One thing. The Council of Nicea was to settle matters concerning the heresy of Arianism and not to determine what books go into the Bible. The canon had been set as early as 180 AD and it was Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 that declared the canin closed (I think). So for over 200 years, the same set of books had been accepted by the vast majority of Christians. There was no Council convened to "vote" on it.
This is partly right.. Yeah, the Council of Nicaea convened to resolve the Arian heresy -- it had nothing to do with the canonization of Scripture (this is a widespread misnomer).. But there was a process of formally collating the Bible into a 'canon,' though I would agree it was definitely not a 'vote.' Because Christianity was illegal/underground until the Edict of Milan in 313AD, and because every copy of every page of Scripture had to be hand-written, and hand-delivered to individual congregations, The Church spread around the world (as far west as Britain, as far east as India or even China, down into Africa, and up into Europe, etc.) all had a different assortment of books; some more, some less, but obviously not all the same... From around the 100s AD, Church bishops begin writing to one another to compare/contrast which congregations read/taught from which books as canonical, and why they did/didn't consider these/those books canonical. After Christianity was legalized in 313AD, writing and meeting with other Church leaders to hammer out the true canon became much easier. By the late 300s AD, most Churches were already in agreement, but the councils of Carthage and Hippo were convened, and that canonical list is the canon of 73 books still used by the Catholic Church today... Their list and pronouncement was sent out to the other churches abroad, where it was basically unanimously received by the other churches -- this is why (because it was so well received) a large 'Ecumenical Council' (like Nicaea) was not necessary -- and the canon was never questioned from there for many hundreds of years (about 1,100 years!) until the Reformers questioned them in the 1500s. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent did finally make a dogmatic pronouncement, because Luther, Calvin and others began removing books that had been agreed upon up until then.
For you skeptics, Dr. Turek only scratched the surface. I mean he didn't even get to the good stuff as to how we know the Bible in authoritatively written. In fact, many non-Christian historians have declared the Bible to be one of the MOST (if not the most) authentic writings in history. Aside from that and the innumerable other valid points which confirm the Bible's authenticity, the secular mind can't grasp the fact that God is able to preserve an accurate account for His church to know how to be saved. Why would someone worship a God who couldn't even reach His own people? Of all the attacks on Christianity by cynics, this is the least effective one, and has pretty much been abandoned by any skeptic scholar worth his weight. They now use "logic" and "reason" to attempt to disprove the miracles and God's existence. Have fun with that, children.
Agreed. They are even losing the logic battle. The only reason they still maintain their theories against God is their control of education and things presented to the general public as "facts". People will still spout things against God that have already been disproven, or logically fallible, or just biased rhetoric. True pursuance of facts and truth are dead today.
it actually does. we dont know the old content of the books and what was omitted. so when the bible is sculpted by a group of people, then the narrative was shaped.
May God continue to bless your ministry, Frank! Thank you for all that you are doing to proclaim and defend the Truth! You have truly blessed me with knowledge and a sophisticated articulation of the gospel and answers to such tough questions that come up in dialogues about the faith and especially the intellectual side thereof.
As stated below Nicea had nothing to do with declaring and closing the can of scripture, the Catholic Church did that at the councils of 1st and 2nd Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.
Barrie Hellon-Warwick I said this world is deceitful and right on cue you lie and pretend I said something else. LOL. These demons are everywhere. They don’t even realize they are liars, even when they can see with absolute certainty what was said! Crazy!
There's some false teaching that can occur as the bible tells us would happen. False gospel, it was known to Paul and he warned about it back then. Why does a council convene and work on what is recognized as biblical canon? Because not just anyone was educated, literate, or striving to compile the inspired works and throw out the forgeries. But there were other councils, like the council of Trent. When we read the Bible for years throughout our lives, we understand more. If it sits on a table and we pass it on our way out everyday, we grow up asking who what when where and why and how. Bad teachers, mockers and scoffers have the attention of our young people. Believers can set things straight by witnessing if we know from study.
Awesome 👍😎 Brother Frank Turek. I love this program and the way you break it down and explain everything. May THE LORD continue to use you as HE chooses. AMEN HALLELUYAH. 🙌🙇🏻♂️🔥🕊️
Except for FT's error confirming that the cannon had any relation to Nicea in "380 something" (actually 325). That council had nothing to do with the canon
There is also the fact that these books were to be read in the Mass. Unapproved texts were being used in the Mass. Hence clarification was needed and the Canon was definitively compiled by the fathers of the Church at the time. My understanding.
+Vic Ribeiro They follow Luther, not the early Church which was the Catholic Church. You cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don't adhere to His Church (St.Matthew. 28:20; St.Matthew. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (St.Matthew.16:18-19) or the Eucharist (St.John 6:53) or Confession (St.John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (St.James 2:24), etc. Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas. They are thus not of Christ.
PapalSoldier The early church was NOT the Catholic church and I'm utterly offended by you saying that I don't follow Christ if I'm not Catholic! Truth be told, all I follow is God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit! You run around deifying Mary and the Disciples and any other person you think winked at you the right way! Meanwhile, Mary is in heaven weeping because Catholics have been deceived into Worshipping all the wrong people starting with her! Jesus was God wrapped in flesh so He could live and then die for the sins of the world! Wiping away of sin comes from confession TO CHRIST (not an equally fallible priest) and then repentance which is TURNING AWAY FROM YOUR WICKEDNESS! How many Catholic priests have be found to have molested young boys in the Catholic church FOR YEARS? I'm pretty sure they went to confessional! I'm sorry, Catholicism is not the way to the Father in heaven! The Bible says to give each person their just due respect, NOT WORSHIP them!
@SOULSafeProductionZ You have honestly no idea what you're talking about, great job dismissing the verses i provided. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church you wouldn't even have KNOWN THAT GOD IS A TRINITY OR THAT JESUS IS GOD WITH 2 NATURES. You simply cherry pick on what you want to believe in from the Catholic Church. Did you know the following fact? "The division [of the Bible] into chapters so familiar to us in our modern Bibles was the invention either of Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican, in 1248, or more probably Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, d. 1227." (Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church, p. 58) Pope Leo XIII (1888): "He [Jesus] commanded all nations to hear the voice of the Church, as if it were His own, threatening those who would not hear it with everlasting perdition." (Libertas #26) Pope Pius IX: "Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial." [Qui Pluribus #15, Nov. 9, 1846] St. Louis De Montfort: "All the true children of God, the predestinate, have God for their Father and Mary for their Mother. He who has not Mary for his Mother has not God for his Father. This is the reason why the reprobate, such as heretics, schismatics and others, who hate our Blessed Lady or regard her with contempt and indifference, have not God for their Father, however much they boast of it, simply because they have not Mary for their Mother." (True Devotion To The Blessed Virgin Mary #30) St. Ambrose (389): “Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.” Regarding the sex scandal with the pedophiles, those were not Catholic priests but modernist heretics. Please visit vaticancatholic.com for critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith which is necessary for salvation.
Having heard the question and before watching the answer this would be my response. The gospels are witness accounts of events. The council of Nicaea can essentially be viewed as a jury. Based on the available witness testimony it was their job to decide the most likely conclusion. If in a court case you have an overwhelming number of witness statements that say roughly the same thing, but just a handful that say something different, you wouldn’t generally consider those handful of accounts to be as reliable.
Ok, so he’s roughly saying something similar. When determining accurate witness statements you need to authenticate these statements and the people who wrote them.
Another obvious key that the second century false "gospels" were not written by the apostles: the 4 genuine first century canonical gospels did not originally attach the authors' names to them (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). This came much later. The false "gospels" included the falsely attributed apostle to them (ie: Thomas, Judas, Mary). Although Paul mentioned himself in the salutations of his epistles, the gospel writers did not mention their names as the authors of their gospel accounts.
New to learning about this stuff so I have a quick question. What sources do we use/did the original compilers of biblical canon use to ensure a book was truly written by an apostle? This is related to his point about plagiarism. What sources are used to verify information? I don't think he said much about it but maybe I missed it.
I think what he was saying is that a divinely inspired writer will not introduce himself to the reader as the writer in the book considered to be a gospel that He will write. Such as the gospel of Thomas, Peter, Judas. Exemption for the books such as Paul who writes in epistles or letter form. At least that was what I understood. Because the gospels and acts are written eyewitness accounts, there is no need to mention themselves in the narrative unless they are part of the narrative.
I mean the gospel of Thomas, Peter, and Judas, accordig to Mr. Turek. Mention themselves as the writers of their own book so that the people who will read them might consider them to be true. But since this introduction of themselves as writers would clearly break a pattern, they were not included.
As mentioned in other comments, it is unfortunate that Mr. Turek did not directly correct the inaccurate historical assumption of the questioner that the canon was determined at the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) or First Council of Constantinople (AD 381). Otherwise, a good answer.
So ... he didn't mention that the Council of Nicea never talked about the canon because? Maybe it was so he could give the talk about the Scriptures that he gave ... oh, I just heard the end. He doesn't know that the council never addressed the canon. Someone ought to tell him. We have the letters they sent and the 20 canons they passed. We have letters from Arius and from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. It's not like the proceedings are a mystery.
I think it's because he chose to ignore the erroneous flaws in the question and instead focus on cannonicity. But otherwise you're right. Why not just point out it's a dumb question and THEN answer it. To that I'd say Frank often makes unnecessary concessions like this to keep the dialogue going. Reportedly this is why we was able to maintain friendly relations with Hitchens when he was alive.
ravissary79 The slides are prepared for questions such as these, the best way to evangelize to someone is to bring them the truth of the matter not to entertain their conspiracy theories that lack any basis for what they are trying to accomplish, which is to discredit Gods Word. I think he did a great job at getting to the point of why we have the books in the first place, and not because some council decided on it out of some agenda or whatever the conspiracy is implying. We have documents authenticating the books that predate that event anyway.
