How we got the OT Canon: Evidence for the Bible pt11
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ส.ค. 2016
- Why should I think that the Jews got the right books in the Old Testament and what about the Apocrypha?
Recorded live at Thinking Biblically, the Sunday Evening Service at Hosanna Christian Fellowship in Bellflower, CA.
Full "Evidence for the Bible" playlist here: • Has God Spoken? EVIDEN...
2024 and I’m learning😭♥️I’m a lady that’s learning , being taught by God Himself and through y’all to be bold for Christ n share with my "lost" friends, answer questions that they ask. Wow. Glory to God. God bless you Mike❤
2022 checking in. This is still useful information and perspective. Thank you Mike Winger for helping us have a deeper and more meaningful relationship with Christ.
2023 still holds up.
@@t.g.9782ditto 🙏
Here in 2024 😊
He delights in conning the rubes.
I’ve rewatched videos from this series so many times, and it’s the playlist on TH-cam I’ve shared more than any other. Such a help to the saints.
I just started watching you this morning....so many questions you have answered for me and I thank you so much...
God bless you
Thank you for this series, I'm surprised it doesn't have more views.
2023 so relevant. Thanks Mike for all your hard work
Mike enjoys conning the rubes.
@@fantasia55 so your enjoyment comes from making irrelevant comments then?
@@allieoop2908 He knows nothing about early Christianity, but his followers believe him because he lies with such confidence.
@@fantasia55You should debate him!
@@highinfovoter8909 Mike Winger doesn't debate Catholic apologists, prefering his lies to be uncontested.
Thank you, Mike. I'm presenting some info on defense of scripture to a group of Colson alumni in my city (Knoxville TN) and am so happy to have found your series on it. I pray for you and your family each time I watch one.
Hey Mike I truly enjoy ur thorough analysis of Bible teachings. God Bless You❤ keep up the excellent work. 🎉🎉🎉
If like me you would like to have his notes, here are the notes I took from this teaching. (Like this comment for people to see it at the top). I put the Scriptures references in full and from the NIV and gave his sources when I found them. I have added just a few notes.
How we got the OT Canon: Evidence for the Bible (part 11)
By Mike Winger
How do we know we have the right books in the Bible ?
This teaching will look at the Old Testament
Canon = greek word = kanon = a measuring stick
The books that God inspired. Rule for judging everything else as true or false.
The Bible = means The Book
The historical critical school = group of scholar that focuses on looking at the OT and the NT and looks at how historically these canons develop
They love the idea of the rejected books, the lost books of the Bible, the hidden books of the Bible etc. They love to make documentaries about that.
They (the historical critical school) tend to be the ones interviewed on these programmes. They always assure the latest date for the canons. They are very critical of the Bible.
Philosophical assumptions : they assume there is no such thing as a real, genuine canon.
Therefore they think there is no actual list of books inspired by God.
Most important point : When did the Christian canon start to exist?
Critical school says it is in the 4th century or the 15th century.
The answer is one at a time when they were written, because it is inspired by God.
The OT and the NT linked. Double confirmation. Prophecies in the OT that are fulfilled in the NT.
Is our OT list right?
Outline of the OT : 39 books. 40 plus different authors. Written over a thousand years period of time. Moses’ books were written about 1400 BC and the youngest written about 400 BC.
NT is different. Written in 70 years or less.
3 sections in our OT (the Hebrew Bible, they count their Bible differently than us, merge some books together; 22 to 24 books, but the same content as the 39 books of the Christian OT. Same as modern and ancient jews) : The Law, the Prophets & the Writings.
Fragmented history for the OT (more details for the NT). More difficult to follow the history of the OT. What we don’t have is a Davinci Code like canonisation.
Organic reception of the OT. Not by councils. Evidence for this in the text itself. The Torah was accepted right away. Moses was an approved messenger of God. Joshua as well and his writings were accepted as Scriptures right away too.
Joshua 24 : “26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord.
27 “See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.”
It proves that it wasn’t orally transmitted, through memorizing it. But it is not what it says, they wrote the things God said immediately.
1 Samuel 10:25 “Samuel explained to the people the rights and duties of kingship. He wrote them down on a scroll and deposited it before the Lord. Then Samuel dismissed the people to go to their own homes.”
The book of Daniel gives us more information on this. Daniel had a copy of Moses and the Prophets. And he specifically mentions Jeremiah by name. Jeremiah was only 70 years prior.
Daniel 9:2 “In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.
Daniel 9:11 “ All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.
“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you.”
So Jeremiah was an approved Prophet and his writing had already been stored up, only 70 years later.
So several of the Prophets are supported not only here, but in Kings and Chronicles.
Plus the prophets mention each other.
So they were received as they were written.
A few principles involved in adopting OT books or allowing a person to speak with authority. Given at the beginning of the OT.
The prophetic test
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 : “You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.”
Needed Short term prophecy and long term prophecy for confirmation
Consistency test
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.”
The prophecies must be consistent to what has already been prophesied.
This is the opposite of any cultish group, which embraces ‘new revelation’, but new truth can’t disagree with old truth. You can’t overrule God’s truth with a new one.
Isaiah 8:20 “Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”
That’s why Jesus says He didn’t come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law.
It shows the acceptance of a written word, and the authority of previous scriptures over any new revelation. A death blow to the idea of any sort of group saying they have authority over the Bible.
The Prophets were verified not to us, we were not there, but to the people of Israel from whom we inherited the Scriptures of the OT
We don’t know exactly why and how each book was fully accepted. It is possible the Israelites knew more about the context of these books than us. Hence, they gave us the Scriptures as Romans 3 says.
The end of the OT
In the time btw Malachi (about 400 BC) and Jesus, something happened where Israel had the full canon of the OT, but also they felt that it was finished, it was closed. That the Scriptures had ended. God had stopped speaking. That God stopped speaking after the building of the second temple. A few reasons why we believe that :
1.From 1 AD BC (about 200 BC), in Sirach, in the prologue of this book, we have references, 3 times, to the 3 sections of the OT. The 3 sections = the Jewish canon. So it seems the canon existed well before Christ showed up.
Here are the three times it's referred to in the first chapter of the book of Sirach :
Sirach 1 : "1Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets 2 and the others[a] that followed them, 3 and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom.” => The Three sections of the OT
“8 to the reading of the Law 9 and the Prophets 10 and the other books of our ancestors”
“23 Not only this book, 24 but even the Law itself, the Prophets,[c] 25 and the rest of the books”
=> So we see the people at the time (even before, he mentions his grandfather) had the OT and it was already divided in 3 sections.
