The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon and Text of the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video, Dr. John Bergsma, an expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, discusses how the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls impacted our understanding of the text and canon of the Bible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a much earlier Hebrew copy of certain books of the Bible, which allowed scholars to see how these earlier Hebrew manuscripts compared to the Septuagint that was used by early Christians. It also gave us insight into what books some Jews likely considered to be inspired, thereby shedding new light on the canon debate.
Find more Bible studies by Dr. John Bergsma at catholicproductions.com/colle...
Visit Dr. Bergsma's website at www.johnbergsma.com/
I am reading your new book on the Scrolls, very good!!
Thanks!
Very much needed... fantastic.. thanks a lot.. i am sending these videos to my friends.. congrats..God bless
Dr. John, are you in Michigan? We have a parish here in South Lyon that had 52 members just get back from pilgrimage in the Holy Land where they visited Qumran. I'm wondering if you would be available to give this talk to the parish.
Great video! what I want to know Is--- if there was any subtle or not so subtle changes made to the Masoretic text while under Roman Authority? Thanks (compared to the Dead Sea scrolls).
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain multiple copies of many books of the Bible. Those copies often disagree with each other. There are, for example, at least four different versions of Deuteronomy: A version that agrees with the Septuagint, a version that agrees with the Masoretic Text, a version that harmonizes the two, and a version that agrees with the Septuagint but "improved" by harmonizing elements in Deuteronomy itself that are in conflict with each other. More interestingly, there is a longer version of Deuteronomy that contains material not found in any of the versions of Deuteronomy we have today (look up "Reworked Pentateuch").
What this means is that the Jewish claim about the integrity of the Masoretic Text is correct. The Dead Sea Scrolls do in fact contain books that agree with the Masoretic Text. The problem is that there are other versions that the modern Jewish community has abandoned that other communities have adopted. This means the other communities are also correct in defending the integrity of their scripture. The different communities are simply following different versions of the same scripture. What is interesting is that apparently the Qumranic community had no problem using and preserving all these variant versions at the same time, so their understanding of their religion must be very different from ours.
Masoretic text is corrupt. Pslams 19:16 is just an example how the rabbis edited their saviour out of the masorah. Septuagint was certainly the copy that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. Read the book of acts and check St Stephen says about the no of souls that went to Egypt with Jacob.
I'm Orthodox, I really enjoy your videos. Can you do a video on the Coptic or Ethopian canon. Thanks!
Hey Joseph,
Thanks for your message. I don't know of that being in our runway, but I can try passing it along to our speakers for consideration. Thanks!
@@CatholicProductions Thanks, this is a channel that is so needed. It's really good quality material.
Why are there many Protestants among themselves? Is it about who among them is infallible? Blind leaders of the blind
Slow down Einstein, stay in your lane
Septuagint is so important because many of Christ Prophecy are more Clear in SEptuagint like the Virgin Birth in Isaiah prophecy....
As a Catholic why are there so many DIFFERENT versions of the Bible? Also what is the meaning of Eisegesis, Exegesis and Hermeneutics? THANK YOU for your answers.
It's like the gospels...different versions, yet it tells the same story and same Substantial doctrine....
We have the same God of Old testament and God of New TEstament, so expect similarities of the way God revealed himself...
This is also the Way God demonstrates his power....
ORIGEN of Alexandria , 250 A.D.
"But as the existence of divine providence is not refuted by those especially who are certain of its existence, but who do not comprehend its workings or arrangements by the powers of the human mind; so neither will the divine inspiration of holy Scripture, which extends throughout its body, be believed to be non-existent, because the weakness of our understanding is unable to trace out the hidden and secret meaning in each individual word, the treasure of divine wisdom being hid in the vulgar and unpolished vessels of words, as the apostle also points out when he says, We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the virtue of the divine power may shine out the more brightly, no coloring of human eloquence being intermingled with the truth of the doctrines. For if our books induced men to believe because they were composed either by rhetorical arts or by the wisdom of philosophy, then undoubtedly our faith would be considered to be based on the art of words, and on human wisdom, and not upon the power of God; whereas it is now known to all that the word of this preaching has been so accepted by numbers throughout almost the whole world, because they understood their belief to rest not on the persuasive words of human wisdom, but on the manifestation of the Spirit and of power."