One of the reasons the Catholic priest took out certain books in the Apocrypha is because in books like 1st and 2nd Esdras and the Book of Enoch is because they specifically say not to take indulgences. They didn’t call it that word but they were clear that you could not pray somebody out of a purgatory that does not exists. Of course those book would be removed even though they were quoted from by not only the Disciples but also Jesus.
I wonder if FT ever gets tired of answering the same questions again and again and again? I love these videos, but a great many of these questions could be answered if we only took a little time to do our own honest research first. Then we could actually ask for an honest, truthful clarification. We will only have the answers to our questions when we do our own hard work first, then seek out the clarification of great experts like Frank Turek ... as a society, how have we become so intellectually lazy? FT, your answers have only strengthened my arguments and made them more discernible for others. Thank you for being patient with us all at our different levels of understanding.
@@messiahsmisfit33 How did he have a presentation ready to answer the question if these questions are spontaneous? This video smells like, sounds like, acts like ......
@@qw2ps4 It is my understanding that in presentations like this they basically only get about 25 basic questions. If you had to do this for 20 years plus then you already know how to answer those same 25 questions over and over and over again.
It is never explained how these early Christians in the 270 plus years before Nicaea not only survived but thrived under such brutal persecution, they had the Holy Spirit within themselves. The council may have indeed went about collecting authentic scripture, but who was stopping them or anyone in authority from putting what they wanted into it, whenever they wanted to? The bible is indeed profitable, but men have idolized it and replaced the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit with a book.
Jorgee MCoth I love the Bible but it can only tell us about God, Jesus, salvation - and so much more but it lacks the ability to have a relationship with individuals. Only a person can do that and God (a person) has made that possible through Jesus sacrifice and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Consider what a rewrite of the following verse would sound like In the beginning was the Bible and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God. No! Jesús us the living word of God - and he is capable of communicating his truth and plan to us via the Holy Spirit.
@@robertknight3354 If a man or woman have within themselves the very Spirit of the Living God, what need then have they for a pastor, preacher, or even a book? Will the Spirit not teach ALL things? The bible is indeed profitable, do not idolize it. If as many as profess Christ, possessed Christ within themselves, this would be readily apparent.
@@gmann1968 The Bible is integral. God preserved his word for a reason. Gathered profits and led them into Biblical history for us and all generations. Documented history from day one. The scribes of our Bible were long doing their work before Jesus told he would send us the Comforter and helper. The Holy Spirit is a guide but it does not in any way take away your free will nor does it act as an immediate blocker of sin. It doesn't make you perfect. The Holy Spirit resides in a corrupted vessel that it does help to guide to a holy path. The bible is EXTREMELY important. God himself promised he would preserve it for us. It is a never ended revealing book of truth and wisdom as it contains a universe of relevance. Don't treat it as unimportant or secondary. You are human and you need a lot more than yourself. The Spirit LEADS you to the bible. You have TWO sources of God. Not one.
"...the earliest document we have of the canon of the NT...." What do you mean? Are you saying that we do not have earlier documents of the canonical books?
We also know that the apocrypha gospels are not divinely inspired by God and written way later in the second century is because they are not at all specific in giving detailed accounts of events and places and names and everything else that you would expect to read about a place and time but it doesn’t. The gospels are very specific when it comes to people, places, landscapes/landmarks, names that would be used in that area and so on.
I consider myself a warrior for God and a defender of our faith, I stand for the bible and everything that the Bible stands for, but im sorry to say that your answer didnt answer his question, does someone else have a video that would hopefully answer this very genune question ?
It's a marvel that this ignorance perpetuates. The Council of Nicea The first council of Nicea (Nicaea) was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, and it lasted between May and August, 325 CE. It was held in Nicea, Bithynia (in Anatolia, modern Turkey), and a total of 318 bishops attended, according to the records of the bishop at Nicea, Athanasius (bishop from 328-273). The number 318 is a symbolic number for the Abrahamic religions: basically, there would be one participant at Nicea to represent each of the members of the Biblical Abraham's household. The Nicean council had three goals: 1 to resolve the Melitian controversy-which was over the readmission to the Church of lapsed Christians, 2 to establish how to calculate the date of Easter each year, and 3 to settle matters stirred up by Arius, the presbyter at Alexandria.
"Have a seat son" ? Why are you being so rude? All the young man asked was how did they determine which books would be included in the bible, which is a really good question as I always wondered that as well.
@@timothybrown4213 i dont think he got "schooled". I think he asked a question and the speaker gave a good response. Lets stop using aggresive language against those who ask questions and are trying to expand their world view instead of attacking them for learning
@@Unsalted375 he still had ifs and buts after all that which indicates that he was looking for vindication of his own opinion more than any answer to a question.
Constantine I (circa A.D. 280 to 337) was the first Christian emperor of Rome but he did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire. But it was made the state religion by emperor Theodosis I who decreed that all citizens should be Christian.
Very interesting. It is apparent that the 46 Old Testament books were written prior to the Incarnation of Christ, and all of the New Testament books were completed prior to the death of the last Apostle. It would have to have been, because Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. The Bible does not attest to itself. It could not and did not decide which collection of books would be canonized into Sacred Scripture. The New Testament canon was determined by the Catholic Church in the late 300's. Since there were many more writings that were written after the Incarnation than the 27 books canonized by the Church, it fell to the Church to draw the lines to distinguish between those writings that were inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those that were not. Perhaps there were some writings in the Old Testament period which were good, but were found by the Church to have some taints of error, and therefore not eligible to qualify as divinely inspired, and were dropped from consideration. In 382 at the Council of Rome, the Church promulgated the 73 book canon. This same canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397. It was again reaffirmed by the General Council of Florence in 1442. And finally, the General Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by Luther, and several others in the Protestant Revolt. Hope this helps, it looks like this information has been available since the culmination of the Council of Trent in 1563.
Those who control the written book control the age I didn't hear no historic facts in this man he would just repeat it on agenda there are things that predate the thing that he was talking about people start doing research and don't just research the things that's in your circle research the things that outside of your bubble I know most of us like to stay in our circumference of our awareness but that's not how you grow that's not how you expand your mind. Last thing I'mma just be honest most people lack knowledge of the truth and a in awareness of it but y'all enjoy your day ✌🏾
I can't understand atheists who think that Christians are forcing belief. If you read the Bible, I MEAN ACTUALLY READ IT AND NOT PRESET YOUR MIND, you will see that Christianity is all about relationship with the one who was sent for us. Everything in the Bible is to keep us in relationship with God. It says right in the book of Deuteronomy that He puts forth the heavens and the earth, blessings and the curses in front of us and gives us the right to choose. He tells us to choose life. That was BEFORE JESUS CAME. So to understand free will, Christians are not here to force belief but to be witnesses in relationship to the faith. That's all Jesus is. A witness of God's glory and nature and obeyed God's will. THAT'S IT. But now that the world looks at evil as good and good as evil, anything that deals with Christianity gets pushed. People lie and steal to get what they want. People kill their own families for selfish greed and pity. People disrespect authority and push away God but then come back to say "Where is your God?". Why ask where He is if you push Him away? Why try to figure Him out if your heart already rejects Him? Why bother debating? But know that God loves you and wants to dwell in you. Just dwell in Him. Just for a day. Just try it! Watch His love move you to do better and not get bitter
Norvell Martin Sorry your comment is fallacious . "Christians lie & and steal to get what they want" @the same rate than secular folks . We are all humans and there is no way that, YOU, can know something more than we all do . Divine revelation is akin to miracles and supernatural events ... unfounded as always . Peace
Norvell Martin By the way, Go stone your children" for they lied to you @least once and explain why the 4 years old little girl is dying from leukemia because of "Sin" . This will wrap around your neck until you are blue in the face ... there is no issue that the folks that wrote the bible were savages and ignorants . They were humans that were clueless about humanity and used a moral highground for personal gain . This situation is occuring @the moment in the USA with the GOP candidates fighting for said moral highground and looking like misoginistic bigots and utter morons .
Then they are not truly Christians. Going to church doesn't make someone a Christian. Christian is a follower of Christ and dwelling in His priciples over our own. Does it mean that I don't have the ability to lie or steal? No. I have the ability to do that but I know that it's wrong because it's not in God's nature. Do I have the ability to sin, kill, and destroy things? ABSOLUTELY. But do I dwell in that activity? No because if I'm a Christian and a true follower of Him, I won't think of those things. The only difference between me and those "secular" folks is that I know that I am not my own. I don't know everything because I am limited on MY own ability. But with the Lord, all things are possible. And from my experiences, I seen God work in me and in many people that I've seen....and NO ONE can tell me different. So whatever you feel is unfounded is founded in my faith. You have the same opportunity and choice to believe. I'm not here to change you because I don't have that ability but God does.
The council of Nicea was only the beginning of the great apostasy (falling away from the truth). There were many more. Then came the Martin Luther who put the final cherry of apostasy on top for good measure. Providing the final nail into the coffin of the true gospel. 1700 years of heresy, lying scribes, corruption, control, murder, perversion. Thank God Almighty his spirit of truth has finally returned to open our blinded eyes to the strong delusion that came so soon after John died.
Let's always remember that God is always in control. Everything is ultimately governed by Him. He is righteous and His word is complete. This are the books we will be judged by since its His word. It would be illogical for God not to make sure we have all of His counsel and then judge us by it. Let's give God credit and thank Him for His word and pray to give us a humble and willing heart to abide in Christ everyday. God bless you all.
the kid is brave and a critical thinker searching for Truth. the guy answering him is an authoritarian repeating from a book. he doesn't really answer the question. I pray that kid keeps searching and the other guy learns humility.
Wish he would have stated that the Council of Nicea did not decide what the New Testament was. That was an organic process that was pretty much solidified by the end of the second century.
Councils didn’t decide on the Canon, God decided that. The problem with today’s church is that they undervalue God’s sovereignty. God wanted a Canon and that’s why there is one.
You owe the Bible to Pope Damasus Specially the New Testament because he's the one responsible for choosing 23 books of new testament out of 300 books And called it or considered it as an inspired word of God
Ask a protestant friend: how can you use the book the Catholic Church compiled, to criticize and condemn the Catholic Church? Did it have authority then? Does it now?
