The cross reference to the worker is worthy of his wages would more likely come from Deuteronomy 24 seeing as how Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25 a sentence before. And Luke 10 is also quoting from Deuteronomy 24 and this is not unusual as both Jesus and Paul source the OT occasionally. Using a primary source that should be considered a secondary source is an error here. The evidence in 2 Peter is weak as Peter could have just meant that Paul's writings and scripture are misunderstood. Even the word "scripture" in this context is debatable. Add to it that most Biblical scholars do not believe Peter, himself, wrote this letter but someone from his school of thought much later. And then which letters of Paul are 2 Peter even referring to? While there are some Early Church Fathers that refer to NT writings, they don't press upon the importance of the NT as a whole as if this was determined in the 1st century. This is where Sola Scriptura falls flat because there was not much urgency to form a Biblical canon and Sola Scriptura could not have functioned correctly up until the 4th century. Also, the canon was determined at the Council of Rome in 382.
Why in the world wouldn’t the authors just simply state when, where, and who wrote the damn thing? We write date, name, and purpose for the most banal of things, why wouldn’t a scribe write this very important and relevant data on the extremely painstaking feet of drafting a new copy of “the scripture”? It makes no sense.
Circular argument using the bible to prove the bible.Who decided that the apostolic view are right and not the Gnostic view,that was not divine,that was human political power and persecution
The christians decided that. The people who read them decided that. And now we know that there's no older alternative than the NT. And most things that COULD have entered canon are still available as well as respected as well as read at least by the Orthodox and the Catholics. They are called First and Second Epistles of Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache and Shepherd of Hermas. Another point revisionists such as yourself like to skip (or are unaware) is the fact that gnostics DID read and DID use many NT books, like the four gospels and majority of Pauline epistles. If you actually care and if you're actually interested in this topic you would've found out this, it's not something Vatican is hiding in their basement behind locked doors. PS. Muratorian canon, St. Iraneus, Tertullian, Origen or St. Athanasius aren't Bible or part of Bible, just fyi
If you are not sure of what Gods revelation Is to humanity, go to him in prayer and ask him to reveal himself & what his truth in written form truly is !
@@wesleygordon1645 Pray to the invisible man grow up and get out of your childish dream and face life as a man there is no god its figment of imagination on ignorant bronzage people .wake up and smell the coffee.By the way your truth was written by men and has been doctored by men to fit pure political agenda.
Your bible teaches; the sun and moon rotated around a stationary earth. We live on a circular shaped earth encased in a closed dome called “the firmament” with waters separating our atmosphere and heaven.
Maurice Gibney - 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
@@organicskincare I am no scholar on this subject, but when you listen to the weather forecast tonight or any other, I bet you wouldn't hear anyone say "you can expect the earth to rotate such that the sun be seen on the horizon at about 6am". No, they will say something like "the sun can be expected to rise at about 6am". What I'm getting at is the way we describe things by the way we observe them. That is what we do even today in any literature (except maybe those explaining the observation - scientific textbooks etc), and that is what even the writers of the bible did. The same can be said about the "immovability" of the earth - with regards to us (observers) the earth certainly is immovable and fixed, but I'm even not convinced that the writers were implying the latter argument either. In the context of the texts one can see they are not trying to teach us something about the physical motion of the earth, but rather that the God who made them set them up as is, and no one can alter the mighty works of the Creator. In other words, the writers tries to focus the attention on the Creator, not the creation. Hope it makes sense :) Kind regards
@@charlsmit3490 - that's an interesting theory and I appreciate you chiming in. God's word is filled with direct teachings about who God is, who we are, a picture of a perfect creation, the fall of man, the redemption of man, and sharp details about the end of our age. Biblical words have descriptive meanings and authoritative power. We have to approach biblical statements with a certain literacy that automatically associates a literal meaning or concept. This is how we can trust the word of God with its literal, direct teachings about important doctrinal issues. I believe, that we can trust God's word when it describes the earth. I also believe we can understand the earth's behavior and its surroundings with how the bible describes our earth as a circular, flat plane, fixed on a non-moveable foundation, encased in a closed dome. The sun is the greater light, the moon, the lesser light move while the earth stands still.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock that stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, is the same Church authority that later determined which of the over 75 letters written were to be included in the new testament and which were not. Peace always in Jesus Christ our great and kind God and savior, He whose Flesh is true food and blood true drink
@@paulchambers3279dude believes science is real. Get him away from chemistry books and classrooms. Only skeptics of a subject are allowed to teach said subject. 🤣🤣🤣
@David Ortiz If you are talking about the so-called prophesies in the Old Testament, I disagree. The word messiah only appears twice in the whole Bible, both in Daniel. There is no mention of Jesus.