2. Josephus, a first century Jewish roman historian. He said that after Artisix Caesar (?) time there were good writings but nothing of the same quality or level as the prophetic OT writings. That means after Malachi’s time. Plus he gave the same number of OT books as the modern jews have today.
3. When Jesus arrives, the OT is seen as inspired, as being the Word of God. Jesus and the disciples constantly refer to the OT Scriptures as the Word of God and Jesus constantly says to the Pharisees, “it is not written?”
John 10:34 : “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[from Psalm 82:6]?
Matthew 19:34 : “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’’ (he quotes from Genesis)
Matthew 12:3-4 : “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.” (he speaks of 1 Samuel 21)
And many other times, Jesus quotes the OT Scriptures to the jewish religious leaders.
And he quotes from all over the OT. But he never quotes from books that are not part of the OT. And the jews he argues with never challenge him on that. They debate Scriptures but they never tell him “wait a minute, that’s not Scripture”. They agreed on what was Scriptures.
The OT is quoted about 300 times in the NT, not just mentioned but quoted saying things like ‘it is written”, “as God says”, “the Word of the Lord” etc.
Jesus affirms the OT books in a few different places.
Matthew 23:35 Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and he says : “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”
First martyr or the OT : Abel => from Genesis
Last martyr of the OT : Zechariah => his stoning is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:17-25, the prophet Zechariah who wrote the book of Zechariah. Last prophet murdered recorded in the OT.
Jesus doesn’t mention any of the Maccabeus martyrs (some of the books of the Maccabees are considered canonical by the Catholic Church).
Jesus holds them all accountable to a known canon of Scriptures and nobody argues with him about that.
4.The jews, before the time of Christ, knew the canon was done and they were waiting for something big to happen. We read it in 1 Maccabees 9:27 (this is not part of the jewish canon but part of the apocrypha, the Catholic canon, you will find it in the Jerusalem Bible) : “So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them.”
Maccabees, writing about 150 BC, is saying that it’s an accepted fact that the prophets were no longer appearing to Israel. It was understood and known by the jews at the time that God wasn’t speaking through the prophets anymore. And they were waiting for it, for something big, but nothing had happened yet. So we can’t really say Maccabees was a prophet speaking from God when he himself says the prophets had ceased to appear among the people of God, and wasn’t identifying himself as a prophet.
Thank you for all this!
Mike, I enjoy your videos. If I were not a preacher in Nashville, TN I would love to be part of your fellowship. Great job, well researched, very well articulated with genuine humility.
why let a title hinder you....find a place, that the truth is being proclaimed, and go....
@@philipbuckley759 because he has a job as a pastor to stay where he is and preach the word of God where it is needed which is everywhere. Imagine if instead of becoming a pastor, everyone who goes to seminary goes to California to attend John McArthur's church. What good is a hundred pastors always gathering in a single place.
Excellent! So happy that I was led to your channel 🙏
Such helpful and articulate teaching, as always. Thanks Pastor Mike
the way you said "the lost book of the bible"😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And Mike found them!! ...in his attic!!😂😂😂
This is really good. Thank you!
Thank you for your Bible teachings!
Another aspect of the OT writers and the people of Israel is that they were ALWAYS a literary people. THe modern "evolutionary" idea is that the earlier people were less literate, more ignorant, unscientific and thus "less reliable" or "less worthy" - not to be trusted.
Thank you, Pastor. You are a Shepherd of the Flock.
Thank you so much. God bless you
Thank you pastor Winger!
Mike, thank you for your exposition of the Word. God bless you and your family.
Great teaching. Thank you!
BIBLE CANON (Definition, Origins of Canon, Scholarly Context)
0:30 - Canon (Definition / Word Meaning)
1:25 - The Historical School / Critics of the Canon
3:25 - True Canon vs. Scholarly Canon (When did the true Canon first Exist?)
7:05 - Affirmation of Prophecy vs. The Critical School
OLD TESTAMENT CANON / AUTHORITY
10:26 - Internal Authority of the Old Testament
24:32 - External Evidence for Old Testament Canon
APOCRYPHA / THE LOST BOOKS (Differences in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Canons)
32:50 - Understanding the Apocrypha and it's issues
43:15 - Why did the Catholic leaders add the Apocrypha? (Council of Trent)
CONCLUSION / SUMMARY
45:56 - Going over all the content
Mike is a great teacher!
I thanks God he gave him to us
God Bless you and give you more wisdom to protest the truth of the bible as a holy spirit inspired word of God
Hey I am a tenth grade student and I had to write a paper on the process of canonization and also highlight why, how, and when books were considered apocryphal by church communities and I searched SO many sources but yours was very helpful so thanks so muh!
sounds like you are an AP student...I am amazed you have found no resources....
Hey there! I love your channel, don’t always see eye to eye, but appreciate your love for the Scriptures 😊! I was wondering if you could list refrences under your videos, so that I could do more research of these topics on my own! I know you usually go straight to the Bible, but we all approach biblical analysis through some framework. I would love to read those primary sources! Thanks again for all that you do 😁
Just something interesting: Though the Eastern Orthodox Bible does contain the apocrypha, the couple I've seen had a note that they were not considered canon. I think one even called the section "non-canon books" or something (it was in another language) I don't know if this differs between Orthodox churches depending on the nationality, and I'm not sure if most Orthodox people notice it or think anything of it. I still believe the books shouldn't be in there as their influence becomes clear in Orthodox practices, but I just thought it was interesting that they know they're not canon yet they keep them in their Bible and take things from them. I also wonder if the same note is in the Catholic OT
God bless you, Make more of these
Awesome information. I’m blown away by your teachings.
A- . Was hoping to hear more about Enoch and jasher
they have never been included in the Jewish canon. They aren't canon. Jasher is not the Book of Jasher described in the Bible.
This is gold, thank you
fool's gold
Hey mike thank you for spreading GODS TRUTH and GOD BLESS you and your family im reading my Bible lol i know i should have a loooooong time ago but just something about how i think GOD use's you just please keep being you dont change lol i dont know maybe i just thought u needed 2 hear this . And im a 37yr black man and i still understand you so dont change your message from GODS word for anybody you are very understandable if thats a word lol like you say Just READ THE Bible if anybody thinks your making this up . Ok iv went on wayy longer than expected oh and thanks for help with how i should love my wife if i would have READ THE Bible GOD HAD ALREADY TOLD ME BUT AFTER 16YEARS YOU TOLD ME WHERE TO FIND IT LOL
like I said...at a certain point, in time...one has to cut loose the skeptics...