There would be no Christianity without the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the universal church set up by Jesus. All other denominations or sects of Christianity have their origins in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
lanky gypsy this is true. As Episcopalians we pray for one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. We are the remnants of Luthers protestation to educate the common and asking Rome to quit taking material things from people who were being taught it was essential for the forgiveness of sins and entrance into heaven and that it is possible to gain favor with worldly things. The church of England , our closer cousin , had agendas of many kinds. The very least of which was to maneuver away from Romes refusal to grant divorce as you know. We are one universal church. We place significance on different things. But I'm happy we can never disagree that Jesus is real, and he died so we may understand how " merciful , compassionate, long suffering and of great goodness,"* our Father is. Psalm 103 Verse 8 . Have a great Holy season.
At one time the King of England had the biggest library in England. It contained 10 books , five of them borrowed from the King of France. . When the printing press was invented books became more available. The new testament was printed in the original greek. ( not the Catholic latin created by Jerome ). Catholics discovered that there were mistakes in Jeromes Latin version. They also discovered purgatory is not in the bible and you cant buy your way into heaven by buying an indulgence. That the apostle Peter said that Christ was the rock, not Peter. That salvation is a gift and you cannot work for a gift. Romans chatper 4.. Catholics began to protest that the Catholic Church should pay attention to what the word of God actually says. Part of the Catholic church refused to leave the traditions that had developed over time. The other part decieded it was safer to follow the Word of God than the teaching of men. This is how Catholics created the Protestant Church. Have a read of Romans Chapter 4 have you recieved the gift of salvation paid for by jesus on the cross. Or are you relying on your own works ?
@@michaelhordos1512 Hey :) This question is said with sincere interest, not debate: on what do you base that the Catholic Church is the universal church Jesus set up?
He is saying that we have proven it was written by men and decided to true because men say it is so and trust the record collectors... Can't we say the same about Trumps Taxs
Wasn't council of Nicaea responsible for giving Jesus the title of man God? Meaning he was a prophet until that council, and then some more at council of Constantinople.
girtkaz From Wiki: First council of Nicea "The agenda of the synod included: The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?" What does that mean? because as far as christian Jews are concerned, they never took him as a God incarnate, it was a Roman thing.
"...because as far as christian Jews are concerned, they never took him as a God incarnate..." where did you got this from? Jesus was crucified for bleshemy - claiming to be God. So it is not Roman thing -it is Christian Jewish thing. Christians accepted - Judaists did not. Any way in Nicea the cauncil agrreed upon creed of Nicea and several canons. theological dificulty is Devine nature humanity of Jesus. How those two comes together. Arias made a new heracy so responce was needed a new definition to awoid heracy.
No Marc, Jesus repeatedly called himself this, if your referring to statements like “I am”, or in the Gospels were Jesus speaking to the Jews in the Synagogue reading from an Isaiah’s scroll and proclaiming He was the one that it was talking about. The counsel was just affirming what Jesus and the Gospel’s were saying.
Enoch was never considered to be in the Canon. Yes, it was found with other writings with the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there were many writings discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls that were just ancient writings and had nothing to do with the Gospels. So, if you do your home work on ALL of the documents found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were some writings that no one EVER claimed to be "inspired"....some was just historical documents, and other various writings. So, if you pour through ALL of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'll see that just because the Book of Enoch might be there, it doesn't make it Scripture. We know there are errors and changes made to Enoch and that disqualifies it from being Scripture. It's a long story, but if you do a DEEP study of ALL of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'll find that there were various writings and NO ONE claimed that all of the scrolls were Scripture. I never heard that from any Scientists, secular or Christian. Enoch was used later to help teach and correct Hebrew grammar, but no, not at all considered to be "Scripture". Hope that helps. God bless you -- from a student of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Lauren Holladay Some of he older scriptures that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Ethiopian tradition are referred to in the bible. If you want to make deeper studies in to this I would advice you to look up Ken Johnson who is a scholar in old scriptures. So one should not be too skeptical about these older scriptures since awesome bible teachers like Perry Stone, Chuck Missler and others use them. What we do know is that these scriptures existed but we don't know if we have the real copies. The great thing about this is that we can compare the Ethiopian scriptures and the dead sea scrolls to come to good conclusions.
dannywizz Hi Danny! Nice hearing from you :) Thank you for turning me on to Ken Johnson, I'll look him up. I have studied at the feet of Chuck Missler and I know he uses them, but he is very careful about what is Scripture and what isn't. I belong to Koinonia House (Chuck Missler's Ministry) and have been blessed by his teachings. I agree with you that there is more to the Dead Sea Scrolls than I was able to write in my last post....so I do agree with you absolutely! I appreciate the response. God bless you and thanks again :)))))
It took 'the church' until 397 CE or thereabouts to decide the NT canon. For me, the fact that educated men could not decide what was inspired and needed nearly 400 years to do so, smells of corruption. Possibly the fear of excluding Jewish converts was the issue. Even Luther wanted some NT books removed. 2 Peter, for example, is a fake. It's a reworking of Jude. Six letters of Paul are genuine. The other seven are unlikely to have been written by Paul. So the question in the video is relevant, putting aside the error that the Council of Nicea did not decide the NT canon, the Christian bible was decided by religious men, who argued about it for hundreds of years and suddenly settled on a Bible only after Emperor Constantine made the Catholic Church official in 325 CE. The bible did not fall out of the sky.
I should start with an important fact: We have no original manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. Likewise, the canonical Gospels were written anonymously. There was no Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Mark (determined to be the first of the four Gospels)was written at least 40 years after the supposed life of Christ. These people were definitely not eye witnesses and most likely never interacted with eyewitnesses. The Council of Nicea was created mainly to combat Arians (among other "heretical" groups)who believed Jesus was a man anointed by God. The discussions at Nicea included the questions: Was he a triune God? Was he fully human and fully God? etc. There's a reason why there should be(and was) confusion about this based on the canonical gospels ALONE. The book of Matthew shows Jesus born of the Spirit while the book of Mark has the Spirit "descend" on Jesus at his baptism. Was Jesus born God? Did he become God? Was he the Messiah, a suffering servant of God, sent to be a symbol for how humans should relate to God? The gospels were individual (and intentionally different )accounts written by anonymous writers a lifetime after the character of Jesus lived and died. Many of the stories include puns, allegories, parables. Interestingly, many of the "prophecies" referenced or even the speeches of Jesus are direct translations from the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the concepts in the new testament were in fact NEW and based off of a translation of the Bible that favored their positions (i.e. parthenos "virgin" vs almah "young woman") The writers of the New Testament Canon were 2nd century, highly sophisticated, Greek writers, each devising stories to fit a particular narrative. Stop trying to make them fit YOUR narrative Dr. Turek, and try to appreciate them for what they are; a beautifully reserved yet flawed piece of human history.
Wait.... how is that relevant? Last I heard, we got our English translations through the greek route. The Septuagint came before Christ, and the gospels were written in Greek, unless I'm missing something. That means that the council of Nicea wouldn't have had the slightest effect on our translation.
+shitosusansen Greek was used by the eastern half of the church all the way until the schism after 1000 A.D., also many/most of the manuscripts that we have are dated after 325 (when the council of Nicea took place), so I don't know how you can say the council of Nicea wouldn't have had the slightest effect on our translation.
Ryan Shaffer From what I've read, the manuscripts we have predate the Council, and the Council wasn't even to decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to try and settle disputes about the nature of the Christ.
shitosusansen Please sort by date...you will see that roughly half of the papyri we rely on date after the council of Nicea..en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
shitosusansen "the Council wasn't even to decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to try and settle disputes about the nature of the Christ." I think the bigger point is how did we come up with the books that we have in the Canon and how reliable are they...you are correct that the canon was not settled until after the council of Nicea... I'm not sure of your religion, but for protestants, the people who decided the ultimate canon were catholics who were already embracing doctrines (not found in the bible) that many protestants would disagree with... For example, infant baptism was already accepted at the Council of Nicea...
Ryan Shaffer "I think the bigger point is how did we come up with the books that we have in the Canon and how reliable are they...you are correct that the canon was not settled until after the council of Nicea..." You completely missed the point. The point of the council wasn't to try and decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to come to an agreement about the nature of the Christ. Was he man? Was he God? Was he somewhere in-between? That's what was being discussed by those present. I'm not sure of your religion, but for protestants, the people who decided the ultimate canon were catholics who were already embracing doctrines (not found in the bible) that many protestants would disagree with..." The Catholics didn't decide the canon. The Canon was already present, and they did not interfere. Rather, they tried to turn somewhat minor elements into major elements and execute people who wouldn't accept their teachings. (The people being killed were usually referred to as witches, dissenters, and anathema.) No changes were necessary. "For example, infant baptism was already accepted at the Council of Nicea..." Yet infant baptism isn't promoted in scripture.
What has bothered me about any of the council's, is not canonization, but the non scriptural doctrine, coming from men in costumes, and embraced by a multitude of denominations. How they could get it right with the books, and yet complete heresy, in terms of graven images, defiance of Jesus on prayer, and Sunday keeping, is a complete mystery to me, unless job security, and making God distant, had something to do with it.
@Mavors It is not. It is the history, and lineage, of a certain 12 tribed family, of which archeologists are proving daily. Concerning God, what I mentioned, also prevents it from being bogus.
@Mavors The reason it's history, is archeological digs, in the middle east, are constantly revealing artifacts, and places described in scripture. My assumption about the books, is contradiction. Books, like Enoch, have too many conflicting threads, declarations, and possibly, errors in tense, identification of individuals, or even places.
