They be like Genesis 1:3 "And the BIBLE said, Let there be God...and there was God. And God saw that the BIBLE was good, and He handed them out to all the earth"
He's a scoffer and a rhetorician-- not a scholar, and certainly not a pastor. Just listen to his cross examinations. He almost never answers a question from an opponent. His strategy is to drag out his response, attack the question, etc. It's a rhetorical tactic of someone not remotely interested in convincing opponents of the truth of his position, but, rather, to keep his own side "dug in." It's defensive, not evangelistic. It's a way you convey to "your people" that they better not even think about entertaining the other position, or they're gone.
JW is not a serious scholar, cannot answer simple questions or plain inconsistencies in his beliefs, is not consistently logical or rational, and does not exemplify the fruits of the Spirit, and is not to be taken seriously.
"I would not believe the Scriptures unless the Catholic Church compelled me." [Saint Augustine] Bottom line. There is no other valid argument. Whatever the Jews did after Pentecost is irrelevant. The authority to do such things no longer resided with them. It is passing strange that Protestants will give an almost infallible consent to a group to which they do not belong, and withhold that same consent to a group to which they claim to belong. Very strange indeed.
Why do Catholics keep bringing the protestants into it? Protestants including any other denomination have absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the Holy Bible. What is written in the Bible was all by the inspiration of God". 2 Timothy 3:16. not by the protestants. The reason the protestants broke away from the Catholic Church was that Martin Luther realised that the Catholic church was rejecting what God had inspired and instead, it carried on with its pagan practices and pagan worshipping...Even to this day. Here's a very serious example: First, What is written in the Bible is by the divine inspiration of God. Having said that. But the Ten Commandments God wrote himself on two tablets of stone with his own hand. Now, Go to Exodus 20. And read the Ten Commandments as they were written by God himself on Mt Sinai. Note. Exodus 20:4, the 2nd Commandment. Why did the Catholic Church delete the 2nd Commandment, which God condemns idolatry, and go and do exactly the opposite of what God Commanded his people not to do? "Compare the 2nd Commandment in Ex 20:4 to the 2nd Commandment listed in the Ten Commandments of the Catholic Church"... The Catholic church is polluted to high heaven with idols and images of worship. "Don't try to tell me Catholics don't worship idols, because that's exactly what they do, worship idols" "Even the Catholic Mary is an idol". But then the Catholic Church had the nerve. to split the 9th Commandment in two, one part was to fill the gap left after the genuine 2nd Commandment was deleted, and the other part was left as the 9th. The Sabbath day which is the last day of the week the day God blessed and sanctified Gen 2:3 was also changed to Sunday, the first day of the week, the day the pagans worshipped the Sun...Sunday... The Catholic church even rejected the Ten Commandments, it had to mess around and change what God had written in stone with his own hand. No wonder God branded the Catholic Church as the prostitute, in Revelation 17. The Ten Commandments of the Catholic church are not the Ten Commandments of God but of the Catholic Church.
Catholics commit spiritual idolatry/adulatory and you must not know anything about Spiritual Israel/Gentiles. Hos_2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. Rom_9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. Rom_9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
It was probably a double whammy question in their minds, because they were able to make an argument against the resurrection and against one of the writings they rejected. But by defending the resurrection, Jesus implicitly approves the book of Tobit as inspired writing
@@michaelbeauchamp22 True. The pharisees didn't need to point out a line of 7 brothers if their point was only regarding marriage after the resurrection. 2 brothers would suffice.
And the "brothers and sisters" is clearly explained in cuntural context by Tobit: A man married his "sister" who was a woman from the same tribe. Brothers and sisters of the Lord are those from Gallilee.
Those were the Sadduccees that made the argument, I believe. But other than that, I agree. It is at least an allusion, and at most a quotation from Tobit.
Mrs. White: "James, dear, please take out the garbage." James: "I'm reminded of a debate I had back in 1996, with a Catholic apologist you might have heard of..."
Kruger's book Revisiting the Canon was absolutely horrible. He claimed the scriptures are simply "self-authenticating." He claims that the church just automatically knew what books to include - even though there were disputes, just ignore that. He claims that we can be sure there are only these 66 books because they are beautiful and wise. While I would not argue that the books are not beautiful and wise, that is simply just not an argument proving you have the correct canon. He said it was wrong to appeal to church authority because that is circular logic - but then claims, that while a self-authenticating scripture sounds circular to some - it's just not. Nothing he wrote made sense.