(ORIGEN, De Principiis ,Book IV, 250 A.D.)
You forgot Codex Vaticanus. Even more reliable than Sinaiticus.
It's a fake
Amen
Septuagint was not translated by the Greeks but by the 72 rabbis from the temple in Jerusalem who was.invited to Alexandria by Ptolomei II to translate the " BREATH OF GOD" Please read "The letter of Aristeas" a book written at that time.
The Egyptians hired the Rabbis to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
You havent read the letter. They only translated the Torah of moses there, as noted in the letter.
@@motorola1543 The latest discovery prove They translated all books of he Tanakh
@@levonet33 the lxx textual family includes all the books but not the 72 rabbis. The letter says they only translated the "nomos" of moses
@@levonet33 the translations of the rest of the greek were independent of the initial 72. You can read the jewish sources of Melkita de Rabbi Yishmael, Midrash Tanchuma, Megillah 9a, Soferim 1, and Sefer Torah 1, if you want confirmation of the letter of aristeas. Just check out the letter and note that they only mention the "nomos" or "torah" being translated at the convention of the original 72
"Since the law which we wish not only to transcribe but also to translate belongs to the whole Jewish race,"
From Aristeas paragraph 15
academic.logos.com/the-origin-of-the-lxx/
biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/4022-a-brief-history-of-the-septuagint (search for the word Torah and u find 2 spots where they specify only the Torah was translated by the 72)
Judaism also had a type of infallible body in their priestly heirarchy with the High Priest at it's head. The Great Sanhedrin with the High Priest at it's head(although this changed during the second temple period i believe) would have been akin to the Pope and the Extraordinary Magesterium. From rabbinic writings and from the bible it suggests that the Jewish High Priest exercised a type of infallibility when he used the urim and thummim to receive instructions from God.
This authority was taken away from them(Romans3:2), and was given to the Church instead(Matthew16:18-19).
It seems Jews had a reasonably good idea of what books should have been contained in their canon from Christs own words(Luke24:44), obviously Christ knew what books were inspired.
There was no infallible authority in Jesus time otherwise the different groups of Jews would have had the same Canon. They didn't. Their present Canon was also finalized after Jesus lifetime, so Christians aren't beholden to it because the authority had already been transferred from them to the Church which they even persecuted. The only Canon Christians should recognize is the one finalized by the early church. Everything else is sacrilege according to the words of the Bible itself.
@@Bobomulo - They didn't formulate their canon, but according to Jewish tradition the High Priest exercised a type of infallibility when consulting the urim and thummim.
"And although the decree of a prophet could be revoked, the decree of the ‘Urim and Thummim’ could not be revoked, as it is said: By the judgment of the Urim. Why were they called ‘Urim and Thummim’? ‘Urim’ because they made their words enlightening.4 ‘Thummim’ because they fulfil their words." [Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma 73b]
It's also inferred many times in scripture and from Christ himself(Deuteronomy17:8-13, Matthew23:1-3, John11:49-53, Romans3:2).
From the time of the Seluccid empire the high priests were (not always - eg simon the just ) political appointees, often through bribe or offer of bribes. Urim and Thummim were taken away with during the epistle of Jeremiah the prophet. Ezra 2.63 confirms this. John the baptist was the last and final high priest of the Jews, being appointed the high priest by the holyspirit.
@@Sean-lv6fx we did have a canon. It was established by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah in the 300s BCE
@@motorola1543 - What source(s) have you got that the canon used by Jews today was officially formulated in 300BCE?
my argument for this is that the current jewish canon that we familiar with and that used by protestants are ones that is traditionally are Pharisee’s canon. As we can see Jesus relationship with the Pharisee, one can see why protestants followed this canon. Even though the dead sea scrolls reveals to us there maybe another version of canon used by other sect of jewish people, but one can see again how Jesus points that the Pharisee is authoritative, but their hypocrisy is not to be followed.
Israelite rabbi clearly got the scripture wrongly.... Just look at Jude 14-15.... Modern Rabbi REJECT this prophecy of Enoch... , yet the Apostle Jude tells us about this Old testament prophecy...