@Mavors Archaeology proves the existence, history, and lineage, of those 12 tribes, including, what you consider stories, or legend, yet documented by members of those tribes. For instance, the Dead Sea, scrolls, document lineage and generational word of mouth, along with prophecy, of which, much has come to pass. If your lot, is to deny the age, and existence of Jerusalem, or its past kings, or how it came to pass, so be it, however, even the science if intelligent design, is working against you, as well as archaeology, and time. As to how the books were canonized, it's my understanding, that a thread, runs through, from Genesis, to Revelation, of a subject, I happen to specialize in. The ten commandments. The big mystery, and disappointment, is the vast majority, of Christianity, as we know it, is not under one roof, because at least two of those ten, are either defied, or denied, the result being, a multitude of denominations, and doctrines. Of course, it's because of the intervention of Satan, someone, I'm sure, you don't believe exists, yet I'm sure you are aware, of the existence of good and evil. The God of the bible, declares, human nature, to be evil, and rebellious to him. History, has proven him correct. Thus, the source, of civilization, being civil, is the ongoing debate. It ain't humanity, as history, again, has proven. If you want to assert evolution, go ahead. I have a logical rude awakening in store.
@Mavors There is no argument. If you don't know what a Jew is, as they are one of the 12 tribes, you belong in a history class. You could even be a descendant, and not know it. Ever heard of a river, called, the blue Danube, in Europe? It got it's name from, the tribe of Dan, as they migrated north, to Denmark, where they are now called, Danes, or Danish. Ever hear of the Angelo Saxxons? Isaacs sons. The British? From the hebrew word, berith, meaning God's chosen. The throne, in Westminster Abbey, in which kings, and queens, have been crowned, for centuries, had a stone under it, called the stone of destiny. When tourists came to see it, there was a sign, describing it as, Jacobs Pillar. Jacob, is the father of 12 sons, that became the 12, tribes of Israel. It was stolen in 1950. What you think of, as myth or legend, or stories, is the story of history. Actual history, not fables. I'm beginning to think you're a fifth grader, a clueless fifth grader.
@bond3161 Paul was narcissistic in his writings as well... but, im not a lover of Nietzsche, but a lover of truth... this particular quote of his I find to be dead on.
+Juan Olivier like I said. Frank literally brings 100s of extra slides to each Q&A so he is ready for any question. He talks about doing this in his podcasts, shows, and books.
There are certain typical questions that the vast majority of intellectuals ask. Probably about 10. You just need to keep material for these standard 10 questions on standby. Simple.
How is this a contradiction? It is very simple, but in most cases one seeks not the knowledge of the matter, but rather a much more skeptical approach. The documents were DISCOVERED, cross-checked and examined, and based on the conclusion, the ACCEPTABILITY was proven.
This is the same kind of guy who doesnt accept scientific studies unless they are "Peer Reviewed." And then questions the validity of the Bible because Christians subjected it to peer review Peer Reviewed the Bible at the council of Nicaea.
I don't understand how people still have questions like this in the age of the Internet. It's the same 10 objections over and over. There's been a thousand books and a million webpages and videos dedicated to them and they have never been difficult to answer. How do they have the passion to get on a mike in front of hundreds of people and make silly challenges when you could spend 30 seconds googling it?
a5dr3 Because the devil has no new lies or doubts to bring to their minds because all have been answered. At this point if they don't believe it is because they don't want to not because of a lack of evidence.
That and the internet isn't always reliable which is what I learned when I did a study comparing Christianity vs Islam. I actually was very fortunant because I found a book by Lee Strobel called the case for Christ which first of all was amazing, but second of all was a spring board to find a wealth of resources that were good. If you ask a current theologian what the separation was between Jesus crucifiction and ressurection and the actually writing of the manuscript (hand written document) they will probably tell you that the.m book of Mark was written about 30 years after his death, which in history is amazing. But if you go on the internet and search a web page they will probably tell you 40-50 years after his death and resurrection. Still on a different subject, Turek is a newer guy I started listening to, and I must say it really surprises me because he seems to always get the most angry young atheists questioning him vs Ravi Zachariah or perhaps maybe even William Lane Craig. I wonder why that is.
It's simple really, these people are not looking for answers. They have already decided for themselves that scripture is not trustworthy and simply look for evidence to support what they've already decided. If someone believes the Bible was invented by the Catholic Church at Nicea, then they'll keep searching the internet until they find other people making them same claim. It doesn't matter if they have to click through page after page of scholars and historians telling them otherwise, because they've already made up their mind. Their only interest is to affirm and assert what they've already decided.
I'm tired of trying to convince people that are going to Hell to not go to Hell. If you atheists are so sure, it's your choice. You don't have to be saved if you don't want to. I'll focus on getting to good word to those who have never heard it. Let those who insist on rebellion against God continue to perish. " So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." Psalms 81:12
Mic Jolly Don't give up my friend. It is not our job as Christians to change someone's heart (which is what needs to happen if someone is truly to accept Christ). That task belongs to the Holy Spirit. Just continue the proclaim the Gospel. You never know when you will have an impact. 1 Peter 3:15
@@zamuxolomaneli5397 What's wrong with voting on it? We vote on things all the time. That doesn't make them illegitimate. The question is what criteria did they use to determine which books should be accepted into the canonical scriptures and was the criteria sound. If they were just voting on which books of the Bible they liked or which ones had a message they found inspiring then I would agree with you but they didn't do that.
That’s not true and you know it .god didn’t have to win an approval of a bunch of individuals to be appointed as God , most of bible contents have nothing to do with God .
The Roman church was 1000 years old before Constantine threw Jesus on top of it, Jesus founded an ECCLESIA, no a church, not a religion, Jesus spoke all the languages of the day, and all these languages had words for Church and Religion but Jesus used none of these words, Jesus was, is and always will be a Jew.
This is the 2nd time ive heard frank say, "you dont need to believe the incorruptibility if the bible to be a Christian. Instead, you need evidence that Jesus resurrected." Well, it doesn't follow that even if jesus performed miracles that he MUST be God. Thats a massive jump to make. Also, one of the reasons frank said that is cos their are many problems with trying to prove the bible is preserved. My question is, if the bibles are not 100% authentic and preserved then how would you even know how to "have faith" in those other teachings? If its based on other historical accounts then that's another problem. As it implies that those other accounts are more reliable than the biblical accounts, for you. So, who's religion are you actually following?
One thing. The Council of Nicea was to settle matters concerning the heresy of Arianism and not to determine what books go into the Bible. The canon had been set as early as 180 AD and it was Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 that declared the canin closed (I think).
So for over 200 years, the same set of books had been accepted by the vast majority of Christians. There was no Council convened to "vote" on it.
This is partly right..
Yeah, the Council of Nicaea convened to resolve the Arian heresy -- it had nothing to do with the canonization of Scripture (this is a widespread misnomer)..
But there was a process of formally collating the Bible into a 'canon,' though I would agree it was definitely not a 'vote.'
Because Christianity was illegal/underground until the Edict of Milan in 313AD, and because every copy of every page of Scripture had to be hand-written, and hand-delivered to individual congregations, The Church spread around the world (as far west as Britain, as far east as India or even China, down into Africa, and up into Europe, etc.) all had a different assortment of books; some more, some less, but obviously not all the same...
From around the 100s AD, Church bishops begin writing to one another to compare/contrast which congregations read/taught from which books as canonical, and why they did/didn't consider these/those books canonical. After Christianity was legalized in 313AD, writing and meeting with other Church leaders to hammer out the true canon became much easier.
By the late 300s AD, most Churches were already in agreement, but the councils of Carthage and Hippo were convened, and that canonical list is the canon of 73 books still used by the Catholic Church today... Their list and pronouncement was sent out to the other churches abroad, where it was basically unanimously received by the other churches -- this is why (because it was so well received) a large 'Ecumenical Council' (like Nicaea) was not necessary -- and the canon was never questioned from there for many hundreds of years (about 1,100 years!) until the Reformers questioned them in the 1500s. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent did finally make a dogmatic pronouncement, because Luther, Calvin and others began removing books that had been agreed upon up until then.
.
For you skeptics, Dr. Turek only scratched the surface. I mean he didn't even get to the good stuff as to how we know the Bible in authoritatively written. In fact, many non-Christian historians have declared the Bible to be one of the MOST (if not the most) authentic writings in history.
Aside from that and the innumerable other valid points which confirm the Bible's authenticity, the secular mind can't grasp the fact that God is able to preserve an accurate account for His church to know how to be saved. Why would someone worship a God who couldn't even reach His own people?
Of all the attacks on Christianity by cynics, this is the least effective one, and has pretty much been abandoned by any skeptic scholar worth his weight. They now use "logic" and "reason" to attempt to disprove the miracles and God's existence. Have fun with that, children.
Agreed. They are even losing the logic battle. The only reason they still maintain their theories against God is their control of education and things presented to the general public as "facts". People will still spout things against God that have already been disproven, or logically fallible, or just biased rhetoric. True pursuance of facts and truth are dead today.
yeah true, some just won't believe in the resurrection cause it doesn't make since to them. Its like denying the civil war
i agree with you but it is an interesting question
isn't it weird how some believe just because they don't believe it never happened. -satan spreading lies and people falling for them, as usual.
I know. Like logic poses a problem to Christians when only Christians can account for objective laws of logic in the first place.
One problem. Council of Nicea had nothing to do with canonization of scripture.
David Hall no problem. That’s what he says here.
@@Native2087 he never said that in the video.
it actually does. we dont know the old content of the books and what was omitted. so when the bible is sculpted by a group of people, then the narrative was shaped.
@@Native2087 I didn't catch that. My bad.
@@9razzler9 that's actually not true, there are Bible's that are in existence today that predate the Council of Nicea
May God continue to bless your ministry, Frank! Thank you for all that you are doing to proclaim and defend the Truth! You have truly blessed me with knowledge and a sophisticated articulation of the gospel and answers to such tough questions that come up in dialogues about the faith and especially the intellectual side thereof.
Awesome work brother Turek. This insight is very helpful when we go preach on the streets and do evangelism. Mega blessings. 🔥💯
As stated below Nicea had nothing to do with declaring and closing the can of scripture, the Catholic Church did that at the councils of 1st and 2nd Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.
Amen
@James Brice Good, informative rebuttal.