Just to make sure i understood correctly
Cannonizing the bible is a mixture
1. Its cannon when its written
2. A prophet must prove himself by prophesying and it being true (he will be stoned if not)
3. That prophet must agree with previous scripture
4. The books must reference each past book in some way for example jesus saying "you know it to be written"
5. The tabernacle
Hi Mike, what do you think of Ivan Panin’s Bible Numerics as mathematical evidence for the Bible’s divine inspiration?
Hello sir mike/pastor mike, you've mentioned that you have a lot of microsoft word teaching materials/or any teaching materials that you have. Could there be a possibility that I can have a copy of your materials? I do not have any negative intentions or anything, I am from the philippines and I desire that i can obtain even a small portion of your knowledge/wisdom according to biblical truths and facts and along with historical facts and truths. If you may only sir. I wanted to learn. Thank you.
Also, the OT canon did not include what was clearly commentary and teaching material (Mishnah, Gemara and Talmud).
Mike. You are creating dispels for Christ. I was saved after binging watching your TH-cam videos.. then listening to a ton of them on Spotify. I had a vision right when I said “I’m just gonna work for the lord” then boom.. had a vision of what I think was the Holy Spirit going into a red human heart. Looking through the blue mist/vapor/fog at a red heart I say the color purple… maybe that’s why purple is the color of kings. It’s the Holy Spirit and a red heart
Thank you Mr. Winger for this video. I enjoyed it and would like to dig deeper into the information you shared. Can you share your references with us?
Mike Winger is making it up as he goes.
Mike, the Genesis stories (Adam and eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc.) were most likely orally transmitted until Moses wrote them down. How else would Moses have known about their ancestors before meeting God? How would the Hebrews in Egypt know who they were without knowing of their origins? It doesn't mean the writing of Genesis wasn't inspired, but if these events truly happened, there had to have been some oral transmission, no?
Someone answer : ) please
I'd agree with some of that. But you have to take into account that Moses is a major prophet. Meaning God could just show him what happened through visions. Moses also spoke often with God. So it's also possible God just told him what happened.
There is a theory that says that Genesis was originally 10 books that were eye witness accounts that were redacted (merged into one) by Moses. Not sure if that's actually true, but I think it's interesting. The oral tradition theory makes sense too.
"How else would Moses have known about their ancestors before meeting God?"
God gave Moses visions and dreams about the 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. This is how Moses knew about them.
@@gnhman1878yes
If we have a question for Mike how do we get it to him?
I know he does live chats and answers questions that way
Can you please add (automatic) subtitles?
Nice
@7:14 I agree that the OT was not transmitted orally. How else do you explain the Jews forgetting The Law when it was lost. See 2 Chon 34:14-28
Mike, I believe you said that Jeremiah was about 70 years before Daniel? Jeremiah and Daniel lived at the same time but Daniel lived to be very old so by the time he wrote Daniel 9 Jeremiah's 70 year prophecy was up. I was wondering do you know why the book of Daniel is not included in the prophets section of the old testament?
because Daniel's job was a Public Official of Babylon and Persian empire not a prophet as Jeremiah or Isaiah but he had gift for prophecy
@@siyamanci2596 Being prophet is not a job title. It's rather that Daniel did not publically prophesy or preach (as th other major prophets) but rather interpreted dreams and had visions and also (unlike Jeremiah or Isaiah). H also didn't return to the Holy Land.
"Jeremiah and Daniel lived at the same time" - Yes, they shared several years. But during these years Daniel was very young and Jeremiah was already old.
I love you're ministry! I do have to make a comment about this sermon/lecture with a question. At 41:40 you say if they say it is written which is a key to being recognized as scripture. Then you say it never happens where they quote from a book not in the Canon using thus saith the LORD or it is written.. But it did happen. In Joshua and 2 Samuel: and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:, And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? Further the names of the Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses cannot be found in any old testament book.
"It is written" is different from "it is written in this book". "It is written" refers to the accepted canon.
+ Mike winger
Could you please provide a source about Josephus stopping new copies of the Old Testament and new books from entering the Temple please?
I didn't say that. The point you are probably referring to is where there is record that new books were not being added to those laid up in the Temple. That is from Tosephta as quoted and analyzed in Roger Bewith's "The OT Canon and the NT Church" pages 85-86.
+Mike Winger
Oh sorry I miss heard you. thanks for replying
You're welcome!
Hey there! I just wrote this in another comment above but am technologically uninclined and don’t know how to tag you 😂. I love your channel, don’t always see eye to eye, but appreciate your love for the Scriptures 😊! I was wondering if you could list more of your resources under your videos, so that I could do more research of these topics on my own! I know you usually go straight to the Bible, but we all approach biblical analysis through some framework. I would love to read those primary sources! Thanks again for all that you do 😁
From what I have found, the bible is the only place where we will find a Creator God speaking in the first person... this is consistent with the challenge of Deut 4 to search from the beginning of the day God put man on earth, from one end of the earth to another to see if God has spoken to another people.. and God's assertion in Isaiah 48:11 and 42:8 "I am the Lord.. I will *NOT* share my glory with another".. no other creators on record to glorify is nothing to scoff at, the next closest thing to "glorify" for creation is a big bang.. not a small detail to over look.
Mike can you discuss how we reconcile the fact that Jesus alludes to siarach ?
You’re begging the question that Jesus in fact alluded to Sirach. Can you cite the verse you want reconciled?
How do you know it's not God's plan to have the bible that's enough for salvation but that there could be more? People have individual experiences, those aren't in the bible. What about the books referred to that sound like scripture in the old testament? What about Jude quoting the book of Enoch so exactly saying it's prophecy? I think there are levels of truth. I wouldn't be so quick to throw out Enoch. It's not necessary for salvation, but it could be the Word of God and true. The epistle of Barnabas didn't feel heretical to me either. Felt a lot like the new testament.
Jerome did not translate the LXX into Latin - the Vulgate was translated from the Hebrew.
The Vulgate Old Testament texts that were translated from the Greek, whether by Jerome or preserving revised or unrevised Old Latin versions, are early and important secondary witnesses to the Septuagint.
@@theicelandicfamily Sorry, but that's wrong. Jerome did translate many books from Hebrew. Of course, as always when there's a preexisting translation avaiable, lines between translating from Hebrew and revising on the basis of Hebrew become blurred. But it's not different to Luther's translation that while boasting translation from Greek often had recourse to the Vulgate as well.
32:00 If scripture is supposed to make your hands unclean and they were discussing if certain books did or did not make your hands unclean, doesn't that mean they were discussing if those books belong in the canon?