SECOND, St. Paul quotes from Septuagint and ST. Paul is a Pharisee himself...
its also important to note that 90% of the time when Jesus quotes the old testament, he's using the LXX, not the masoretic. And guess whose canon is in the LXX🙃
🤯 the dead see scrolls. Wow
I never made the claim that l am not judging righteously according to Gods word not mine.
Is the old testament plaguirised from the book of the dead
Enoch was considered canonical?
Dr. Bergsma is making the point that the canon of scripture at the time of Jesus consisted of more books than the Jews and Protestants recognize, by pointing out that the qumran community, a very devout and respected Jewish community, considered Enoch and several other books canonical. Enoch is not recognized as canonical by the Catholic church.
@@pcm7315 Why is Enoch NOT Canonical?
@@Darth_Vader258 Probably for the same reasons "The Didache" and "Shepherd of Hermas" and a number of other writings were not included in the canon which was developed over time: They did not meet all the criteria needed for inclusion. Your question is profound since Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude.
@@pcm7315 people are can quote books they read to make a point, doesn’t need to canon Bible. It’s not a big deal, we make it bigger than it needs to be.
Very interesting and useful. I am a Protestant but see great value from my Catholic brothers and sisters. However I do not get this notion of infallibility. I see it’s roots yes, but I see too much fallibility in humans. I don’t see it as necessary at all, and ultimately I see it as a sense of arrogance that has led many astray.
Peace friend.
It helps to realize that the infallibility of the Church is not a 'power' properly speaking, but a fundamental charism or feature of it, even though we often speak of promises given to the Church as her 'powers,' which is certainly valid as a way of speaking.
When Jesus taught that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, He taught by this that nothing would be so done in, by, or to the Church as to let the gates of hell prevail. Now a change in the faith would certainly constitute that, so dogmatic definitions in the Church regarding some matter of the faith, must not be able to err in this capacity (a definition given in such a fashion as to demand the assent of the faithful). It's not, then, that a pope or Council has special knowledge or powers, but that Christ will simply not allow the Church to be overcome. It is by His promise, "And the gates of Sheol/the Underworld/Hell shall not prevail against it," that we are assured of the dogmas of the faith, not by the men, sinful and prone to error, to might by the instruments or pastors He has chosen.
Too many people view the infallibility of the Church (popes, councils, etc.) as a special power or revelation given to the bishops of the Church, whereas it simply means the gates of hell cannot prevail-which a teaching taught to the literal, real and actual, objective destruction of the faith would be.
If we relied on the correctness of mere men, without the promise of Christ, we would be fools. Whereas we trust in Jesus' promises, all of them.
Popes are often very humble. St. Peter said, "I exhort the elders, who myself also am an elder... etc." He stoops to the level of clearly inferiors, mere elders, not apostles, though he also is an elder, set over the flock in a special way by Christ, to rule or shepherd them, and even strengthen the other apostles.
You'll often find, "despite my unworthiness," etc.
But even the hypocrite popes would have to be obeyed, because authority from God to teach or command NEVER originated or relied upon the goodness of the person, but their authority they have themselves. As it is written: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses. Therefore see that you do and observe all that they tell you to; but do not as they do, for they say, but do not." We don't use the term 'Chair of Peter' to refer to the papal authority for no reason! Christ assigned to His Apostles a kingdom, and they sat, as it were, on thrones. Today bishops likewise have a chapel with a literal throne or kathedras (whence 'Cathedral' comes) as it has in the Gospel, as a symbol of this unceasing authority, just as Christ says the authority of Moses never ceased, but was passed on through the centuries, as attested to by the very earliest generations of Christians also.
God bless.
I asked Jesus and the following is what he told me.
The fallibility inside the church is due to one thing and one thing alone, human beings thinking they know and can dictate the mind of God. God is without limits so church is not necessary when Christ already put his place of worship in your heart, and a fallible church is necessary to know the church in your heart is the correct one. A compare and contrast sort of thing.