Didn't Apostles Creed fight Rocky?
U mean that old fool Apollo Creed?!?
jeff McDonald 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The name 'Peter' means 'Rocky'
Praise Jesus!
Thank you very for such explanation. It conquers so many arguments
I wish the younger people would do a little research. These questions and any other questions have been answered for 2000 years
The programming has continued for that long yiu mean. Young people are smart enough to realize everyone is deceitful in a deceitful world.
@@MrSilus2000 Yeah imagine the deceit of being commanded to love even your enemies what a deceitful faith! 🙄
Barrie Hellon-Warwick I said this world is deceitful and right on cue you lie and pretend I said something else. LOL. These demons are everywhere. They don’t even realize they are liars, even when they can see with absolute certainty what was said! Crazy!
I wish old people would stop blaming younger people for not raising themselves.
There's some false teaching that can occur as the bible tells us would happen. False gospel, it was known to Paul and he warned about it back then.
Why does a council convene and work on what is recognized as biblical canon? Because not just anyone was educated, literate, or striving to compile the inspired works and throw out the forgeries.
But there were other councils, like the council of Trent.
When we read the Bible for years throughout our lives, we understand more.
If it sits on a table and we pass it on our way out everyday, we grow up asking who what when where and why and how.
Bad teachers, mockers and scoffers have the attention of our young people. Believers can set things straight by witnessing if we know from study.
Great response, and the gospels copyright itself in the very last verse in revelation as well
Awesome 👍😎 Brother Frank Turek. I love this program and the way you break it down and explain everything. May THE LORD continue to use you as HE chooses. AMEN HALLELUYAH. 🙌🙇🏻♂️🔥🕊️
The questioner certainly wasn't expecting such a complete and all-encompassing answer. -- well done!
Except for FT's error confirming that the cannon had any relation to Nicea in "380 something" (actually 325).
That council had nothing to do with the canon
Thank you. Explained well enough for a total dope like to understand.
There is also the fact that these books were to be read in the Mass. Unapproved texts were being used in the Mass. Hence clarification was needed and the Canon was definitively compiled by the fathers of the Church at the time. My understanding.
Nicea had nothing to do with the Canon! Nicea was about Jesus being of one substance with the Father!!!
+Casey Sandberg We all know protestants research church history starting from 1517 and on.
+PapalSoldier that is a dumb assertion. Maybe you have never been to a protestant seminary?
+Vic Ribeiro They follow Luther, not the early Church which was the Catholic Church.
You cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don't adhere to His Church (St.Matthew. 28:20; St.Matthew. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (St.Matthew.16:18-19) or the Eucharist (St.John 6:53) or Confession (St.John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (St.James 2:24), etc. Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas. They are thus not of Christ.
PapalSoldier The early church was NOT the Catholic church and I'm utterly offended by you saying that I don't follow Christ if I'm not Catholic! Truth be told, all I follow is God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit! You run around deifying Mary and the Disciples and any other person you think winked at you the right way! Meanwhile, Mary is in heaven weeping because Catholics have been deceived into Worshipping all the wrong people starting with her! Jesus was God wrapped in flesh so He could live and then die for the sins of the world! Wiping away of sin comes from confession TO CHRIST (not an equally fallible priest) and then repentance which is TURNING AWAY FROM YOUR WICKEDNESS! How many Catholic priests have be found to have molested young boys in the Catholic church FOR YEARS? I'm pretty sure they went to confessional!
I'm sorry, Catholicism is not the way to the Father in heaven! The Bible says to give each person their just due respect, NOT WORSHIP them!
@SOULSafeProductionZ
You have honestly no idea what you're talking about, great job dismissing the verses i provided. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church you wouldn't even have KNOWN THAT GOD IS A TRINITY OR THAT JESUS IS GOD WITH 2 NATURES.
You simply cherry pick on what you want to believe in from the Catholic Church.
Did you know the following fact?
"The division [of the Bible] into chapters so familiar to us in our modern Bibles was the invention either of Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican, in 1248, or more probably Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, d. 1227." (Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church, p. 58)
Pope Leo XIII (1888): "He [Jesus] commanded all nations to hear the voice of the Church, as if it were His own, threatening those who would not hear it with everlasting perdition." (Libertas #26)
Pope Pius IX: "Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial." [Qui Pluribus #15, Nov. 9, 1846]
St. Louis De Montfort: "All the true children of God, the predestinate, have God for their Father and Mary for their Mother. He who has not Mary for his Mother has not God for his Father. This is the reason why the reprobate, such as heretics, schismatics and others, who hate our Blessed Lady or regard her with contempt and indifference, have not God for their Father, however much they boast of it, simply because they have not Mary for their Mother." (True Devotion To The Blessed Virgin Mary #30)
St. Ambrose (389): “Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.”
Regarding the sex scandal with the pedophiles, those were not Catholic priests but modernist heretics.
Please visit vaticancatholic.com for critical information on the Traditional Catholic Faith which is necessary for salvation.
Having heard the question and before watching the answer this would be my response.
The gospels are witness accounts of events. The council of Nicaea can essentially be viewed as a jury. Based on the available witness testimony it was their job to decide the most likely conclusion. If in a court case you have an overwhelming number of witness statements that say roughly the same thing, but just a handful that say something different, you wouldn’t generally consider those handful of accounts to be as reliable.
Ok, so he’s roughly saying something similar. When determining accurate witness statements you need to authenticate these statements and the people who wrote them.
Another obvious key that the second century false "gospels" were not written by the apostles: the 4 genuine first century canonical gospels did not originally attach the authors' names to them (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). This came much later. The false "gospels" included the falsely attributed apostle to them (ie: Thomas, Judas, Mary). Although Paul mentioned himself in the salutations of his epistles, the gospel writers did not mention their names as the authors of their gospel accounts.
New to learning about this stuff so I have a quick question. What sources do we use/did the original compilers of biblical canon use to ensure a book was truly written by an apostle? This is related to his point about plagiarism. What sources are used to verify information? I don't think he said much about it but maybe I missed it.
I think what he was saying is that a divinely inspired writer will not introduce himself to the reader as the writer in the book considered to be a gospel that He will write. Such as the gospel of Thomas, Peter, Judas. Exemption for the books such as Paul who writes in epistles or letter form.
At least that was what I understood. Because the gospels and acts are written eyewitness accounts, there is no need to mention themselves in the narrative unless they are part of the narrative.
I am also new to this but that is what I understood
I mean the gospel of Thomas, Peter, and Judas, accordig to Mr. Turek. Mention themselves as the writers of their own book so that the people who will read them might consider them to be true. But since this introduction of themselves as writers would clearly break a pattern, they were not included.
As mentioned in other comments, it is unfortunate that Mr. Turek did not directly correct the inaccurate historical assumption of the questioner that the canon was determined at the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) or First Council of Constantinople (AD 381). Otherwise, a good answer.
James Kolan because to do so , he would have to authenticate the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church
@@dylan2905 Correct.
@@dylan2905which church is that
So ... he didn't mention that the Council of Nicea never talked about the canon because? Maybe it was so he could give the talk about the Scriptures that he gave ... oh, I just heard the end. He doesn't know that the council never addressed the canon. Someone ought to tell him. We have the letters they sent and the 20 canons they passed. We have letters from Arius and from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. It's not like the proceedings are a mystery.
I think it's because he chose to ignore the erroneous flaws in the question and instead focus on cannonicity.
But otherwise you're right. Why not just point out it's a dumb question and THEN answer it.
To that I'd say Frank often makes unnecessary concessions like this to keep the dialogue going. Reportedly this is why we was able to maintain friendly relations with Hitchens when he was alive.
ravissary79 The slides are prepared for questions such as these, the best way to evangelize to someone is to bring them the truth of the matter not to entertain their conspiracy theories that lack any basis for what they are trying to accomplish, which is to discredit Gods Word. I think he did a great job at getting to the point of why we have the books in the first place, and not because some council decided on it out of some agenda or whatever the conspiracy is implying. We have documents authenticating the books that predate that event anyway.
One of the reasons the Catholic priest took out certain books in the Apocrypha is because in books like 1st and 2nd Esdras and the Book of Enoch is because they specifically say not to take indulgences. They didn’t call it that word but they were clear that you could not pray somebody out of a purgatory that does not exists. Of course those book would be removed even though they were quoted from by not only the Disciples but also Jesus.
Amen!!!
I wonder if FT ever gets tired of answering the same questions again and again and again? I love these videos, but a great many of these questions could be answered if we only took a little time to do our own honest research first. Then we could actually ask for an honest, truthful clarification. We will only have the answers to our questions when we do our own hard work first, then seek out the clarification of great experts like Frank Turek ... as a society, how have we become so intellectually lazy? FT, your answers have only strengthened my arguments and made them more discernible for others. Thank you for being patient with us all at our different levels of understanding.
... now I in no way put myself on FT's level of expertise... he's the man and I thank God for him!
@@messiahsmisfit33 How did he have a presentation ready to answer the question if these questions are spontaneous?
This video smells like, sounds like, acts like ......
@@qw2ps4 It is my understanding that in presentations like this they basically only get about 25 basic questions. If you had to do this for 20 years plus then you already know how to answer those same 25 questions over and over and over again.
It is never explained how these early Christians in the 270 plus years before Nicaea not only survived but thrived under such brutal persecution, they had the Holy Spirit within themselves. The council may have indeed went about collecting authentic scripture, but who was stopping them or anyone in authority from putting what they wanted into it, whenever they wanted to? The bible is indeed profitable, but men have idolized it and replaced the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit with a book.
Jorgee MCoth
I love the Bible but it can only tell us about God, Jesus, salvation - and so much more but it lacks the ability to have a relationship with individuals. Only a person can do that and God (a person) has made that possible through Jesus sacrifice and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Consider what a rewrite of the following verse would sound like
In the beginning was the Bible and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God.
No! Jesús us the living word of God - and he is capable of communicating his truth and plan to us via the Holy Spirit.