I'm a Christian, just looking for clarification.
hmmm...what does this mean...
Yes, Apostle Paul, it means exactly that. Of course, this contradicts Mike's argument and so he tries to get around this to by referring to the expression used by the Rabbinical debates.
Hello Mike, thanks so much for the work you do for the kingdom of God. I'd like to ask a question based on a book I read sometime ago, "The Gift of The Jews," written by Thomas Cahill, who claims to be a historian. In the book, he claimed that the Hebrew language used in writing the bible was developed about a thousand years ago and so the writings in the bible could not have been written by Moses and those other authors prior to King David they are popularly ascribed to. Can you please clear this? Thanks and God bless you.
Well, the Masoretic Text (a text of the OT) was made ~1000 years ago, yet most bibles are translated from it.
@@joseg.solano1891 what then is the source of the Masoretic text? For you to have a transition, there must be prior text from which a translation is derived.
@@johnagbons2977 They apparently looked at variants during their time
That's been a popular claim of many "scholars" but the new Curse Tablet discovered earlier this year has proven those scholars wrong by dating all the way back to Joshua's time
Hi Mike. I have a little issue. I did bring it up in another video, but I appreciate that you are very busy and can only reply to a small number of comments. The issue I have is with the names from Adam to Noah pointing to the Gospel. I used to really like this, but I watched a video by Michael Heiser, who pointed out that this paradigm doesn't really work in Hebrew, only English. Do you have any thoughts on this? I would love to hear the two of you have a conversation about this. You are the two 'Mikes' that I like to listen to for my Bible study. Great videos by the way. Keep up the good fight and God bless you brother.
Dr Michael Brown talked about this. I don’t think it’s important. Cool if it’s true, doesn’t shake me whatsoever if it isn’t.
You mention the "historical critical school" as a group of people. I can't seen to find any information about them online. Does the organization have a website?
It's not an "organization" but pretty much the mainstream of academic biblical scholarship. Obviously, there is quite a spectrum of opinions among historical-critical bible scholars.
+Mike Winger What about the book of Enoch? I was hoping to hear your thoughts on it..
Hi Bryce, at the moment I don’t think I have enough thoughts to do something on the book of Enoch. My short answer is that I don’t think it was considered scripture by Jesus.
@@MikeWinger Many assume there was a book of Enoch, since Jude quotes Enoch, however, he mentions no book. It may be that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Enoch (who walked with God before the Flood) also revealed to Jude what Enoch had prophecied. Jude needed no book to quote since the Holy Spirit guided him. Another idea is that even IF there was a book of Enoch, it might have perished in the flood. The Greek work that goes by that title was written way to late to be real. If it were real, it would be the oldest book.
@@christophiluslovingchristb5441 There was certainly a book of Enoch in the first century bc, but it may have been only small portion of what is known today as "the book of Enoch."
1 Enoch is actually 5 books combined, and the 1st book/section was present among the dead sea scrolls, and this first section happens to be the one that includes the line from Jude.
Remember. Enoch lived way before the flood. The original book would have been written in a prediluvian language, something for which we would not even have a Rosetta stone to decifer. Many in the past would give man-made work impressive titles to make inauthentic works appear so. Jude was guided by the Holy Spirit to guote Enoch. He needed no book & mentions none.
@@christophiluslovingchristb5441 I didn't say that the actual Enoch wrote the book.
You said "Many assume there was a book of Enoch, because Jude quotes Enoch, but he doesn't mention any book."
Well, they aren't assuming, because there was a "book of Enoch" in circulation at that time that was popular amongst both the Jews and the early church.
We know this for certain. We also know that this book, available in 1st century Judea contained the quote found in Jude. The quote is found in the very beginning of the book.
In what nation was the promise that God gave to Abraham fulfilled and how?
Seems like a trick question a Pharisee would ask Jesus
Serious question for Mike: You said the books are the books and that is true. You said there is no conspiracy to change the word, and there are mountains of evidence to prove that. There is evidence however proven by 7 witnesses, a few can be disputed as being one, that witness being itself, that the mesaretic text has alterations in it that alters timelines in the old testament to give a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the events. Examples being: in the mesaretic shem lives long enough to see abraham and giving rise to the claims that shem is melchizedek because the ages in the lineage are off by 100 years each, creating a 650ish year difference that is represented in the septuagint, samaritan pentateuch, and josephus. The other example is the number of families from the tower of babbel being 75 explained by the septuagint Steven and the Dead Sea scrolls that predate Jesus, but the mesaretic says 70. Jesus quoting Isaiah yet one of his phrases in the quote is not in the mesaretic but is in the septuagint and the samaritan pentateuch. My question is, and I'm not sure how to ask it properly: would it be possible that Paul was acknowledging this new altered copy when he was saying dont argue about genealogy? Couldnt this be a situation where there was an alteration at as early as it gets that the Jews knew who Jesus was and tried to remove the validity of Jesus, and failed and God is bringing it to light? Would there then be validity to some writings that would be considered not-inspired because of the alteration if they lined up with septuagint and not mesaretic? This would clearly make the writings of Jasher, which is still referenced in the KJV, inert because part of the story is that shem knew abraham? Can you respond with how can this be examined to still prove the validity of the bible for those who are skeptical from the outside looking in?
The LXX is a better translation over the Masoretic based English Bibles that most Christians have. I use the LXX because I want to use the closest version that Jesus and the Apostol's used.
@@dlbard1 your fundamental assumptions are flawed, considering that the Masoretic isn't a "translation" at all and therefore cannot be a worse translation than the LXX
Mike,...I might have a disagreement with your statement that the Canon began to exist as the books were written. My thought is in two parts: 1. God knows everything before it happens, therefore He knew what would be written in each book before it was written...and, He knew in advance which books would ultimately be Canonized. The words of each book, the divisions of each book, the author(s) of each book existed in God’s mind before the earth was ever formed. Therefore, the Canon existed before man.🤗
That takes faith!
Basically Mike is saying jews just recognized it as scripture, what about edits? was hoping he could answer the title.
"Now let's go worship the Bunny King!".....lol
The canon of old testamen,...when it happened?.
Who authority is it?
The original people of its,..the jew?....or christian?..
I heard an syrian peshita Old testamen, was their canon is done by the same people innthe same time?...
Or each tradisions make one according to their costum tradision??
The peshitta is the Syrian translation of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. It contains pretty much the same books as the Hebrew/Christian Bible.
Where are the other parts?
My brother turned gnostic. Talking about emerald tablets, the council of nicea. Everyone is god. God is satan. Were can i find good material on this issue? You make great videos. Thanks!