Brilliant Joe. Thank you! The point you made in the last few minutes had come to me a bit earlier: who would a Christian take as authority - those in the apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit or offshoots of Pharisees? It’s a no brainer! Keep praying for misguided Protestants I guess 🙏🙏🙏
I love the way Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” - Matthew 5:17-18
jesus being back the high presit hood they lost at temple zero is proof of that this where he taught because that thing on hill was not finshed till 300 years after his death the jewish people still do not have this presit hood who over see the law
I also love how He said, "He who hears you hears Me" (Luke 10:16) and... "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me" John 5:39
Read Malachi 1-11 (with the emphasis that NATIONS is referring to the entire world NOTthe Jewish nation only) My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations , “says the LORD Almighty!” This is fulfilled at the Mass!
Regarding the White/Madatix Mary meme, Gavin Ortlund has already pinpointed how Marian Devotion is a Roman accretion: Originally the Hail Mary was part of the historic Baptist Faith of St Peter and the Apostles, and it was directed expressly towards God, but the wording was corrupted in the Middle Ages when it was translated into Latin from the original Cherokee
LOL - I don't think they are that stupid. I think that the majority of people know that the "Bible" was created (edited, assembled, put together) by evil, fallen, sinful men - namely the Catholic "church".
@@HAL9000-su1mz Hey, hey, hey - I can live with someone believing the Immaculate Reception wasn't God's Will, but comparisons of Franco to James White are beyond the pale.
@@paulmiller3469 True. People actually liked Franco. Ever watch the Song of Bernadette? I have a special connection to Lourdes. th-cam.com/video/TMeVkz2ALU8/w-d-xo.html
@@alpscraftshack599 Which misunderstandings? The fake rapture is fake? End times prophesies are all fake? The Millerites were wrong? The Jabbering Witnesses have been wrong numerous times? David Koresh and the Branch Adventists were wrong? Marshall Applewhite was wrong? Jim Jones was wrong? Harold Camping was wrong? Scientology is wrong? All dispensationalists are wrong? Every single Bibleist prophesy of the parousia has been wrong? For 100 human generations, the "end time" has been each individual's last breath. That is all we know or need to know. Notice that the Catholic Church is loathe to proclaim false prophecies. Even if she wanted to, the line is too long.
@@alpscraftshack599 We don't hold one specific doctrine about the end times, except the overall Christian basics. Contrary to popular belief, the Church doesn't rule on everything, she only rules on the essentials of the Faith. Yet still in the more serious Catholic scholarship, despite the permitted diversity, you'll have a hard time ever finding the biblically unsupported, mentally deficient insanities that you so often hear in very serious Protestant circles. You won't find any reputable Catholic mentioning anything like the freaking Rapture, that's for sure. None of that taking all Revelations numerology as literal (I'm not sure you could remain sane for long if you hold that and apply it). Some Protestants congregate around one specific error regarding the endtimes. Didn't the Adventists believe the world was to end in the 1920s? Gosh, sometimes they see the end as some exodus to Heaven instead of the redemption of the Cosmos. They sound almost Gnostic when saying that, it's awful. Brothers, Heaven will pass away around the same time as Earth. Instead of believing in the literal Resurrection of the Dead, they may label it metaphorical, like the filthy Sadducees. A literal, fleshy resurrection is a core tenet of Christianity, important enough to be in the Creeds, and every church should mention it at least in passing every Sunday. Common Catholic misconceptions about the endtimes? Dunno, we recite the important bits in every mass so I wouldn't worry about it :)
It's really inconsistent that Kruger repeatedly cites Catholics, no less Catholic Bishops throughout his book - Canon Revisited - as he attempts to weave his narrative in history. He never stops to realize that the setting in the early Church for hearing scripture was on Sunday, at Mass, during the Liturgy of the Word. Priests and Bishops led Christians in proclaiming God's Word, speaking in their homilies to God's Word, and through their words of consecration, transforming the bread and wine into the resurrected body and blood of Christ, a means of receiving his grace. Below are the Catholic Christians he repeatedly cites. None were protestant pastors. None were protestant theologians. On page 265 he writes: _“throughout the early patristric testimony about the canon, the church fathers occasionally acknowledge that a particular book is “disputed’ by some._ Which raises the question to him, not answered in his book, just WHO were these Church Fathers? Seems that he is referring to the men he cited: St. Jerome (Catholic Priest) Origen (Catholic theologian) St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic theologian) Tatian (Catholic apologist) St. Justin Martyr (Catholic apologist) St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic apologist) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) St. Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons) St. Melito of Sardis (Catholic Bishop of Sardis) Tertullian (Catholic apologist) St. Papia (Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) Eusebius of Caesarea (Catholic Bishop of Caesarea) St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Catholic Arch Bishop of Nazianzus) St. Athanasius (Catholic Bishop of Alexandria) St. Augustine (Catholic Bishop of Hippo) St. Polycarp (Catholic Bishop of Smyrna) So to on page 264, Kruger writes. quoting Origen: _“we approve nothing else but that which the Church approves, that is, four Gospels only as proper to be received._ Which raises again the questions, never answered in his book : - what Church specifically was Origen referring to? - who led it? - what authority did they have that nothing else would be approved but by this Church? - where did that authority come from? Without a critical eye, one could be easily duped by Kruger's poorly substantiated canon thesis.