If a preachers first words are not "Ask Jesus he knows better than me" then it is wrong. When difficult questions arise you have to always maintain the faith Christ will answer you and tell you the correct answer. I can assure you he does and just ask him. Never trust the words of anyone not even me, only trust Jesus will answer you. When he does you should have a feeling of an extreme moment of clarity in which you know you just heard the truth.
@@evilcowboy All that you said presupposes a Church structure alien to the New Testament, without authoritative pastors who lead and teach the flock and recieve such authority by the laying on of hands. You're describing a heretic's free-for-all paradise of 'make up your own mind on what the faith is' rather than recieving the tradition that is: the faith once delivered to the saints.
@@evilcowboy Well many Protestant preachers are "asking Jesus" and all of them are receiving different answers. That doesn't sound very Jesus-like to me. Division is of the devil, not of God. Protestants have no primal authority and all teach something different. The teachings change from block to block. It sounds like anarchy to me. The Catholic church however has only taught the same thing for 2,000 years and the liturgical readings are the same all over the world for each mass. In a protestant sect, you can get thousands of different readings in one day. That's what happens when there is no order. I'd ask that you start reading the history of the early church. God bless!
Chaos theory, the same chaos theory that has been proven is states "out of chaos comes order" that part is proven many times over with the Butterfly effect being subjective but is generally accepted as being also true. That is a part of God's creation, it was God that did it, which means that its a design that God saw fit to be there, probably so people weren't so afraid to expand their faith.
Having a 2000 year long reign is not necessarily enough to prove correctness, God's foresight expands beyond the bounds of the church so he knew how it was going to turn out. 2000 years ago it probably was correct as societal standards and structures were limited, however how is the bible the living word of God if it is not open for interpretation or simply asking Jesus?
I am literally saying to trust Christ and God over people, how exactly is that the wrong interpretation considering that reality is individual for everyone based on the fact everyone having different social norms, backgrounds, economic standings etc. So how can another interpret what God said. The teachings didn't go forward as time progressed, they were left so far in the past that it obscured the message. So with everyone being different then why does it not make sense for Jesus to explain it to a person based on what their mind can handle and understand, do you really think Jesus would explain things the same to a child as he would an adult?
Labeling is an action meant to divide and split things into categories, hence you referring to "Protestant preachers". So yeah the catholic church and a lot of other churches has done their fair share of dividing, they also executed people in the name of God which is certainly not Jesus like. I personally feel Catholicism probably started out good and through the actions of corrupt people became less than what it was intended to be.
Just because there is only 1 God does not mean that there is only 1 face of God. Personally I can give word for word what I was told but I know it takes people experiencing it for themselves to get it.
We are at the epicenter for creation, the fundamental source of it. We all live inside the imagination of God. If it sounds like anarchy to you then its because you believe society needs to exist and people need to be governed, that alone sort of proves that the 10 commandments were not enough if you believe that. That sounds insulting but I don't mean it to be, I just believe God's word is more precious and the only way to understand it is to get out of the idea that other humans can act in a position that was never given to them by God but by other humans.
It's all about Usurers on God.
Good information here on the texts. The comments seem as ever to turn into a slugfest between protestants and the roman catholic view. Church history is a very good teacher & without a good working knowledge of it you can easily find yourself barking at the moon without even realising it. Since many scriptures have many possible and quite valid interpretations its very instructive to know how the early church fathers understood them. Several were direct disciples of the apostles and knew John, Peter or Paul personally. They didn't just have the books (and in many cases didn't have access to them anyway!) they were directly taught by the apostles. Paul was with the thessalonians for 18 months but we have only 2 short letters. How many times does Paul tell folk to hold to the traditions passed on by his letters or by his word of mouth? Do we just ignore that & dismiss history and those traditions?
The rc church does draw from this history, however, the additions and changes made to doctrine by the rc church after the great schism of 1054 - caused partly by a change to the creed (such change having already been forbidden by the ecumenical council that established it) and also the attempt of the pope to exercise authority over all other bishops and thus the whole church (something that had never been the case before then) caused the break with the eastern church (aka the Orthodox church). The bulk of christians were in the east at that time. Since that break the rc church has added papal infalibility (fairly recent), purgatory, the immaculate conception of mary, mary as co-redemptrix, to name a few headline doctrines not found in scripture. Interestingly the eastern orthodox church has not added any new doctrines, how can they they assert, the church is divided and since any such doctrines must be agreed by a council involving the whole church it is no longer possible to add anything. This is a far more authentic approach in my view if you are claiming to be a continuation of the historical church started on the day of pentecost. Protestantism is an offshoot of the rc church and has taken many things from it if you know it or not.
