPTURE ... IT WAS REMOVED BY ""AMATURES"" NOT PROFESSIONAL HEBREW SCHOLARS !!!

Would there ever be a Bible if God did not inspire the Church which is composed of the people of God? Was the selection and compilation of New Testament books which passed through canons and voted by the Councils of the Church not the INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? If Yes, then the BIBLE we have is not of GOD but of another being?

Get to the point

This was pretty shallow, to be honest. Did these guys even read any of the apocryphal books or did they just read about them... It seems like they're naive children who are afraid of and offended by extra-canonical writings...

You got the Bible from Catholics. Look at the 1611 King James Version of the Bible it contains the Apocrypha a.k.a. the Deuterocanonical books in both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. The Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint Scriptures which were established in 283 B.C. (Alexandria Egypt). The entire canon of Scripture both Old and New was finalized in 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome we have today. Protestants removed the Apocrypha from their Bibles in 1885. These types of talks are somewhat intellectually dishonest.

People wanted to become leaders preachers so that they don't want to Research the truth , I they know the truth also they will not tell the truth other wise they will lose their Position... ....Its clearly truth Mother Catholic Church gave the Holy Bible it was translated by St Jerome by the order of Pope.. Bible was Translated from Hebrew Greek by St Jerome in around AD 397 ... And Martin Luther took out seven books.. wen he left the Catholic Church... today Protestant don't have 7 books, but Catholic Church they have..

The church created the Canon like Isaak Newton created gravity.

th-cam.com/users/liveAncT3hJbIRI?si=UHbHMJHK-_LzL2gS Truth is always based on facts not in our own opinion and biases

The question is who are those early christians that decided which books belong to the canon? You are avoiding this question because you can not accept that there is a body that Jesus left on earth to represent His authority...Matthew 16:16ff TRUTH is always based on FACTS not in our own opinion or biases...

Lots of conjecture...not a ton of proof.