My born again convert sister insisted that I attend a boot camp ran by ex Catholics. On the first hour of the lectures, they proclaimed that the reason Protestants had less Old Testament books is because they followed the Jewish bible. So what better authority. What they neglected to say was that during Jesus's days all the books in the Catholic Old testament books were present. It was decades later that the Jews remade their bible. I knew that these born again converts were doing everything including lying to convert Catholics. I left the boot camp and never looked bak.
Great book: "Where We Got The Bible" by Rev. Henry G. Graham. Places the scriptures in context and identifies the authority which compiled the scriptures, vetted them, and laboriously copied and re-copied them hundreds of times, preserving them for us today. Excellent read. In his earlier life, Rev. Graham "was" a Presbyterian in the Scottish church.
Great video. Paul obviously used Wisdom and Sirach in writing Romans. Only caught portions of presentation, you might have mentioned that as well. Thanks Joe.
Literally as soon as you brought up James White I immediately knew (without having seen the reference) that he was going to talk about a debate in the 90s that he had with Gerry Matatics. White is so predictable and (in the most genuine sense of the term) retrogressive when it comes to the Catholic Church that it defies imagination how people still take him seriously about Catholicism.
I find it fascinating to see biblical references to other documents that seem to not exist today, eg. the chronicles of the kings of Israel, or that of the kings of Judah. I wonder if any existed in Jesus' day at all.
Thanks Joe, as always. I am going back to this video ( Bible in Jesus' Day) after watching your latest release yesterday. I have to reprocess your videos by going back over them, sometimes one after another in order to really unpack the depth of understanding. How interesting that the history of Codex just happens to perfectly parallel the development of the Bible. Logically it totally makes sense. Once you realize that the very concept of moving from a collection of scrolls to a bound codex in and of itself must have taken a few generations. By the time of the early Councils, such as Hippo in 393 AD the transition to a book such as the New Testament representing a complete collection of related manuscripts/books makes sense.
Just as an aside: I could never understand how a Bible commissioned by a King with a predilection for young male courtiers could become the 'standard' for half of Christendom. I mean, I know it doesn't affect the translation, but to put so much stock in a Bible that includes a dedication to a pederast on it's first page - well, even Catholics with all their problems never did _that...._ OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. 😄
@@Cheyajm : Fortunately, not even close to half, even if we exclude Eastern Christians. 😉 I assure you no Christian community from France, Poland, Mexico or Brazil prescribes using KJV. 😅
The KJV - until at least 1769 that I have verified - had all the books. Sure they were in a separate section "Called Apocrypha", but they were on the Table of Contents under the greater heading: The Names and Order of all the Books of the Old and New Testament, with the Number of their Chapters" When cross-references were added, those cross-references to the Deuterocanon still remained for decades after the KJV stopped printing the books themselves.
In regards to the sadduccees poking fun of the resurrection with the story of the woman widowed 7 times, are they also poking fun at and referencing the book of Tobit? In Tobit there’s an example of 7 men being married to a women who all die on their wedding day? I say mocking because they also do believe in angels and the book revolves around the angel Raphael
There was no "Bible" in Jesus' Day. In His day, the 'New Testament' did not exist (had not been written yet), and, the Scriptures that did exist were not called the "Bible". The first canonization, of the "Bible", as we know it today, did not happen until around 380-382 AD. That was also about the time that the Scriptures were first referred to as the "Bible".
The Jews removed the Deuteros when they rejected the New Testament: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira, and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands” Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13 (Rabbi Akiva)
Do you have any show notes? Where we could go back and look up the documents and stuff that you mention. So that we can study further? Thank you. God Bless you and your podcast they have been a blessing in my conversion.
My understanding was that when the Book of Psalms was assembled from the songs that were in use... some of them came from the Northern tribes and some psalms were used in Jerusalem.
Hello, Joe, could you or someone else please answer me two questions? 1. In John 2 it is written that the first miracle Jesus performs is turning water into wine and He's in the presence of His disciples. However, in Luke, it seems to imply that before picking the twelve He had already performed miracles, for example, healing St. Peter's mother-in-law, and that seems to happen before He picks the twelve. Perhaps the disciples mentioned in John 2 aren't necessarily the twelve but I wanted to know your view. 2. John wrote that his mother and him were atbthe foot of the cross. Why would Luke, Mark and Matthew omit such detail and mention other people present, when those are two of the most important people in the life of Jesus? I'd love to know what y'all think. Of course it's hard to put ourselves in the lenses of those people who wrote almost two millenia ago. But these objections come up often. Thank you
For the first point, I'd argue that it just says "Jesus's disciples" and that would just refer to all the disciples he had with him at that point in time. It doesn't say Jesus's Apostles, or the 12 Apostles. Jesus had more disciples than just the apostles, and so the disciples he had with him may not have been all the apostles, and included some who were not apostles. For the second, omissions were not considered big issues even among secular critical scholars. Paper was expensive! I would also argue St. John was the only disciple who was present at the cross. One of the fathers, I believe St. Augustine, said that St. John wrote his gospel later than the other gospels, and did so because he wanted to add important details that the other three evangelists had left out.