The eastern orthodox church is far more distinct from the rc church in its thinking than you would think if you've never investigated the subject.
The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants, as an insult.
It was the Catholic Church which removed the book of Enoch and jubilees from the bible, simply because it did not fit their preconceived notions. Or for a more sinister purpose. These are inspired works and the book of Enoch is referenced in the new testament.
And the canonical manuscript evidence we have for this is...?
Michael Jordan From which Bible were those books removed? Was there a Bible that had those books? God Bless🙏🏻
oh yes.... Even St. Paul quoted from PAgan poets and Pagan prophets....Ultimately, it is the Catholic Church, which defines the Bible...
"the book of Enoch" which says enoch is the messiah essentially from the little we do know about it, yes, very "inspired". It was never considered Canon, ergo it was never removed because it was never accepted to begin with
I was missing out on the "Second Canon" because of taking in good faith what protestant preachers said about them being made up. Say whatever you want, the Official Church is the Catholic.
Confess your sins to one another can apply to anyone it does not specify a pope or priest. Do you then go to lay person to confess? I don’t think so l bet yr told u can’t do that. Confess yr sins to God directly he knows you better than anyone. Did our lord tell you to confess yr sins to Peter etc l think not
It's weird, many know the bible by heart but don't know that the confession is biblical but reproach us with the same thing that the Pharisees said to Jesus . Jesus breathed on the apostles. This is a verse that is often passed over, but it has extraordinary significance because it is only the second time in all of Scripture where God breathes on anyone. The other instance was at the moment of creation, when God breathed his own life into the nostrils of Adam. This should tell us that something of great importance is taking place. Upon doing this, Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. *If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”* (John 20:22-23).
No need to do mental gymnastics to interpret these passages. Notice that Jesus is not simply commissioning the apostles to preach about God’s forgiveness. He is not saying, “Go tell everyone that when God forgives men’s sins, they’re forgiven.” In using the second person plural you, Jesus is telling his apostles that by the power of the Holy Spirit he has given them the power to forgive and retain the sins of men. Having the power to forgive and to retain sins implies that the apostle knows what a person’s sins are, which in turn implies oral confession. Otherwise, how is the apostle to know what to retain or forgive?
In the same way that Jesus gave his apostles other supernatural powers (such as raising men from the dead), he gave them power to absolve sins (raising them from spiritual death). In Matthew 9, we read that Jesus forgave a paralytic and then healed him so “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6)
After he exercised this power as a man, the crowds glorified God for having given “such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8, emphasis added). Notice that Matthew indicates this power to forgive sins had been given to men, and not simply to a man.
Through apostolic succession, the priest acts in Persona Christi, when a pastor heals someone, is it technically him who heals or Jesus through him? When the relics of the mantle of Jesus healed people, was it really the relic itself that healed or Jesus through the relic, the same with the apostles and their relics ? Anyway
Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of confession:
*The Didache*
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
*The Letter of Barnabas*
“You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
*Ignatius of Antioch third bishop of antioch after Peter and Evodius*
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).
*Irenaeus bishop of Lyon*
“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
*Tertullian*
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness”(Tertullian, Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
*Hippolytus*
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest . . . and by the Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
*John Chrysostom*
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men” (John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done “in church,” as the Didache (A.D. 70) indicates.
Penances also tended to be performed before rather than after absolution, and they were much stricter than those of today (ten years’ penance for abortion, for example, was common in the early Church).
The basics of the sacrament have always been there, as the following quotations reveal. Of special significance is their recognition that confession and absolution must be received by a sinner before receiving Holy Communion, for “[w]hoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).
I have a relationship with Jesus not the church history nor are pope Pharisee people the people l adore.
Jesus however founded a Church and gave it's leaders authority. And the New Testament has authority precisely as one mode of transmission for their teaching and preaching, but they also taught their successors, and as you can see for instance from St Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus they gave their successors authority to continue preaching the Gospel to the nations and teaching correct doctrine to the faithful within the Church.