Inspiring philosophy
@@pokemonbacon1237 already checked that. It helped with some stuff ut not all.
have you read about what Nehemiah Gordon found in "the Vatican Junk Box"? fascinating
Still, kind of enigma for me. You have so much of insight in many biblical areas and at the same time make fun of doctrines of grace in spite that they shine through almost every page of the Bible. I would pray for you man.
Doctrine of Grace (capital letters) is a man made theological philosophy.
@@kelvyquayo oh boy...the comments that let me know i hace alto of research to do.
He isn’t making fun of anything. He’s pointing stuff out that isn’t biblical , so of course it’s going to be funny and wrong
How about the book of Enoch. What are your thoughts ?
Hi Rita, the book of Enoch is an apocryphal book, written during the 400 years of the interstamental period , it wasn't written by Enoch, some unknown jew wrote it and named it Enoch. The reason for it to not be considered canonical is bcs of the content it shows, which goes against the biblical text . It appears that the deciple jude brother of Jesus used a verse of Enoch's book in his book ( the book of Jude, New Testament) , where it states: "behold, for thousands of the Lord's saints are coming in the clouds..."
@@matthewscomparin6051 but how do we justify that Jude did quote from Enoch and his quote is actually in the book?
@@ronaldlatchman1268 bcs he just got parts of it whom he chose to insert in his gospel, but it doesn't conflict the scriptures in a whole. But the book of enoch does, yet jude just took a small verse to insert in his gospel, btw they were men, ofc inspired but doesn't mean everything in there is to be considered, we got to see the time around him at that moment, for what public, etc...
Enoch contradicts the Bible and juse just took a line that he could use in his gospel.
ronald latchman a lot of things are quoted in the New Testament that are not from canonical texts. The Oral Torah was quoted, typical modern idioms were quoted. They do not mean their original texts lined up with the rest of Scripture. Jude was most likely using a well known line from Enoch to make his point. Much like Paul used the Roman “unknown god” to make his.
Enoch is pre Bible I think.
Is Harry Potter in the Roman catholic bible?
Lmao thank you for a laugh!
No. But the Wisdom of Solomon, which is in the Catholic Bible, says this:
12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
Think about it
7:29 Ezekiel prophesied the destruction of the city of Tyre in great detail, Daniel prophesied coming kingdoms in order, the rise of Greece and how it would conquer... Prophesies about Jesus...
Daniel gave a timeline of when Jesus would show up, that he would die,
Isaiah gives great detail...
Micah
Psalm
2 Samuel
Who held onto the manuscripts & compiled them all into one book?
Copies were compiled--not the manuscripts compiled.
Compilation happened over time as copies were made.
The entire compilation was available "globally" before the Council of Nicea.
This is overly simplified. What about the books referenced in the Bible but not included in the Bible?
"You study the scriptures and diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very scriptures that testify about me." John 5:39
Does the Apocrypha testify about Christ, not that I've seen.
Some of them do. Read Wisdom of Solomon chapter 2.
@@NathanH83 I’ve read it twice. My question… Who prophesied it?
@@TerryTrowbridge
It’s called Wisdom of Solomon
@@NathanH83 I don’t think so. It was written in Greek hundreds of years after Solomon. The Catholic encyclopedia says someone named Philo, which I don’t recognize. It says be was born 25 BC, so I don’t know if I buy he was a prophet for Christ🤷♂️
@@TerryTrowbridge
It was TRANSLATED into Greek hundreds of years after Solomon. So what? The original was written in Hebrew by Solomon.
“ you found them?!” 🤦♂️😂😂
When was water created according to the Genesis account?
David Ortiz A day is defined by stating that the sun and moon rise and fell.
Same time "the heavens and the Earth", that being "In the beginning"
Paul and the author of Hebrews quoted the Septuagint translation. So it seems they read that translation. What do you think of that?
Only the author of Hebrews does it completely, Paul actually corects the Septuagint in some places with his own better translation. This is a reason why scolars believe the author of Hebrews cannot be Paul and instead must be a gentile because him quoting the Septuagint word by word is understood as him not knowing hebrew.
Around 11 minutes you talked about two different definition of what a canon is. Canon I
1 and canon 2.
I think that language is a little confusing because sometimes 1st and 2nd canon are used to describe the legit Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical.
Why do some date the OT writings back to approximately 2,400 BC?
That makes no sense. Moses was born between 1,300 and 1,600 BC.
Perhaps because of Job
Some say that Origen was the one who translated the Septuagint. It’s strange that even though he was never canonized as a saint, he was remembered.
There are parts in the genealogies in 1Chronicles that are missing in the LXX. And Haman in Esther is said to have been a Macedonian as opposed to the king James as the Agagite.
Gilgal Biblewheel translated the Septuagint (LXX) into what?
By far the most important work of Origen on textual criticism was the Hexapla ("Sixfold"), a massive comparative study of various translations of the Old Testament in six columns:[103] Hebrew, Hebrew in Greek characters, the Septuagint, and the Greek translations of Theodotion (a Jewish scholar from c. 180 AD), Aquila of Sinope (another Jewish scholar from c. 117-138), and Symmachus (an Ebionite scholar from c. 193-211).[103][104] Origen was the first Christian scholar to introduce critical markers to a Biblical text.[105] He marked the Septuagint column of the Hexapla using signs adapted from those used by the textual critics of the Great Library of Alexandria:[105] a passage found in the Septuagint that was not found in the Hebrew text would be marked with an asterisk (*)[105] and a passage that was found in other Greek translations, but not in the Septuagint, would be marked with an obelus (÷).[105]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
Well, it doesn’t mention here but some theorize that it was Origen who wrote the LXX because the story of a pre-Christian LXX seems fabricated. Did the 70 translators translate the entire Old Testament in their chambers and it came out word-by-Word accurate between all their translations?
Claiming that Origen translated the Septuagint (LXX), i.e. translated the Bible into Greek to produce the LXX, is nonsensical. The LXX preceded him by 400 years. Even other Greek translations preceded him.
st r there’s not much evidence as to when the Bible was translated into the LXX. Who were they who translated?
Plus many parts were left untranslated. And some parts were mistranslated. For example Haman in the MSS and the King James was an Agagite whereas in the LXX he was a Macedonian.
Genealogical records from 1Chronicles were left out.