@@telstraRobs5 yes, I agree. The synoptics don't mention John or Mary because they were at the foot of the cross, they only mention the disciples that were away from it
Also, John was still quite young and not considered a physical threat by the Roman Authorities. The others were hiding out of fear that they would be next!
On your second point, I have a theory, pure conjecture, of course. If the 3 synoptics are written earlier in time, and John's gospel is the last, closer to the end of the century, consider that while Matthew, Luke, and Mark are written, there is extremely heavy persecution of Christians, esp. by the Jews. Jewish authorities are rounding them up and killing them, the Roman persecution picks up a little later. One of, if not THE key message, of the gospels is the DEATH and resurrection. There are hundreds of witnesses who saw him after he resurrected, so they can't kill all of them. But what if they could spread the "fake news" that he didn't actually die, that they just thought he was dead and he recovered and faked being resurrected, nothing to see here, just a charlatan. Who is the only apostle who witnessed Jesus dying? The synoptics could have been protecting John from certain death to prevent him from witnessing to the world Jesus actual final moments and death on the cross. If John is killed early on, the Jewish/Roman authorities may be able to convince more people that these Christians are just a bunch of deep fakes trying to start a rebellion. So none of the synoptics reveal that detail, to protect John. When John is very old and already exiled, though, he is free to reveal the truth of his eyewitness testimony of Jesus death on the cross. Just a theory, but makes sense to me.
For your 1st question. This was the 1st Public miracle Jesus performed. The other miracles were done privately or with very few people present & were told to keep it quiet. For your 2nd question. Differences in eyewitness testimony is very very common. Some things are noticed & remembered while others aren’t. It isn’t considered an issue for veracity. Also as mentioned by another poster identities needed to be kept private because of persecution.
Dear Gary Michuta; Man, Your Joe Heschmeyer impersonation is Amazing! ;-) Sincerely in Xto Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A. P.S. Apocryphal Apocalypse is a really good Channel.
“ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
@sunnyjohnson992 That is not a Jewish writing. Paul was a Jew by birth, but a Christian in belief. He was a Jew of the Diaspora. The Jews of the Diaspora used the Greek Septuagint. Paul is therefore saying the Greek Septuagint is inspired by God. As far as is known there is no pre Christian Canon of Scripture. Paul is declaring the Greek Septuagint to be inspired for the very first time.
They had the concept, if not the exact terminology. See Psalm 119 (or 118, if you're using the Douay-Rheims Version). The importance of God's word is undeniable.
@GizmoFromPizmo But did any authority ever put together a list of Books they proclaimed to be the inspired Writings of God? It would have to be prior to Pentecost as they were stripped of authority afterwards.
good video, laughed at the little editing mistake ive disagreed with you and the other major pop apologists of our day plenty, but keep up the good work i greatly recommend your early church book
It begins with humility: "Deny yourself." It continues with understanding: "Take up your cross daily." It is completed with fortitude via grace: "Then come, follow Me." Luke 9:23
“Here’s James white recounting a debate from decades ago and talking about a debate point he thought went really well” hahaha! That sums up James white perfectly
Just so you know that, in Jesus's day there were no Bibles. The Christian Bible came about afterwards, through the converts to Jesus Christ teachings and through the witnessing of the Apostles. Your quote was taken out, from the Thora of the Jewish book of the Old Testament. The NEW Testament contains mainly the four Gospels the letters of saints Peter and Paul and the other disciples' accounts of their lives in the company of Jesus. Constructed by and through the Holy Spirit's directives and compiled by the Catholic Church instituted by Christ Himself. Amen!
Do 3-way Debate! 💪 Steve Christie (66) vs Joe (73) vs Dennis G (76) for Protestant vs Catholic vs Orthodox! We did a 3-way Josephology debate recently: Steve (Jesus = oldest son) vs John (Jesus = only son) vs Dennis (Jesus = youngest son) (ie, did Joseph have kids?)
PERSONAL NOTES: 0:00 What Was The Bible Like In Jesus' Days? 7:13 What's the Tanakh? 15:37 The Jewish Factions 18:28 The Dead Sea Bible(s) 26:07 The Samaritans' Bible 28:17 The Sadducees' Bible 43:06 Josephus and The Talmudic Canon 47:18 The Rabbis' Bible 53:51 The Christians' Bible(s) 1:01:03 Conclusion
@@alpscraftshack599If you want anyone to take anything you comment even remotely seriously, you probably shouldn’t start all your comment with LOL. Just some advice.