Green Christendom true
You had me till the end, what's the verse for an infallible Pope again I can't remember.
I think it's the one where he infallibly defined which infallible verses belong in the infallible book.
Catholic Productions lol I had to read your comment a couple times to understand this huge burn 😂 👍🏽
@@CatholicProductions Seems to me it really is that simple. Without an infallible authority, how can anyone believe they are reading an infallible canon? You either acknowledge the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit or you demote Sacred Scripture to guesswork. Even if those making the guesses are educated and diligent, they are still making guesses.
Among the issues I see with Protestantism, this is a big one. If Protestants don't acknowledge infallible human leadership, how do they deal with the fact that every translation of Sacred Scripture was by humans, and someone had to pick which translations of which books make the cut? I tend to think they just don't think about it, subconsciously knowing there is a problem, so they brush it off in favor of some sort of Joseph Smith tablets-from-heaven kind of thing.
This is 100% correct. No one not even the pope has the power and authority to define the mind of God.
Yes this problem exists and regardless of how much you read of the bible the ultimate truth to it all is found by asking Christ not humans. The answer has always been that simple, organized religion confuses, asking Christ gives clarity to the confusion and allows you to see a much deeper message.
Ever wonder why Christ decided to refer to false prophets as false prophets and not deceivers or liars? Its because it is harder to see a false prophet when they outwardly declare they believe in God and has the same idea you also share. This causes you to trust a human being over Christ and destroys faith altogether. You cannot be faithful to God or Christ if you are asking humans to interpret it, that is an answer you need to search for on your own and trust Christ will tell you.
When Christ tells you something about the interpretation of his words you should have an extreme moment of clarity in which it is undeniable who is telling you the truth. When it happens it reaffirms faith and fear of the unknown ceases. When you have this then you know it is the hand of God and Christ who is touching your heart.
Really ask yourself one question, how can a person have faith in God if organized religion predefined for you the entire meaning and refuses to accept they may be wrong? God simply does not have the limitation of a single book, idea or understanding, limitless means limitless. Faith is nothing more than a willingness to NOT accept an answer unless you heard it from Christ himself or God. Thats why I define stepping outside of organized religion as a literal leap of faith.
Their us only ONE mediator the man Christ Jesus not Mary or Peter or Paul etc. your many mediators is what will send you to Hell if you didn’t repent.
that is true but in some context false , if that is the case , we cannot pray for each other , we cannot intercede for each other because only Jesus can intercede.
Are the saints and angels in Revelation not mediators of prayer?
I don’t need to learn church history in in order to know God the Bible is more important than church history
J Khan you still miss the point. How do you know your Bible is the right Bible? God bless🙏🏻
The bible is a gift of God through the Catholic Church. Its authenticity and authority is a matter of the Church. You sounds like a newly converted protestant believer. If you got one with 66 books, then you don't even have a bible. Get one with 73 books - that's the holy bible.
with out the church history and the church fathers, there is no bible
Without Church history, without the writings of those taught by the apostles and by their immediate successors, how would you know whether your biblical interpretations are true or not? Without those earliest historical interpretations, how would you know that your biblical interpretations are the same as the earliest Christians?
You lost me at INFALLIBLE? ummmm. Jesus was the ONLY infallible human! And he never killed or persecuted people for rejecting his message.... I'll keep looking for other unbiased videos on this topic🙄😞
Lols, like atheists and Protestants? How many millions have you guys killed by now?
Peace be with you. You misunderstand what papal infallibility means. It doesn't mean that the pope is perfect, or incapable of sinning. It means that when giving a teaching on a matter of faith or morals that is not addressed in scripture, the Holy Spirit will protect him from error. This can be seen in Acts 15 when Peter settles the issue of Gentile circumcision.
I wish you well, but if you're looking for sources that aren't Catholic, you may not want to look on a channel called "Catholic Productions."