@@gilgalbiblewheel6313 While it might be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment in time, it is clear that Origen didn't do it. The LXX is originally only the Torah - the translation of which is traditionally dated to around 280 BC, the other books came later. (The translators were obviously Jewish.) Some of these translations, most notably, Daniel were later replaced by newer translations. However, given that the New Testament quotes the Old one in the LXX translation, each and every book quoted is therefore proven to have been translated previously, hence centuries before Origen. Also, given that Origen was collating and collecting the text, creating a new translation would have run counter to his purpose.
And then you go off topic and engage a bit in criticizing the LXX. While it is by no means perfect, I have no intention of playing the "LXX bad, MT good" game (or vice versa) - the MT is not unproblematic either. The LXX sometimes has bad translations but it also clearly was based on a different version of the Hebrew text, of which however we today have only a few remains (in the Dead Sea scrolls). There are parts missing in the LXX but there are also whole books missing in the MT.
Of course, Origen is remembered as the greatest Biblical scholar of his day. However, he also was given to speculation and thereby inspired some heretical beliefs, leading to posthumous condemnation. OTOH, he was a martyr of the faith so strictly speaking, he is among the Saints in heaven now.
I think the apostles, including Paul, would be aghast at the thought that a book called the Bible or the Word of God would be created with all its connotations. Taken as face value, this might sound blasphemous. While the subtly is not immediately understood. Because I read and study the 'Bible' diligently and appreciate that we still have copies of some of the letters of the apostles and chronicals of the events of Jesus' life and death (the gospels) and the lives of the apostles and early church (Acts). And when I read the letters of the first apostles or Paul, that is what I'm reading; inspired unstruction from the Holy Spirit through his apostles.
And in regard to the old testament canon, they point to Jesus as the Messiah
But as for a book called the Bible, it is the book that was the scriptural text takien into captivity along with the apostate church, the fulfillment of the shadow which was Israel's captivity with Babylon and the subsequent carrying off of the items of worship from the temple in Jerusalem. Only to be preserved for later generations. Cheers
I was told and always thought the test for a true prophet was that everything must come true and if one mistake then it is false prophet.
i think that comes from Deutronomy 18:22
Yes, that is one test of a prophet,the second is "do they teach according to the word",if their teaching isn't biblical (correctly exegeted) then they are a false teacher.... for example , Jehovah's witnesses teach that Jesus is "a god"John 1:1 NWT not God ,the actual reliable manuscripts that reputable scholars and translators agree on doesn't have the article "a" in John 1:1 where it says "God was the word"....so jw's add the article "a"to fit their false teaching about "Jesus isn't God".....and they teach a "different Jesus" warned about in the Bible. So jw's are false prophets.....
12:00
Hey
Why is Ester in the Bible?
Because it’s Passover
Purim actually
Just like law in Arabic qanon
The problem with this video is that what is taught is not sustainable and here is why. Although he deals with history he doesn’t deal with all of the history at the end of the video he starts to mention the Septuagint what he fails to mention is that the Septuagint is the Greek translation in attic Greek that was compiled in Alexandria around 300 BC and that it contained the apocrypha and when Jesus was quoting scripture it would have been from the Septuagint and if it was good enough for him it surely must be good enough for us.
Now whether they are inspired or not that is debateable and has been for a very long time however it had always remained in the bible until the reformation. Now the catholic church has never said whether they are God inspired or not but merely that they belong in the bible. The reason for that is that they are historical books and they give us insight in to customs traditions and how the people of the time would have understood things in order for the correct interpretation of scripture.
Now as to these books being added at the council of Trent there are several issues with that and that is that all bibles till then had included those books further evidence to that is in the orthodox church that have those books as well and they do not recognise any of the councils as legitimate after 787 AD and that includes the council of Trent in 1545 AD and indicates that the catholic church did not ad them but rather clarified what was already believed to be true by the church and by the way the same is true for the Catholic teaching on Mary in regards to Trent since the orthodox church believes the same as the catholic church. Now you can even find them in the earlier versions of the king James bible and then later they were taken out of position and added either to the front or the back of the bible with the description of them being similar to what i had explained. And then over a period of time they completely disappeared from the bible with the development of the idea of sola sciptura and that if a book was not god breathed that it didn’t belong in the bible.
Now the problem with this is that if you understand that the bible was compiled not written by the church in order to assist with “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 timmothy 3:16) in the church as it says in scripture, and that the church of the living God, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. As found in verse 15 where timothy is instructed as a bishop on how to do things, and that the bible was not intended to be a standalone authority in its self to be used by non believers so that they can become believers because of misinterpretation resulting in heresy’s like the Arian heresy at the time then what this man is teaching is incorrect and falls. Not to mention the historical errors or the deliberate exclusion of certain historical facts.
For anyone reading this now there's 2 major problems with it.
First is that just because Jesus was quoting in Greek, doesn't mean the septuigent is correct in having the additional books. Jesus likly taught in Greek primarily because it was the most widespread language at the time. Not because it was "more correct" or anything like that.
The other issue with this man's assertions on how cannon is determined, and if it is the sole authority, and what not, is that scripture itself claims that all scripture is God breathed. Which is a poetic way at the time as saying provided by God. So in other words al scripture is inspired by God.
So therefore any writtings we find that are determined not to be god inspired obviously don't belong in scripture, irregardless of how historically helpfull they are. They can't be considered scripture.
To your last paragraph, after how many years since the bible was compiled by decision of whom and to what end other than to suite his own theology, and remember that this same person also attempted to remove several new testament books namely Hebrews James Jude and Revelations because they conflicted with his theology of faith and faith alone and certainty of salvation. @@anthonypolonkay2681
The problem with your two problems are that the septuigent was excepted by Jesus him self as that is what he quoted from in his teachings on scripture referring to such, and remained excepted as such for around 1500 years until a certain person came along and changed it to suite his own theology of faith and faith alone and wanting certainty of salvation. He also tried to remove several books from the new testament namely Hebrews James Jude and Revelations because they where in conflict with his theology. And so produced the protestant bible as we know it today. @@anthonypolonkay2681
I would even say Esther is prophetic because it’s a picture of Christ who was to come.
If prophecy of Christ is the requirement, then Wisdom of Sirach should be in the canon
@@ConciseCabbage You mix up the concept of "requirement" (a necessary condition) and "should be" (a sufficient condition). Regardless, Justin never called picturing Christ to be a necessary or a sufficient condition for canonicity. My pastors picture Christ every Sunday, but their sermons don't end up in my Bible.
@@winstonlevin7650 12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
@@ConciseCabbage That prophecy is absolutely spine chilling. And based on the New Testament directly taking certain phrases from the Septuagint, which had all deuterocanonical books tells me exactly what Jesus considered Canon.
Bunny king?