In Jesus's day, the New Testament had yet to be written. The jewish Bible was the Old Testament as we call it, and as a practising Judaist said to me, they still use the O.T. today. The primitive book, or codex, was first used by Christians, but I have no timeline. There is an episcopalian Church in Australia that accepts the Gospel of Thomas and friends. The 66 Books are not the only candidates. The Book of Esther was part of the Septuagint. It is the only Book that makes NO mention of God. The Evangelists refuse to accept that the Books have different authors, saying that they were written by God, and it is quite permissible to choose quotations from anywhere. A Catholic priest on a video appeared to believe the same.
"The jewish Bible was the Old Testament as we call it, " Well no. At the time of Jesus, outside of the Books of Moses, the various Jewish religious sects disagreed as to the Old Testament canon of scripture. As you alluded to, the Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint, which included all the Catholic writings plus more that the Orthodox hold as inspired - and the Sadducees only held to the Books of Moses, in part because of their rejection of life after death.
At 54:40, when you are talking about the LXX, would you make a distinction between the LXX as a translation (or translations), and the LXX as a closed canon? Is there a closed LXX canon in Justin Martyr's day, and if not, does this affect your point there? Thanks for the helpful discussion!
How did the Sadducees and Samaritans understand Genesis 19:24 "at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven)."? Was it Yahweh alone?
How have I heard of all these Rabbis before? It's weird. I'm not a Rabbinical Jew, and I've barely read the Talmud, but most of the people Joe is referencing I've somehow heard of and sound familiar to me. 🤔🤔🧐 Is Ben Shapiro subliminally teaching me the Talmud? What's going on here??
Why 4 Gospels? Read once by some ancient monk in the East (can’t recall who?) that is because 2 came from 2 of the 12 apostles while 2 came from 2 of the 72 apostles. I.e., Matthew & John of the 12 and Mark & Luke of the 72. Thoughts? Any help helping me find who said this again pls?
MATHEW: Jewish audience, Jesus as the Jewish Messiah MARK: Romans, Jesus as servant. LUKE: Gentiles, Jesus as man JOHN: everybody, Jesus as the sob of God
It's really not down to how many books but do you keep those teachings in your life and in your doctrine? What does it matter if you have an entire library, if you don't know or care what is contained therein? This is FUNCTIONALLY how Catholicism rolls. Ask any Catholic what the Apostle Paul taught about (for example) baptism. They will just give you a blank stair and move along to the next thing. It doesn't matter how long your list is if you refuse to abide by any of the teaching. This is why there is no emphasis on "which books are to be observed" anywhere in the bible (Old Testament or New). Instead, the bible tells us that the word of God is what is of utmost importance. Expressions such as: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path", and "I have more understanding than all my teachers for thy testimonies are my meditation." This is what bible lover thrives on. But Catholics, by and large, are not so inclined. Seriously, how many Catholics do you know who enjoy reading the scriptures? I know a LOT of Catholics (I'm related to DOZENS of them) and not a single one of them ever expressed an interest in studying the bible. I mean, ANY PART of the bible. Yet, I know members of the church of Christ, who read and study scripture every day. Old Testament and New. Who do you think God is more interested in? I mean, Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well that the Father is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. Jesus later prayed to the Father, "Sanctify them through thy truth. Thy word is truth." (John 17:17) We have two sets of people, okay? One group claims to have all the right books in their library but doesn't read, study, or honor any of them. The other group makes daily effort to hear from God's word. Who is God more interested in? The list of books doesn't matter nearly as much as the underlying desire to hear from God. As it is written: "Today, if you want to hear His voice, harden not thine heart."
Well no. Who has taught you that??? There was no New Testament writing put to writ until ~50ad, with the latest perhaps as 75 ad. And for the Old Testament writings, they were all written ~200 years before Jesus, with some writings much earlier.
The jewish canon is the old testament and had been closed for 400 years before Christ. The apocrypha was used as historic purposes because it records what happened to the jews between the old and new testaments. That is why the apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus as scripture because it was not the inspired word of God.
"The jewish canon is the old testament and had been closed for 400 years before Christ. " Well no. The Jewish religious sects did not agree to an Old Testament of scripture outside of the Books of Moses. This includes the Sadducees who held to these books, in part as they rejected the resurrection of the dead. And the Diaspora Jews - and they were no less Jews - used the Septuagint, which included all the Catholic OT books as well as some used by the Orthodox. So too, Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint. Eventually, Christians - the Catholic Church - would decide the OT canon in light of Jesus Christ, but not until the later 4th century. "the apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus as scripture " Note, this is a very problematic argument for you ... as a criteria for canonicity it is not found in scripture, plus Jesus never quoted all the writings of the OT to begin with.