This reply makes it sound like the Bible is really not necessary. You need Christ and you need his Bible. Period.
@@robertknight3354 If a man or woman have within themselves the very Spirit of the Living God, what need then have they for a pastor, preacher, or even a book? Will the Spirit not teach ALL things? The bible is indeed profitable, do not idolize it. If as many as profess Christ, possessed Christ within themselves, this would be readily apparent.
@@gmann1968 The Bible is integral. God preserved his word for a reason. Gathered profits and led them into Biblical history for us and all generations. Documented history from day one. The scribes of our Bible were long doing their work before Jesus told he would send us the Comforter and helper. The Holy Spirit is a guide but it does not in any way take away your free will nor does it act as an immediate blocker of sin. It doesn't make you perfect. The Holy Spirit resides in a corrupted vessel that it does help to guide to a holy path. The bible is EXTREMELY important. God himself promised he would preserve it for us. It is a never ended revealing book of truth and wisdom as it contains a universe of relevance. Don't treat it as unimportant or secondary. You are human and you need a lot more than yourself. The Spirit LEADS you to the bible. You have TWO sources of God. Not one.
How about the fact that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon? Why weren't issues like the Muratorian Fragment brought up?
"...Why weren't issues like the Muratorian Fragment brought up?..." why that would be important?
the Muratorian Fragment is the earliest document we have of the canon of the NT.
"...the earliest document we have of the canon of the NT...." What do you mean? Are you saying that we do not have earlier documents of the canonical books?
It's earliest document we have listing the NT books.
Jack Wilson
All together yes but not about each of them. So it is latter source - still good. So no need to specifically concentrate on it.
collected in one volume came later... and on thing that that he forgot... these books were used in their LITURGY...
Nicea did not determine the extent of the canon.
Correct! I’m not sure that this kid is properly informed/researched.
We also know that the apocrypha gospels are not divinely inspired by God and written way later in the second century is because they are not at all specific in giving detailed accounts of events and places and names and everything else that you would expect to read about a place and time but it doesn’t. The gospels are very specific when it comes to people, places, landscapes/landmarks, names that would be used in that area and so on.
I consider myself a warrior for God and a defender of our faith, I stand for the bible and everything that the Bible stands for, but im sorry to say that your answer didnt answer his question, does someone else have a video that would hopefully answer this very genune question ?
It's a marvel that this ignorance perpetuates.
The Council of Nicea
The first council of Nicea (Nicaea) was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, and it lasted between May and August, 325 CE. It was held in Nicea, Bithynia (in Anatolia, modern Turkey), and a total of 318 bishops attended, according to the records of the bishop at Nicea, Athanasius (bishop from 328-273). The number 318 is a symbolic number for the Abrahamic religions: basically, there would be one participant at Nicea to represent each of the members of the Biblical Abraham's household. The Nicean council had three goals:
1 to resolve the Melitian controversy-which was over the readmission to the Church of lapsed Christians,
2 to establish how to calculate the date of Easter each year, and
3 to settle matters stirred up by Arius, the presbyter at Alexandria.
The Canon of the Bible was formulated at the council of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
Council of Rome AD 382
@@INRIVivatChristusRex no you catholic heretics. Give some proof of that .
@@bornagaingg6223 I’ll be more than happy to do it. God Bless🙏🏻
@@INRIVivatChristusRex still wait3
@@camillehendricks9819 me too luv,he never did! 🤣
At the end of that presentation, that's all he could say, "I enjoyed your commentary on that" have a seat son.
"Have a seat son" ? Why are you being so rude? All the young man asked was how did they determine which books would be included in the bible, which is a really good question as I always wondered that as well.
+Alítheia I'm seated, yes, it was a fair question, he just got schooled that's all.
He was clearly still talking when the video faded out, meaning he had more to say.
@@timothybrown4213 i dont think he got "schooled". I think he asked a question and the speaker gave a good response. Lets stop using aggresive language against those who ask questions and are trying to expand their world view instead of attacking them for learning
@@Unsalted375 he still had ifs and buts after all that which indicates that he was looking for vindication of his own opinion more than any answer to a question.
Thanks!
Constantine I (circa A.D. 280 to 337) was the first Christian emperor of Rome but he did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire. But it was made the state religion
by emperor Theodosis I who decreed that all citizens should be Christian.
ok fanriffic Constantine, after conversion, removed penalty for being Christian
Constantine was originally a pagan!
@@emeraldfox7175 and?
I think it also says somewhere in that canon to be wear of doctrines of devils....
Very interesting. It is apparent that the 46 Old Testament books were written prior to the Incarnation of Christ, and all of the New Testament books were completed prior to the death of the last Apostle. It would have to have been, because Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. The Bible does not attest to itself. It could not and did not decide which collection of books would be canonized into Sacred Scripture. The New Testament canon was determined by the Catholic Church in the late 300's. Since there were many more writings that were written after the Incarnation than the 27 books canonized by the Church, it fell to the Church to draw the lines to distinguish between those writings that were inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those that were not. Perhaps there were some writings in the Old Testament period which were good, but were found by the Church to have some taints of error, and therefore not eligible to qualify as divinely inspired, and were dropped from consideration. In 382 at the Council of Rome, the Church promulgated the 73 book canon. This same canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397. It was again reaffirmed by the General Council of Florence in 1442. And finally, the General Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by Luther, and several others in the Protestant Revolt. Hope this helps, it looks like this information has been available since the culmination of the Council of Trent in 1563.
Those who control the written book control the age I didn't hear no historic facts in this man he would just repeat it on agenda there are things that predate the thing that he was talking about people start doing research and don't just research the things that's in your circle research the things that outside of your bubble I know most of us like to stay in our circumference of our awareness but that's not how you grow that's not how you expand your mind. Last thing I'mma just be honest most people lack knowledge of the truth and a in awareness of it but y'all enjoy your day ✌🏾
The Council at Nicea debated the Godhead or Trinity. They had nothing to do with canonizing books.
The Canon of the New Testament was decided by the end of the first century, long before Nicea.
Frank gave a good answer, but the Council of Nicea did not have anything to do with determing the books of the canon.
I can't understand atheists who think that Christians are forcing belief. If you read the Bible, I MEAN ACTUALLY READ IT AND NOT PRESET YOUR MIND, you will see that Christianity is all about relationship with the one who was sent for us. Everything in the Bible is to keep us in relationship with God. It says right in the book of Deuteronomy that He puts forth the heavens and the earth, blessings and the curses in front of us and gives us the right to choose. He tells us to choose life. That was BEFORE JESUS CAME. So to understand free will, Christians are not here to force belief but to be witnesses in relationship to the faith. That's all Jesus is. A witness of God's glory and nature and obeyed God's will. THAT'S IT. But now that the world looks at evil as good and good as evil, anything that deals with Christianity gets pushed. People lie and steal to get what they want. People kill their own families for selfish greed and pity. People disrespect authority and push away God but then come back to say "Where is your God?". Why ask where He is if you push Him away? Why try to figure Him out if your heart already rejects Him? Why bother debating? But know that God loves you and wants to dwell in you. Just dwell in Him. Just for a day. Just try it! Watch His love move you to do better and not get bitter
Norvell Martin Sorry your comment is fallacious . "Christians lie & and steal to get what they want" @the same rate than secular folks . We are all humans and there is no way that, YOU, can know something more than we all do . Divine revelation is akin to miracles and supernatural events ... unfounded as always . Peace
Norvell Martin By the way, Go stone your children" for they lied to you @least once and explain why the 4 years old little girl is dying from leukemia because of "Sin" . This will wrap around your neck until you are blue in the face ... there is no issue that the folks that wrote the bible were savages and ignorants . They were humans that were clueless about humanity and used a moral highground for personal gain . This situation is occuring @the moment in the USA with the GOP candidates fighting for said moral highground and looking like misoginistic bigots and utter morons .
Then they are not truly Christians. Going to church doesn't make someone a Christian. Christian is a follower of Christ and dwelling in His priciples over our own. Does it mean that I don't have the ability to lie or steal? No. I have the ability to do that but I know that it's wrong because it's not in God's nature. Do I have the ability to sin, kill, and destroy things? ABSOLUTELY. But do I dwell in that activity? No because if I'm a Christian and a true follower of Him, I won't think of those things. The only difference between me and those "secular" folks is that I know that I am not my own. I don't know everything because I am limited on MY own ability. But with the Lord, all things are possible. And from my experiences, I seen God work in me and in many people that I've seen....and NO ONE can tell me different. So whatever you feel is unfounded is founded in my faith. You have the same opportunity and choice to believe. I'm not here to change you because I don't have that ability but God does.
May you be blessed in ways that only God can do.
Peace be with you . You seem like a good human and in the end if it works for you, who am I to judge you . Be good now .
The council of Nicea was only the beginning of the great apostasy (falling away from the truth). There were many more. Then came the Martin Luther who put the final cherry of apostasy on top for good measure. Providing the final nail into the coffin of the true gospel. 1700 years of heresy, lying scribes, corruption, control, murder, perversion. Thank God Almighty his spirit of truth has finally returned to open our blinded eyes to the strong delusion that came so soon after John died.
Let's always remember that God is always in control. Everything is ultimately governed by Him. He is righteous and His word is complete. This are the books we will be judged by since its His word. It would be illogical for God not to make sure we have all of His counsel and then judge us by it. Let's give God credit and thank Him for His word and pray to give us a humble and willing heart to abide in Christ everyday. God bless you all.
The Council of Nicea didn't recognise the canon. It was the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I
the kid is brave and a critical thinker searching for Truth. the guy answering him is an authoritarian repeating from a book. he doesn't really answer the question. I pray that kid keeps searching and the other guy learns humility.
Wish he would have stated that the Council of Nicea did not decide what the New Testament was. That was an organic process that was pretty much solidified by the end of the second century.
How was it an organic process
Councils didn’t decide on the Canon, God decided that. The problem with today’s church is that they undervalue God’s sovereignty. God wanted a Canon and that’s why there is one.