It was a joke
Actually The Deuterocanon was part of theOld Testament before the Council of Trent.
The two Councils of Carthage in 397 an 419 canonized the the Bible, which included the Deuterocanon.
All Trent did was ratifying what was already said because the reformers denied that the Deuterocanon was inspired and removed them.
The Deuterocanon was ALWAYS part of the Christian Old Testament. Of course you are correct that the Council of Trent merely defined as a dogma the canon already recognized by the councils you mentioned. Disputes in the 3rd and 4th century always revolved around New Testament books, especially Hebrews (controversial in the West) and Revelation (controversial in the East). Luther also tried to throw out these two books (despite using them in polemics) alongside the Letters of James and Jude.
To think that the KJ1611 bible has those books plus all the Saints day at the beginning of their bible...
606
The Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 (CEB)
12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars book 7.
« Vercingetorix said. This war was not for my own glory but for the salvation of the nation. Therefore, either kill me yourself or hand me out to be surrendered to the Romans. And so, it may be Caesar’s anger will be appeased against you. »
While your exploration of the New Testament canon is most impressive, Mike, your insistence that the so-called books of Moses were personally written by Moses is puzzling.
There are clear indications to the contrary, particularly where the death of Moses is described.
Your approach is inconsistent with what I learned as a biblical studies major.
I make these remarks as a convinced believer in the message contained in the Old Testament and the divine inspiration behind it.
All you can say about those parts of the Torah is that those parts of the Torah weren’t written by Moses. You can’t expound that to the entire text just because the last couple verses of Deuteronomy aren’t written by him.
the New Testament was talked in Hebrew the NT read in greek the written word of that day
He has social media, you could dm him
From my understanding it was King James and not the Catholic Church who orchestrated the first Bible which had 80 books in it which include the Apocrypha . Martin Luther also was one of the people who was trying to have the bible translated from Latin into English in other languages so people could read it so people could understand the Hebrew scriptures not Jewish scriptures but Hebrew scriptures
The Ethiopian Orthodox church has Enoch and Jubilees as canon
Mike Winger either does not understand the Catholic concept of defining dogma or he misrepresents despite better knowledge. Definitions do not create dogma from nothing, they recognize, sometimes formulate what is already believed, elevating it into a dogma of the faith.
it would be interesting, and perhaps informative...for some examples...to explain your message...
@@philipbuckley759 Sentences like 35:49 "There was a belief at the time of Trent that the Catholic Church could actually make Scripture by declaring it Scripture". That is indeed irrational and it is not (and never been) a Catholic view. When the Church defines a dogma it merely formulates an already existing belief. It never creates a new belief. When the Church defined Trinitarian doctrine in the 4th century (councils of Nicea and Constantinople) it did not create it out of thin air but decided on terminology to best formulate the orthodox Christian doctrine. The result was distinguishing between terms like ousia (substance) and hypostasis (person). [The same goes for the discussion of Christology: physis/nature vs. proposon/person in the 5th century.] The beliefs were there but the terminology wasn't clear. As a dogma, the terminology is now set in stone. It can be built upon (as 5th century Christology builds on 4th Trinitarian doctrine) but not set aside again without throwing the whole of the Christian faith aside.
He then later goes on to claim that the "Catholic Apocrypha weren't officially added" to the Bible in April 1546. He is at least implying that the books weren't in the Bible until that date. Which is false. The books have always been in the Christian Bible and the Biblical canon had been discussed in earlier centuries, including local Council decisions in the later 4th century (Mike mentions Hippo and Carthage, there's also Laocidea in the East). The Council of Trent merely made the canon a dogma, i.e. it could no longer be changed inside the Crhstian faith. Mike wrongly equates "officially added" with "dogmatically defined": nothing was added, the existing canon was merely set in stone.
He is right that this was done in defense against the Reformation. The Church was defending the already existing canon against the attempts of Luther to chuck books out of the Old and New Testament (Luther in the end succeeded in Protestantism with his OT canon, not his NT canon). It was not the Church who wanted to add books because they confirmed Church doctrine but Luther who wanted to chuck books out because he didn't like them, because he couldn't possible find a way to make them fit his theology. (Not that his theology fit with the books he retained. It certainly didn't.) This was also the way he came up with Sola Scriptura to begin with, but I digress.
He is also wrong about "anathemata". Sure, it means that someone is out of the Church, but it is never applied retroactively. It means if someone from now on holds differently, he's out. That obviously makes sense if you take the first example I gave above: before it was clearly defined what Christians were to understand by the words ousia, hypostasis, physis, proposon, no one could be faulted for saying that Christ had a divine and a human proposon (Nestorius) or Christ was one divine-human physis (Monophysitism). Before the definition the debate was still going on. But once the Church agreed upon how to understand these words, one could longer with impunity understand these words differently.
(Hence Jerome and Pope Gregory - if that's true, I didn't check - or provinvicial councils could hold different views at the time. Note however, that Jerome yielded to the view of the Church. He did not translate the "Apocrypha" because they were in the Septuagint but because the Pope of his day (either Damasus or Siricius) insisted. Even later, Jerome changed his mind completely (Against Rufinus 11,33) and retconned his earlier opposition as giving a voice to possible objections.
A difference between the Trinitarian and Christological debates and those surrounding the canon is of course is that the canon had been settled for centuries without any dogmatic definition until Luther reopened the issue. He also made it much more central due to his Sola Scriptura principle. Before that, the canonical status of, say, Wisdom wasn't a black or white situation. If one deemed it non-canonical, one could still use it as part of tradition - and this is what basically any church father Mike could cite in opposition to these books did; no one rejected these books completely. Even though Luther and the KJV moved the Deuterocanonicals into an appendix, the later development showed what Protestantism meant for these books: either they are fully canonical Scripture or they don't exist at all.
Fact is also that the Church has never been trigger-happy when it came to defining things. With a few recent exceptions, dogmas have always come as a response to a debate and dogmatizes a minumum of assertions. And if you look, for example, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), its declaration of faith only has a few positive statementes "Christ has two natures (physeis), is fully divine and fully human" but then goes on with negative statements: Christ's natures are UNmixed, UNdivided, UNseparate and however says they were mixed, divided, separate is anathemata.
I will not go into Mike's arguments against the "Apocrypha" (Deuterocanonical books) here except for saying he's dealing in double standards. He will not hold the protocanonical books to the same conditions he is here applying to the Deuterocanonical books.
PS. The supposed difference between Hippo, Carthage and Trent concerns two books: Lamentations and Baruch. That can easily be explained if they were subsumed in the Prophet Jeremiah.