@@TruthHasSpoken that is not true. All of the jewish sects had all the scriptures of the old testament. Some of the sects may not have agreed with some of them but they alll had them for 400 years before Christ - that makes it a closed canon. No new revelations till Christ. The Septuagin consists of the old testament and a written history, known as the Apocypha, of the jews between the old and new testament. No jews considered the Apocypha as scripture. All scripture that Jesus quoted was from the old testament only, nothing from the Apocypha because he knew the Apocypha was not scripture. Jesus only quoted his father nothing from man.
@@sweetsilage no sweets. The only writings that all the Jewish religious sects agreed held as scripture were the books of Moses. The Sadducees rejecting everything else and the diaspora jews used the Septuagint, as did Jesus and the apostles
@@TruthHasSpoken your statement proves you false. The Septuagint contains the entire Old Testament. So your statement proves they had it., all the jewish sects had it. The Septagint was in existence in the time of Jesus but he never used it because it was not his fathers word, not the breathed out word of God. Every quote he made is from the Old Testament. You say he used it - then prove it.
@@sweetsilage you miss the point: the various Jewish religious sects only agreed on the Books of Moses being scripture. This includes the Sadducees who only held to these writings. You are using the canon of the pharisees. God never gave them any authority whatsoever to decide they were right. And note, they dont have a very good track record as it relates to Christians.
The Essenes seemed to be opposed to the "hard temple". They were more in favor of the Tabernacle (which is a tent, for all intents and purposes). Solomon's Temple necessarily locked God to Jerusalem. God should be available to all of Israel and not just in Judea. They make a good point. Interestingly, the Book of Hebrews always references the Tabernacle. There are 10 references to the Tabernacle and NO references to the Temple in Hebrews. I find that an interesting statistic. I used to think that maybe the Temple had been destroyed by the time Hebrews was written but that is not necessarily inferred by the lack of Temple references in the text. But there was a "No Temple" movement within Israel. I would probably have been part of that movement.
They were also out in the sticks, living simply, studying scripture, and worrying all day about the imminent arrival of the Messiah and how everything will fall apart and change forever. Almost like me fr fr Kind of unfortunate they didn't survive the Jewish War.
American protestants be like:
The Church Fathers: 🤚
Rabbinical Judaism: 👀
They be like Genesis 1:3 "And the BIBLE said, Let there be God...and there was God. And God saw that the BIBLE was good, and He handed them out to all the earth"
@@HAL9000-su1mz I just realized the Protestants have a view of the Bible that's similar to how Muslims view their Korans.
@@crusaderACR Well said. A point of clarity.
@@crusaderACRexactly. They commit similar errors and flawed evidentiary claims.
Man James White just exudes an attitude and behavior that does not behoove a Christian to hold
Agreed the way he talks is like he's talking to a toddler
His famous white question can be summed up in that way too. 😂😂@@josh39684
He's a scoffer and a rhetorician-- not a scholar, and certainly not a pastor. Just listen to his cross examinations. He almost never answers a question from an opponent. His strategy is to drag out his response, attack the question, etc. It's a rhetorical tactic of someone not remotely interested in convincing opponents of the truth of his position, but, rather, to keep his own side "dug in." It's defensive, not evangelistic. It's a way you convey to "your people" that they better not even think about entertaining the other position, or they're gone.
JW is not a serious scholar, cannot answer simple questions or plain inconsistencies in his beliefs, is not consistently logical or rational, and does not exemplify the fruits of the Spirit, and is not to be taken seriously.
@@readyplayer1900 this is why Trent Horn destroyed him in cross examination in their sola scriptura discussion
"I would not believe the Scriptures unless the Catholic Church compelled me." [Saint Augustine] Bottom line. There is no other valid argument. Whatever the Jews did after Pentecost is irrelevant. The authority to do such things no longer resided with them. It is passing strange that Protestants will give an almost infallible consent to a group to which they do not belong, and withhold that same consent to a group to which they claim to belong. Very strange indeed.
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" came to mind.
Why do Catholics keep bringing the protestants into it? Protestants including any other denomination have absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the Holy Bible. What is written in the Bible was all by the inspiration of God". 2 Timothy 3:16. not by the protestants.
The reason the protestants broke away from the Catholic Church was that Martin Luther realised that the Catholic church was rejecting what God had inspired and instead, it carried on with its pagan practices and pagan worshipping...Even to this day.
Here's a very serious example: First, What is written in the Bible is by the divine inspiration of God. Having said that. But the Ten Commandments God wrote himself on two tablets of stone with his own hand.
Now, Go to Exodus 20. And read the Ten Commandments as they were written by God himself on Mt Sinai.
Note. Exodus 20:4, the 2nd Commandment.