@David Ortiz he did not ,he if he existed at all was a false messiah as their where hundreds roaming the streets of Galilee and Judea wonder why the jews never accepted him because he never fulfilled the OT prophecies .Your god is fake.
You are taking apocrypha books as inspired books. Jesus is God and is good and doesn't do evil, like doing harm to a fellow boy and then correct his evil. Jesus is God and is Good do not forget.
I think that you misunderstood this lecture. I didn't notice any place where he accepted additional books of the New Testament. He is teaching what could be called, introduction to textural criticism.
Dr.. you said that Jesus was born with the Virgin's Mary DNA, therefore she would have to been born without original sin, because if she had been conceived with with original sin our Lord Jesus Christ would have been born with sin, and He is God and cannot have sin, and since God is God nothing is impossible for him.
It was the perfect seed of God the Father that made Jesus perfect man, or God in the flesh!There is nothing in the scriptures that justifies the Roman Catholic teaching of an "immaculate conception".
The Bible teaches that sin is inherited through Adam, not Eve. It is the man who passed sin to his offspring, not the woman. Simple. And, Eve was NOT sinless, as the Bible makes clear, that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Mary was NO exception. Jesus was the only person without sin because He was not born of an "Adam", but of God.
thank you brother in Christ amen for the teaching
Spot on Sue! Stay blessed and press on in your fulfilling your calling as commanded by our LORD and SAVIOUR. ❤
thank you for posting this - Jesus is King of Kings and always will be !
The cross reference to the worker is worthy of his wages would more likely come from Deuteronomy 24 seeing as how Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25 a sentence before. And Luke 10 is also quoting from Deuteronomy 24 and this is not unusual as both Jesus and Paul source the OT occasionally. Using a primary source that should be considered a secondary source is an error here.
The evidence in 2 Peter is weak as Peter could have just meant that Paul's writings and scripture are misunderstood. Even the word "scripture" in this context is debatable. Add to it that most Biblical scholars do not believe Peter, himself, wrote this letter but someone from his school of thought much later. And then which letters of Paul are 2 Peter even referring to?
While there are some Early Church Fathers that refer to NT writings, they don't press upon the importance of the NT as a whole as if this was determined in the 1st century. This is where Sola Scriptura falls flat because there was not much urgency to form a Biblical canon and Sola Scriptura could not have functioned correctly up until the 4th century. Also, the canon was determined at the Council of Rome in 382.
Why in the world wouldn’t the authors just simply state when, where, and who wrote the damn thing? We write date, name, and purpose for the most banal of things, why wouldn’t a scribe write this very important and relevant data on the extremely painstaking feet of drafting a new copy of “the scripture”? It makes no sense.
Excellent teaching! I'm a retired minister. As I look back, it is sad to know that so few Pastors ever taught on this important subject.
How can a servant ever retire 😂, it was a job then.
People like you and your generation is why the church is so weak and America's immortal.
Circular argument using the bible to prove the bible.Who decided that the apostolic view are right and not the Gnostic view,that was not divine,that was human political power and persecution
The christians decided that. The people who read them decided that. And now we know that there's no older alternative than the NT. And most things that COULD have entered canon are still available as well as respected as well as read at least by the Orthodox and the Catholics. They are called First and Second Epistles of Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache and Shepherd of Hermas.
Another point revisionists such as yourself like to skip (or are unaware) is the fact that gnostics DID read and DID use many NT books, like the four gospels and majority of Pauline epistles. If you actually care and if you're actually interested in this topic you would've found out this, it's not something Vatican is hiding in their basement behind locked doors.
PS. Muratorian canon, St. Iraneus, Tertullian, Origen or St. Athanasius aren't Bible or part of Bible, just fyi
@David Ortiz No it didn't.
If you are not sure of what Gods revelation Is to humanity, go to him in prayer and ask him to reveal himself & what his truth in written form truly is !
@@wesleygordon1645 Pray to the invisible man grow up and get out of your childish dream and face life as a man there is no god its figment of imagination on ignorant bronzage people .wake up and smell the coffee.By the way your truth was written by men and has been doctored by men to fit pure political agenda.