Wasn't other books referenced in the Canon? Eg Enoch, jubilees
The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) did not discuss in any known capacity the Canon of Scripture.
Correct. I’m not sure what this kid is thinking. The presenter should have redirected him.
You owe the Bible to Pope Damasus Specially the New Testament because he's the one responsible for choosing 23 books of new testament out of 300 books
And called it or considered it as an inspired word of God
A questioner who listens to the answer and doesn't interrupt. He's going to go far.
JESUS IS LORD!!!!!!
Frank is so ready for this question he already has a slide..
Can the living God preserved his book..?
@Mavors Yes.
@Mavors No, God's book.
This guy. Asks a great question.
Ask a protestant friend: how can you use the book the Catholic Church compiled, to criticize and condemn the Catholic Church? Did it have authority then? Does it now?
There would be no Christianity without the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the universal church set up by Jesus. All other denominations or sects of Christianity have their origins in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
lanky gypsy this is true. As Episcopalians we pray for one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. We are the remnants of Luthers protestation to educate the common and asking Rome to quit taking material things from people who were being taught it was essential for the forgiveness of sins and entrance into heaven and that it is possible to gain favor with worldly things. The church of England , our closer cousin , had agendas of many kinds. The very least of which was to maneuver away from Romes refusal to grant divorce as you know. We are one universal church. We place significance on different things. But I'm happy we can never disagree that Jesus is real, and he died so we may understand how "
merciful , compassionate, long suffering and of great goodness,"* our Father is.
Psalm 103
Verse 8 . Have a great Holy season.
At one time the King of England had the biggest library in England. It contained 10 books , five of them borrowed from the King of France. . When the printing press was invented books became more available. The new testament was printed in the original greek. ( not the Catholic latin created by Jerome ). Catholics discovered that there were mistakes in Jeromes Latin version. They also discovered purgatory is not in the bible and you cant buy your way into heaven by buying an indulgence. That the apostle Peter said that Christ was the rock, not Peter. That salvation is a gift and you cannot work for a gift. Romans chatper 4.. Catholics began to protest that the Catholic Church should pay attention to what the word of God actually says. Part of the Catholic church refused to leave the traditions that had developed over time. The other part decieded it was safer to follow the Word of God than the teaching of men. This is how Catholics created the Protestant Church.
Have a read of Romans Chapter 4 have you recieved the gift of salvation paid for by jesus on the cross. Or are you relying on your own works ?
@@michaelhordos1512 Hey :) This question is said with sincere interest, not debate: on what do you base that the Catholic Church is the universal church Jesus set up?
What about Orthodox?
What a very circular argument. "Why are the books of the Bible authoritative?" Answer: "Because people said they were authoritative."
Hotta love Mr T
That guy did not want that good of an answer to his question
He is saying that we have proven it was written by men and decided to true because men say it is so and trust the record collectors...
Can't we say the same about Trumps Taxs
The Dead Sea Scrolls should now be included in the word of God. Or be taken seriously.
Wasn't council of Nicaea responsible for giving Jesus the title of man God? Meaning he was a prophet until that council, and then some more at council of Constantinople.
"... Wasn't council of Nicaea responsible for giving Jesus the title of man God?..." No
girtkaz
From Wiki: First council of Nicea "The agenda of the synod included:
The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?"
What does that mean? because as far as christian Jews are concerned, they never took him as a God incarnate, it was a Roman thing.
"...because as far as christian Jews are concerned, they never took him as a God incarnate..." where did you got this from? Jesus was crucified for bleshemy - claiming to be God. So it is not Roman thing -it is Christian Jewish thing. Christians accepted - Judaists did not.
Any way in Nicea the cauncil agrreed upon creed of Nicea and several canons.
theological dificulty is Devine nature humanity of Jesus. How those two comes together. Arias made a new heracy so responce was needed a new definition to awoid heracy.
No Marc, Jesus repeatedly called himself this, if your referring to statements like “I am”, or in the Gospels were Jesus speaking to the Jews in the Synagogue reading from an Isaiah’s scroll and proclaiming He was the one that it was talking about. The counsel was just affirming what Jesus and the Gospel’s were saying.
the council of nicea had didn't even discuss the biblical canon
💜💜💜💜
how about the book of enoch? wasnt that book believed by the disciples and early christians, and was also found with the dead sea scrolls?
Enoch was never considered to be in the Canon. Yes, it was found with other writings with the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there were many writings discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls that were just ancient writings and had nothing to do with the Gospels. So, if you do your home work on ALL of the documents found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were some writings that no one EVER claimed to be "inspired"....some was just historical documents, and other various writings. So, if you pour through ALL of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'll see that just because the Book of Enoch might be there, it doesn't make it Scripture. We know there are errors and changes made to Enoch and that disqualifies it from being Scripture. It's a long story, but if you do a DEEP study of ALL of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'll find that there were various writings and NO ONE claimed that all of the scrolls were Scripture. I never heard that from any Scientists, secular or Christian. Enoch was used later to help teach and correct Hebrew grammar, but no, not at all considered to be "Scripture". Hope that helps.
God bless you -- from a student of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Mathew, Mark and the like speaking if Jesus and his death were not accurate either, many books of the NT have things like anti-somatic comments in it.
Lauren Holladay
Some of he older scriptures that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Ethiopian tradition are referred to in the bible. If you want to make deeper studies in to this I would advice you to look up Ken Johnson who is a scholar in old scriptures. So one should not be too skeptical about these older scriptures since awesome bible teachers like Perry Stone, Chuck Missler and others use them. What we do know is that these scriptures existed but we don't know if we have the real copies. The great thing about this is that we can compare the Ethiopian scriptures and the dead sea scrolls to come to good conclusions.
dannywizz Hi Danny! Nice hearing from you :) Thank you for turning me on to Ken Johnson, I'll look him up. I have studied at the feet of Chuck Missler and I know he uses them, but he is very careful about what is Scripture and what isn't. I belong to Koinonia House (Chuck Missler's Ministry) and have been blessed by his teachings. I agree with you that there is more to the Dead Sea Scrolls than I was able to write in my last post....so I do agree with you absolutely! I appreciate the response. God bless you and thanks again :)))))
Lauren Holladay thank you for the info! so is it wrong to believe in whats in the book of enoch?
It took 'the church' until 397 CE or thereabouts to decide the NT canon. For me, the fact that educated men could not decide what was inspired and needed nearly 400 years to do so, smells of corruption. Possibly the fear of excluding Jewish converts was the issue. Even Luther wanted some NT books removed. 2 Peter, for example, is a fake. It's a reworking of Jude. Six letters of Paul are genuine. The other seven are unlikely to have been written by Paul. So the question in the video is relevant, putting aside the error that the Council of Nicea did not decide the NT canon, the Christian bible was decided by religious men, who argued about it for hundreds of years and suddenly settled on a Bible only after Emperor Constantine made the Catholic Church official in 325 CE. The bible did not fall out of the sky.
I should start with an important fact: We have no original manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. Likewise, the canonical Gospels were written anonymously. There was no Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
Mark (determined to be the first of the four Gospels)was written at least 40 years after the supposed life of Christ. These people were definitely not eye witnesses and most likely never interacted with eyewitnesses.
The Council of Nicea was created mainly to combat Arians (among other "heretical" groups)who believed Jesus was a man anointed by God. The discussions at Nicea included the questions: Was he a triune God? Was he fully human and fully God? etc.
There's a reason why there should be(and was) confusion about this based on the canonical gospels ALONE. The book of Matthew shows Jesus born of the Spirit while the book of Mark has the Spirit "descend" on Jesus at his baptism. Was Jesus born God? Did he become God? Was he the Messiah, a suffering servant of God, sent to be a symbol for how humans should relate to God?
The gospels were individual (and intentionally different )accounts written by anonymous writers a lifetime after the character of Jesus lived and died. Many of the stories include puns, allegories, parables. Interestingly, many of the "prophecies" referenced or even the speeches of Jesus are direct translations from the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the concepts in the new testament were in fact NEW and based off of a translation of the Bible that favored their positions (i.e. parthenos "virgin" vs almah "young woman") The writers of the New Testament Canon were 2nd century, highly sophisticated, Greek writers, each devising stories to fit a particular narrative. Stop trying to make them fit YOUR narrative Dr. Turek, and try to appreciate them for what they are; a beautifully reserved yet flawed piece of human history.
Just came here to say that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!
Maybe it was a different Thomas?
Wait.... how is that relevant? Last I heard, we got our English translations through the greek route. The Septuagint came before Christ, and the gospels were written in Greek, unless I'm missing something. That means that the council of Nicea wouldn't have had the slightest effect on our translation.
+shitosusansen Greek was used by the eastern half of the church all the way until the schism after 1000 A.D., also many/most of the manuscripts that we have are dated after 325 (when the council of Nicea took place), so I don't know how you can say the council of Nicea wouldn't have had the slightest effect on our translation.
Ryan Shaffer From what I've read, the manuscripts we have predate the Council, and the Council wasn't even to decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to try and settle disputes about the nature of the Christ.
shitosusansen Please sort by date...you will see that roughly half of the papyri we rely on date after the council of Nicea..en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
shitosusansen "the Council wasn't even to decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to try and settle disputes about the nature of the Christ."
I think the bigger point is how did we come up with the books that we have in the Canon and how reliable are they...you are correct that the canon was not settled until after the council of Nicea...
I'm not sure of your religion, but for protestants, the people who decided the ultimate canon were catholics who were already embracing doctrines (not found in the bible) that many protestants would disagree with...
For example, infant baptism was already accepted at the Council of Nicea...
Ryan Shaffer
"I think the bigger point is how did we come up with the books that we have in the Canon and how reliable are they...you are correct that the canon was not settled until after the council of Nicea..."
You completely missed the point. The point of the council wasn't to try and decide which books should be in the Bible, but rather, to come to an agreement about the nature of the Christ. Was he man? Was he God? Was he somewhere in-between? That's what was being discussed by those present.