@@keksimusmaximus2260 true...i was researching the dead sea scrolls... and the channel name wasn't my focus at that time. didn't come to troll. But as for infallibility.... every born again believer in Jesus Christ has the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth. The Holy Spirit guiding the Pope (if he's filled) is the same Spirit guiding me. Therefore, his personal opinion about scripture is meaningless and no more important than mine. The overall point, the Pope has been exalted to superhuman status worth worshipping when he's no different than you and I. And my concern is that to worship him like he's God is Idolatry and this religion is leading masses to destruction. I can't stress this enough. The Catholic church is an extension if the Roman Catholic church that has historically been steeped in Idolatry. And my prayer is that many will flee from this organization and it's teachings before the rapture and return of Christ. Blessings brother.
@@nenabunena every major religion has persecuted people in some form. But not many Christian based (non cult) religions to my knowledge have had a leader claiming to be the ultimate authority and mouthpiece for God. Any bible studying person can see the Idolatry of the catholic church no matter their church affiliation. A lot of believers are connected to no religious organization and can see the problem with the catholic church. And many believe the Pope is the end time false prophet that will help usher in the religious and political Antichrist system. This system will be destroyed by Jesus Christ, our ONLY ultimate authority this side of heaven. Blessings.
@@markita.hardenhome not true actually, but the ones who have persecuted the most are Protestants, atheists, and Muslims. Look at you here trying to spread your evil, hatred, and lies as you reject God's message for the sake of Satan whom you serve
If the Jews had no idea of a canon of scripture, then why did they care when Jesus quoted scripture at them? They could have just replied "Oh, that's not in our canon, so it's irrelevant."
Your logic of Jews didn't have infallibility -> Therefore Christians MUST have infallibility does not follow at all. If you want to show true continuity with Judaism, you would be like the Eastern Orthodox and say the Jews didn't have 100% infallibility and neither do we.
The OT books that Jesus quoted from were books that the Jews accepted as the Word of God, that's why they never questioned Jesus about the authenticity of what he was saying to them. The Christian Church is who ultimately decided which books go into the canon of Scripture, both NT and OT, as even the OT canon was not decided during Jesus lifetime.
john mizak - you literally contradicted yourself. You said the Jews had a set canon, and then said that Jews did not have a set canon. Pick one and get back to me.
@@ConciseCabbage we did have a set canon. Dr. Bergsma doesn't know what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah was. Look it up
Jesus quoted the books that He knew his audience accepted. Thus why Jesus quoted Genesis to the Sadducees instead of more explicit texts. Just because Jesus condescended to the various canons of various Jewish sects obviously does NOT mean there was only one agreed upon canon. Your objection is a non-sequitur when put in proper context: Jews never objected on canonical grounds because Jesus condescended to the authorities His audience accepted.
The infallibility of the apostles came from the infallibility of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This infallibility continues in a special way through Peter's successors. This is testified to by both Scripture and the earliest post-NT Church writings like 1st Clement and Irenaeus' _Against Heresies_ .
Where does it say in my bible l need to know Church history in order to be a true Christian? Church history is informative but IT WILL NOT SAVE you from yr sins, this only Jesus can do.
because there was no church history yet when the NT was written. However, there was already the Catholic Church, started by Jesus and continued on to this day by his Apostles. And you can't know that without Church History
Read John 7:24 according to this verse u can judge. Math7:1- 5 is about the measure of hypocrital judgement used. You have made many judgements yourself throughout our entire conversations, it’s ok for you but not for me. Yr hypocritical stance is showing. Your truth is the Catholic Church and her infallible teachings we’ll go ahead and stick with it, yr not really interested in the words of Jesus in the Bible and because of this the church is yr authority. I don’t claim to know everything about church history l only see truth in the bible and trust on other source. You will give account to God on judgement day and yr tradition of men will not save you on that day. Good bye friend l hope you make it into heaven.
Why waste your breath about judgement and hypocrisy when it all comes down to authority? Who is your authority on earth? Don't say God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible. The Bible is not a person and cannot tell you when you are misinterpreting it.
Silly Catholics... 🙄
Luther said Peter was never in Rome. The saint's tomb and bones were discovered in 1942, right where the Catholic Church always said they were.
@@fantasia55 but do you have any Grey Poupon? 🤷🏻♂
@@StitchesLovesRats yes, actually
@fantasia55 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