PPS. The definition of Trent also merely repeats the list already issued by the Council of Florence a century earlier. The context then was the attempted reunion with the Eastern churches.
@@str.77 the adding of the apocrypha as canon to reunite with the eastern orthodox is bs. They don’t have those books as “canon” neather. They do have them in the Bible and don’t call them apocrypha, but still they are placed separate from the Old and the New Testament in a section called “non-canonical”, and are defined as “not necessary for believers but still good to read”. Also, there are more books in that section then in the catholic Bible. The thing catholics did at Trent was to assert authority and to say that “protestants are wrong because they took books out of the Bible to fit their lies” Those books were highly debated during all of christian history. After the reformation the catholic church had to take an official position regarding those books. The protestants rejected them so they had to embrace them. If there wasn’t for the reformation they would have never been added and would have still be just debated material.
Not even close to how many they put on today which never seen him before the guest for the location from your route even doing that all along all along we can’t be there bCan you even get a red I have to do a theater was just said which is sad is it 1/3 to know you have a name you know that even while I want to hear it with music in dramatization you don’t want to hear it love it love it just won’t read. I hate the other way I always have
Septuagint with the "extra" books were the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles.
Judith tells the story of a Jewish heroine who saves the nation from invasion. It was written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic) by an unknown Jewish author who lived in Israel some time after the Babylonian exile. Jerome used an Aramaic copy of it to make his Vulgate translation of the work. Today it survives only in Greek and Latin copies.
Judith is often charged with making historical errors, which raises the question: What style of literature is it? Is it meant to be an ordinary historical document or something else?
One of the most intriguing possibilities is that Judith is a roman à clef (a real historical person who is written about under alternate names). This literary form, in both the ancient and the modern world, has often been used when someone rich and powerful is being discussed. For example, the 1941 movie Citizen Kane is a roman à clef about newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who recognized the unflattering portrait of himself in the movie and used his media empire in an (unsuccessful) attempt to squelch its box office success.
If Judith is a roman à clef, the original Jewish audience could have figured out the real names of its characters, just as filmgoers in ’41 figured out that the movie character Charles Foster Kane was really Hearst. Unfortunately, at this late date it is difficult for us to do so with the book of Judith.
It is also possible that Judith is an extended parable intended to teach that God will always deliver his people if they are faithful to him (this is the key lesson of the book even if it is not an extended parable).
Whether the book is a roman à clef or an extended parable, this must be communicated to the audience of the book in some way so that they would know they were not reading a piece of ordinary historical writing. If the audience could not have reasonably been expected to know that the work was not ordinary history, then the divine veracity or inspiration of the book could be called into question. It is no surprise then that we find clues in the work that would have told the original readers that it was either a roman à clef or an extended parable. It is these very clues that lead to the charge that Judith contains historical errors.
For example, in 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the king of the Assyrians. “How can we take Judith seriously,” the opponent may ask, “when everybody knows that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians?”
“That is precisely the point,” one may reply. “Everyone, and certainly every literate Jew of the period, knew which nation Nebuchadnezzar ruled. The reason he is presented as king of Assyria in the very first verse of the book is that the author wants to telegraph to his audience, right from the beginning, that they are not reading ordinary historical writing.”
Consider the situation: The book of Judith is about a devout woman named Judith, a name that means the Jewish woman or Lady Jew. She battles a general sent by Nebuchadnezzar-the greatest individual who was an enemy of Israel. He is pictured as the leader of the Assyrians-the nation that was the other great enemy of the people of Israel.
Let’s transpose this into a twentieth-century American context. Judith-Lady Jew-is a female personification of her nation, rather like Lady Liberty might be regarded today. Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest evil individual who fought the nation, would correspond in the twentieth century to someone like Adolph Hitler. The Assyrians, the other great enemy, would correspond to the Soviet Union (which, after the Nazis in World War II, was regarded later in the Cold War as the other great enemy of America).
Now suppose you picked up a book about a conflict between Lady Liberty and a general sent by Adolph Hitler, the premier of the Soviet Union. You would know instantly that what you were reading was not intended to be a historical account but a parable-or at least a cloaked retelling of a historical event.
In the same way, any Jew in the ancient world who read Judith would have known instantly that he was reading a parabolic rather than a historical work. Every ancient Jew knew that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, just as every American today knows that Adolph Hitler was the chancellor of Germany, not the premier of the Soviet Union.
Thus the charge of historical error is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the book’s genre. The supposed “errors” are actually cues to the ancient audience to tell them what kind of literature they were reading.
In addition to the charge of historical error, opponents of the deuterocanonicals also charge the character Judith with the moral fault that she lied to the general Holofernes (cf. 11:5-19) in order to kill him (cf. 13:8).
This is also easy to solve, since it is no different than the other instances in Scripture in which a woman lies in order to save lives. Examples include when the Hebrew midwives lie to Pharaoh to save the baby boys (cf. Ex. 1:15-21), when Rahab lies to save the Hebrew spies (cf. Josh. 2:1-14), or when Jael lies to Sisera in order to save the Israelites by nailing his head to the ground (cf. Judg. 4:17-22).
The same solutions that solve these problems in the protocanonical books will solve any parallels in the deuterocanonical books
You spent a lot of time to present a theological theory that lacks scriptural support
The scripture you are referring to I presume is the bible. I have a question for you what came first scripture or faith? @@PizzaFvngs
Jesus, then faith in Jesus, then scripture, then faith in Jesus from the scriptures.@@theoprt
@@PizzaFvngs Clever way of avoiding the question
Since you still haven't answered the question here it is scripture is a recollection of our faith but not all is contained with in scripture for example the holy trinity scripture eludes to it how ever does not define it. @@PizzaFvngs
I think Book of Enoch quotes Jude, not the other way around, unless Jude was written after 300 AD. "1st Enoch" also mentions Nephilim as being 300 cubits tall... the exact same length as the Ark. 450 feet tall, born of human women? Yet Deuteronomy 3:11 says Og, King of Bashan was between 9 and 13 feet. Yet still, people obsess over that book.
The original 1 Enoch (which was added to later) appears among the dead sea scrolls, meaning at least the opening section which Jude seems to quote predates him
about the Catholics: the New Testament made reference to Tobit and the other books. We are not claiming that the Old Testament was not settled. Without the Catholic Church you don't even know which books are or are not apocryphals in the New Testament.
Except for the fact that it can be known without appealing to Catholic authority. Check the video about the canon of the NT
@@bufficliff8978 no it can't. For real, many disputed the content of the canon on the early days. But I will check your video later.
@@thekingofthings2002 how?