Why did the Catholic Church delete the 2nd Commandment, which God condemns idolatry, and go and do exactly the opposite of what God Commanded his people not to do? "Compare the 2nd Commandment in Ex 20:4 to the 2nd Commandment listed in the Ten Commandments of the Catholic Church"...
The Catholic church is polluted to high heaven with idols and images of worship. "Don't try to tell me Catholics don't worship idols, because that's exactly what they do, worship idols" "Even the Catholic Mary is an idol".
But then the Catholic Church had the nerve. to split the 9th Commandment in two, one part was to fill the gap left after the genuine 2nd Commandment was deleted, and the other part was left as the 9th. The Sabbath day which is the last day of the week the day God blessed and sanctified Gen 2:3 was also changed to Sunday, the first day of the week, the day the pagans worshipped the Sun...Sunday...
The Catholic church even rejected the Ten Commandments, it had to mess around and change what God had written in stone with his own hand.
No wonder God branded the Catholic Church as the prostitute, in Revelation 17.
The Ten Commandments of the Catholic church are not the Ten Commandments of God but of the Catholic Church.
Catholics commit spiritual idolatry/adulatory and you must not know anything about Spiritual Israel/Gentiles.
Hos_2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.
Rom_9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom_9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Anything to not be Catholic. That’s what Protestantism is about: not being Catholic.
"compelled" ?
That don't sound good actually
Before catholic answers gets mad at the upload 'mistake', i love seeing the raw version of podcaster's videos. Its so great to me
They wouldn't get mad at that
The unedited glory. I was confused at the clapping until I realized it was a sound marker to know where to cut 😂
I was very confused as well lol
Time stamp?
@@PirateXandarrr I do it when making videos to synchronise cameras and sound streams.
Joe your content is why I’m Catholic. Love every freaking video you put out. Is there a way I can buy a signed book? You are such an inspiration
You are so proud you’re a Catholic yet you use a word which is a substitute for foul language! Very godly of you!
Tobit 3:8-17 is the story of the 7 brothers that Jesus was discussing with those Pharisees and Tobit is in the Septuagint.
It was probably a double whammy question in their minds, because they were able to make an argument against the resurrection and against one of the writings they rejected. But by defending the resurrection, Jesus implicitly approves the book of Tobit as inspired writing
@@michaelbeauchamp22 True. The pharisees didn't need to point out a line of 7 brothers if their point was only regarding marriage after the resurrection. 2 brothers would suffice.
And the "brothers and sisters" is clearly explained in cuntural context by Tobit: A man married his "sister" who was a woman from the same tribe. Brothers and sisters of the Lord are those from Gallilee.
Those were the Sadduccees that made the argument, I believe. But other than that, I agree. It is at least an allusion, and at most a quotation from Tobit.
Mrs. White: "James, dear, please take out the garbage."
James: "I'm reminded of a debate I had back in 1996, with a Catholic apologist you might have heard of..."
Kruger's book Revisiting the Canon was absolutely horrible. He claimed the scriptures are simply "self-authenticating." He claims that the church just automatically knew what books to include - even though there were disputes, just ignore that. He claims that we can be sure there are only these 66 books because they are beautiful and wise. While I would not argue that the books are not beautiful and wise, that is simply just not an argument proving you have the correct canon. He said it was wrong to appeal to church authority because that is circular logic - but then claims, that while a self-authenticating scripture sounds circular to some - it's just not. Nothing he wrote made sense.
That argument only seems plausible to Protestants who have never had a conversation with a Muslim or a Mormon.
Hardy Kruger? Great actor. Oh, not him...?
@@HAL9000-su1mz Michael Kruger.
@@truthnotlies Sadly, I cannot unhear the name Michael Kruger.
@@HAL9000-su1mz 😂
Brilliant Joe. Thank you! The point you made in the last few minutes had come to me a bit earlier: who would a Christian take as authority - those in the apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit or offshoots of Pharisees? It’s a no brainer! Keep praying for misguided Protestants I guess 🙏🙏🙏
I love the way Jesus said:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
- Matthew 5:17-18
jesus being back the high presit hood they lost at temple zero is proof of that this where he taught because that thing on hill was not finshed till 300 years after his death the jewish people still do not have this presit hood who over see the law
Us catholics love this passage too
I also love how He said, "He who hears you hears Me" (Luke 10:16) and...
"You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me" John 5:39
@@bourbonrebel5515 He stealth trolls. I reverse troll him. With scripture. Doubt he gets it.
Read Malachi 1-11 (with the emphasis that NATIONS is referring to the entire world NOTthe Jewish nation only) My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations , “says the LORD Almighty!”
This is fulfilled at the Mass!
The jerry madatix story is becoming quite the meme!
Imagine making an argument in the 90's that you are so proud of that you name it after yourself
Regarding the White/Madatix Mary meme, Gavin Ortlund has already pinpointed how Marian Devotion is a Roman accretion: Originally the Hail Mary was part of the historic Baptist Faith of St Peter and the Apostles, and it was directed expressly towards God, but the wording was corrupted in the Middle Ages when it was translated into Latin from the original Cherokee
@@WayneDrake-uk1ggwhat are you talking about?