I'm not sure of your religion, but for protestants, the people who decided the ultimate canon were catholics who were already embracing doctrines (not found in the bible) that many protestants would disagree with..."
The Catholics didn't decide the canon. The Canon was already present, and they did not interfere. Rather, they tried to turn somewhat minor elements into major elements and execute people who wouldn't accept their teachings. (The people being killed were usually referred to as witches, dissenters, and anathema.) No changes were necessary.
"For example, infant baptism was already accepted at the Council of Nicea..."
Yet infant baptism isn't promoted in scripture.
After watching a several videos from this man I am convinced comments get screened.
We have an early Bible already well before the council of nicea.
@Mavors the Bible that we have today. It is in the British museum if you would like to see it.
How can you trust who they believe is a prophet of God when the same empire denied the messiah
'they' is in reference to the early Christians. Not to the roman empire.
This argument and a few more are just the same arguments just reworded. Frank probably answered this too many times to count
What has bothered me about any of the council's, is not canonization, but the non scriptural doctrine, coming from men in costumes, and embraced by a multitude of denominations. How they could get it right with the books, and yet complete heresy, in terms of graven images, defiance of Jesus on prayer, and Sunday keeping, is a complete mystery to me, unless job security, and making God distant, had something to do with it.
@Mavors Of course, however, if it wasn't for the testimony, of the times, God spoke, and lots of people heard him, the bible would be bogus.
@Mavors It is not.
It is the history, and lineage, of a certain 12 tribed family, of which archeologists are proving daily. Concerning God, what I mentioned, also prevents it from being bogus.
@Mavors The reason it's history, is archeological digs, in the middle east, are constantly revealing artifacts, and places described in scripture. My assumption about the books, is contradiction. Books, like Enoch, have too many conflicting threads, declarations, and possibly, errors in tense, identification of individuals, or even places.
@Mavors Archaeology proves the existence, history, and lineage, of those 12 tribes, including, what you consider stories, or legend, yet documented by members of those tribes.
For instance, the Dead Sea, scrolls, document lineage and generational word of mouth, along with prophecy, of which, much has come to pass. If your lot, is to deny the age, and existence of Jerusalem, or its past kings, or how it came to pass, so be it, however, even the science if intelligent design, is working against you, as well as archaeology, and time.
As to how the books were canonized, it's my understanding, that a thread, runs through, from Genesis, to Revelation, of a subject, I happen to specialize in. The ten commandments. The big mystery, and disappointment, is the vast majority, of Christianity, as we know it, is not under one roof, because at least two of those ten, are either defied, or denied, the result being, a multitude of denominations, and doctrines. Of course, it's because of the intervention of Satan, someone, I'm sure, you don't believe exists, yet I'm sure you are aware, of the existence of good and evil. The God of the bible, declares, human nature, to be evil, and rebellious to him. History, has proven him correct. Thus, the source, of civilization, being civil, is the ongoing debate. It ain't humanity, as history, again, has proven. If you want to assert evolution, go ahead. I have a logical rude awakening in store.
@Mavors There is no argument. If you don't know what a Jew is, as they are one of the 12 tribes, you belong in a history class. You could even be a descendant, and not know it. Ever heard of a river, called, the blue Danube, in Europe? It got it's name from, the tribe of Dan, as they migrated north, to Denmark, where they are now called, Danes, or Danish. Ever hear of the Angelo Saxxons? Isaacs sons. The British? From the hebrew word, berith, meaning God's chosen. The throne, in Westminster Abbey, in which kings, and queens, have been crowned, for centuries, had a stone under it, called the stone of destiny. When tourists came to see it, there was a sign, describing it as, Jacobs Pillar. Jacob, is the father of 12 sons, that became the 12, tribes of Israel. It was stolen in 1950. What you think of, as myth or legend, or stories, is the story of history. Actual history, not fables. I'm beginning to think you're a fifth grader, a clueless fifth grader.
awwww david copperfield you missed your opportunity to "discover" a canonical bible because clearly david does "miracles" so he's an authority too
frank is the best
"What Christians call 'following their faith' I call 'following the herd.'"
--Nietzsche
😅😊😅😊😅
😅😅😅
He was a narcissist at heart.
Mother died yesterday or was it prior. It doesn't matter. The destination is the same for all, good or bad.
@bond3161 Paul was narcissistic in his writings as well... but, im not a lover of Nietzsche, but a lover of truth... this particular quote of his I find to be dead on.
Wow, such nerve for him to tell that nonsense when the oldest copies of the synoptic are anonymous. Barely 10% of his take on this is true.
How can anyone think this is a live response?
why would you think otherwise?
Frank Turek literally brings hundreds of extra slides with him for his talks specifically for Q&As
Simple, since it was asked by a member of the audience and Frank had his work well prepared for this subject.
+Juan Olivier like I said. Frank literally brings 100s of extra slides to each Q&A so he is ready for any question. He talks about doing this in his podcasts, shows, and books.
@@JUAN_OLIVIER It's because the questions that atheists think are revelatory we've known the answers for thousands of years.
There are certain typical questions that the vast majority of intellectuals ask. Probably about 10. You just need to keep material for these standard 10 questions on standby. Simple.
I love how people know nothing about the Coucil of Hippo or Carthage... Nicea did not create Christianity.
it's the best answer. no challenge
haha. contradicted urself in the 1st minute. were they 'discovered' or were they 'accepted'
How is this a contradiction? It is very simple, but in most cases one seeks not the knowledge of the matter, but rather a much more skeptical approach. The documents were DISCOVERED, cross-checked and examined, and based on the conclusion, the ACCEPTABILITY was proven.
This is the same kind of guy who doesnt accept scientific studies unless they are "Peer Reviewed."
And then questions the validity of the Bible because Christians subjected it to peer review Peer Reviewed the Bible at the council of Nicaea.
0:21 maybe it's not a religion
There are a lot of issues around the Council of Nicea. The canon was the issue.
He did not answer the question.
He didn't ask the right question...
Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the "Bible" as there was no "Bible" as we know it today.
I don't understand how people still have questions like this in the age of the Internet. It's the same 10 objections over and over. There's been a thousand books and a million webpages and videos dedicated to them and they have never been difficult to answer. How do they have the passion to get on a mike in front of hundreds of people and make silly challenges when you could spend 30 seconds googling it?
a5dr3 Because the devil has no new lies or doubts to bring to their minds because all have been answered. At this point if they don't believe it is because they don't want to not because of a lack of evidence.
That and the internet isn't always reliable which is what I learned when I did a study comparing Christianity vs Islam. I actually was very fortunant because I found a book by Lee Strobel called the case for Christ which first of all was amazing, but second of all was a spring board to find a wealth of resources that were good. If you ask a current theologian what the separation was between Jesus crucifiction and ressurection and the actually writing of the manuscript (hand written document) they will probably tell you that the.m book of Mark was written about 30 years after his death, which in history is amazing. But if you go on the internet and search a web page they will probably tell you 40-50 years after his death and resurrection.
Still on a different subject, Turek is a newer guy I started listening to, and I must say it really surprises me because he seems to always get the most angry young atheists questioning him vs Ravi Zachariah or perhaps maybe even William Lane Craig. I wonder why that is.
It's simple really, these people are not looking for answers. They have already decided for themselves that scripture is not trustworthy and simply look for evidence to support what they've already decided. If someone believes the Bible was invented by the Catholic Church at Nicea, then they'll keep searching the internet until they find other people making them same claim. It doesn't matter if they have to click through page after page of scholars and historians telling them otherwise, because they've already made up their mind.
Their only interest is to affirm and assert what they've already decided.
I'm tired of trying to convince people that are going to Hell to not go to Hell. If you atheists are so sure, it's your choice. You don't have to be saved if you don't want to. I'll focus on getting to good word to those who have never heard it. Let those who insist on rebellion against God continue to perish. " So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." Psalms 81:12
Mic Jolly Don't give up my friend. It is not our job as Christians to change someone's heart (which is what needs to happen if someone is truly to accept Christ). That task belongs to the Holy Spirit. Just continue the proclaim the Gospel. You never know when you will have an impact. 1 Peter 3:15
Every knee will bow, and tongue confess, except the free will of some who will still reject God in his presence.
Never answered the damn question!
4:42 :))
Achim Titus never had so much bullshit. They voted on it. He is not answering the real question. How can we trust something that was voted on.
@@zamuxolomaneli5397 What's wrong with voting on it? We vote on things all the time. That doesn't make them illegitimate. The question is what criteria did they use to determine which books should be accepted into the canonical scriptures and was the criteria sound. If they were just voting on which books of the Bible they liked or which ones had a message they found inspiring then I would agree with you but they didn't do that.
That’s not true and you know it .god didn’t have to win an approval of a bunch of individuals to be appointed as God , most of bible contents have nothing to do with God .
The Roman church was 1000 years old before Constantine threw Jesus on top of it, Jesus founded an ECCLESIA, no a church, not a religion,
Jesus spoke all the languages of the day, and all these languages had words for Church and Religion but Jesus used none of these words,
Jesus was, is and always will be a Jew.
Whatever part of Jesus was God, was not Jewish.
God is not a Jew
Moses was not a Jew
Jesus was only part Jew, for his father is not a Jew.
You tell them that they are idiots and historically ignorant. Nicea had nothing to do with the canon.
the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon!!!
This is the 2nd time ive heard frank say, "you dont need to believe the incorruptibility if the bible to be a Christian. Instead, you need evidence that Jesus resurrected."
Well, it doesn't follow that even if jesus performed miracles that he MUST be God. Thats a massive jump to make.
Also, one of the reasons frank said that is cos their are many problems with trying to prove the bible is preserved.
My question is, if the bibles are not 100% authentic and preserved then how would you even know how to "have faith" in those other teachings? If its based on other historical accounts then that's another problem. As it implies that those other accounts are more reliable than the biblical accounts, for you.
So, who's religion are you actually following?
God needs to write his own bible.
The Catholic Church compiled the Bible
Nope
Barrie Hellon-Warwick Then who did?