@@mejeanlouis72 So you don’t believe Jesus existed ?!? Was never born? You don’t believe in history. You think it’s a fable?
Your bible teaches; the sun and moon rotated around a stationary earth.
We live on a circular shaped earth encased in a closed dome called “the firmament” with waters separating our atmosphere and heaven.
What verses teaches this?
Maurice Gibney - 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
Maurice Gibney - Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. Ecclesiastes 1:5
@@organicskincare
I am no scholar on this subject, but when you listen to the weather forecast tonight or any other, I bet you wouldn't hear anyone say "you can expect the earth to rotate such that the sun be seen on the horizon at about 6am". No, they will say something like "the sun can be expected to rise at about 6am". What I'm getting at is the way we describe things by the way we observe them. That is what we do even today in any literature (except maybe those explaining the observation - scientific textbooks etc), and that is what even the writers of the bible did. The same can be said about the "immovability" of the earth - with regards to us (observers) the earth certainly is immovable and fixed, but I'm even not convinced that the writers were implying the latter argument either. In the context of the texts one can see they are not trying to teach us something about the physical motion of the earth, but rather that the God who made them set them up as is, and no one can alter the mighty works of the Creator. In other words, the writers tries to focus the attention on the Creator, not the creation.
Hope it makes sense :)
Kind regards
@@charlsmit3490 - that's an interesting theory and I appreciate you chiming in. God's word is filled with direct teachings about who God is, who we are, a picture of a perfect creation, the fall of man, the redemption of man, and sharp details about the end of our age.
Biblical words have descriptive meanings and authoritative power. We have to approach biblical statements with a certain literacy that automatically associates a literal meaning or concept. This is how we can trust the word of God with its literal, direct teachings about important doctrinal issues.
I believe, that we can trust God's word when it describes the earth. I also believe we can understand the earth's behavior and its surroundings with how the bible describes our earth as a circular, flat plane, fixed on a non-moveable foundation, encased in a closed dome. The sun is the greater light, the moon, the lesser light move while the earth stands still.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock that stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, is the same Church authority that later determined which of the over 75 letters written were to be included in the new testament and which were not. Peace always in Jesus Christ our great and kind God and savior, He whose Flesh is true food and blood true drink
This guy believes the Bible is real so he can't teach the book.
I guess math teachers who believe in math should retire as well
@@paulchambers3279dude believes science is real. Get him away from chemistry books and classrooms. Only skeptics of a subject are allowed to teach said subject. 🤣🤣🤣
This man proved nothing and gave a lazy or purposefully omitted presentation
Wonder why he did not mention the apocalypse of Peter since it was once a canon book..
It was not
Why did we need a New Testament ?
What was wrong with the Old one ?
Did God change ?
Maybe the birth of his son calmed him down.
Your'e talking gobbligook!
@David Ortiz
I have read many history books and never came across any prophesies about Jesus.
As a rule, history books do not have prophesies.
@David Ortiz
If you are talking about the so-called prophesies in the Old Testament, I disagree.
The word messiah only appears twice in the whole Bible, both in Daniel.
There is no mention of Jesus.
@@wesleygordon1645
Please explain
@David Ortiz he did not ,he if he existed at all was a false messiah as their where hundreds roaming the streets of Galilee and Judea wonder why the jews never accepted him because he never fulfilled the OT prophecies .Your god is fake.
You are taking apocrypha books as inspired books. Jesus is God and is good and doesn't do evil, like doing harm to a fellow boy and then correct his evil. Jesus is God and is Good do not forget.
I think that you misunderstood this lecture. I didn't notice any place where he accepted additional books of the New Testament. He is teaching what could be called, introduction to textural criticism.
Dr.. you said that Jesus was born with the Virgin's Mary DNA, therefore she would have to been born without original sin, because if she had been conceived with with original sin our Lord Jesus Christ would have been born with sin, and He is God and cannot have sin, and since God is God nothing is impossible for him.
It was the perfect seed of God the Father that made Jesus perfect man, or God in the flesh!There is nothing in the scriptures that justifies the Roman Catholic teaching of an "immaculate conception".
Were both of Mary's parents immaculately conceived? And their parents before them? So on and so on? Where did sin stop getting inherited?
The Bible teaches that sin is inherited through Adam, not Eve. It is the man who passed sin to his offspring, not the woman. Simple. And, Eve was NOT sinless, as the Bible makes clear, that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Mary was NO exception. Jesus was the only person without sin because He was not born of an "Adam", but of God.