@@bourbonrebel5515 the "other" meme-level issue between White and Madatix. It's on White's "message to Candice Owens" video and several others
Time for 2.0!!! James White's laurels are dried out and crispy.
We got to see Shameless Popery unplugged
"I don't know who else calls it 'the White question.'" Oh, James. God bless you.
I think many of our Protestant brothers & sisters believe the Holy Bible was created after Martin Luther and the KJV.
Jesus' last act before ascending was to hand the King James Version to Martin Luther.
😇Lol 👼🏽
“The only version I trust is the one Paul carried around!”
We are not that stupid!
LOL - I don't think they are that stupid. I think that the majority of people know that the "Bible" was created (edited, assembled, put together) by evil, fallen, sinful men - namely the Catholic "church".
Does James White ever not bring up his debates from the 90s?
Always it's so annoying
He's the Franco Harris of apologetics.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Hey, hey, hey - I can live with someone believing the Immaculate Reception wasn't God's Will, but comparisons of Franco to James White are beyond the pale.
@@paulmiller3469 True. People actually liked Franco. Ever watch the Song of Bernadette? I have a special connection to Lourdes. th-cam.com/video/TMeVkz2ALU8/w-d-xo.html
Hey Joe, you should consider doing a series addressing common misunderstandings about the end times held by Protestants.
They have ONE DOT and cannot connect it.
LOL - What about a series, also, on "... addressing common misunderstandings about the end times held by ..." Catholics?
@@alpscraftshack599 Which misunderstandings? The fake rapture is fake? End times prophesies are all fake? The Millerites were wrong? The Jabbering Witnesses have been wrong numerous times? David Koresh and the Branch Adventists were wrong? Marshall Applewhite was wrong? Jim Jones was wrong? Harold Camping was wrong? Scientology is wrong? All dispensationalists are wrong? Every single Bibleist prophesy of the parousia has been wrong? For 100 human generations, the "end time" has been each individual's last breath. That is all we know or need to know. Notice that the Catholic Church is loathe to proclaim false prophecies. Even if she wanted to, the line is too long.
@@alpscraftshack599 We don't hold one specific doctrine about the end times, except the overall Christian basics. Contrary to popular belief, the Church doesn't rule on everything, she only rules on the essentials of the Faith.
Yet still in the more serious Catholic scholarship, despite the permitted diversity, you'll have a hard time ever finding the biblically unsupported, mentally deficient insanities that you so often hear in very serious Protestant circles.
You won't find any reputable Catholic mentioning anything like the freaking Rapture, that's for sure. None of that taking all Revelations numerology as literal (I'm not sure you could remain sane for long if you hold that and apply it). Some Protestants congregate around one specific error regarding the endtimes. Didn't the Adventists believe the world was to end in the 1920s?
Gosh, sometimes they see the end as some exodus to Heaven instead of the redemption of the Cosmos. They sound almost Gnostic when saying that, it's awful. Brothers, Heaven will pass away around the same time as Earth.
Instead of believing in the literal Resurrection of the Dead, they may label it metaphorical, like the filthy Sadducees. A literal, fleshy resurrection is a core tenet of Christianity, important enough to be in the Creeds, and every church should mention it at least in passing every Sunday.
Common Catholic misconceptions about the endtimes? Dunno, we recite the important bits in every mass so I wouldn't worry about it :)
@@alpscraftshack599or do a video on why Catholic priests keep abusing kids for centuries
It's really inconsistent that Kruger repeatedly cites Catholics, no less Catholic Bishops throughout his book - Canon Revisited - as he attempts to weave his narrative in history. He never stops to realize that the setting in the early Church for hearing scripture was on Sunday, at Mass, during the Liturgy of the Word. Priests and Bishops led Christians in proclaiming God's Word, speaking in their homilies to God's Word, and through their words of consecration, transforming the bread and wine into the resurrected body and blood of Christ, a means of receiving his grace. Below are the Catholic Christians he repeatedly cites. None were protestant pastors. None were protestant theologians. On page 265 he writes: _“throughout the early patristric testimony about the canon, the church fathers occasionally acknowledge that a particular book is “disputed’ by some._ Which raises the question to him, not answered in his book, just WHO were these Church Fathers? Seems that he is referring to the men he cited:
St. Jerome (Catholic Priest)
Origen (Catholic theologian)
St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic theologian)
Tatian (Catholic apologist)
St. Justin Martyr (Catholic apologist)
St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic apologist)
St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch)
St. Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons)
St. Melito of Sardis (Catholic Bishop of Sardis)
Tertullian (Catholic apologist)
St. Papia (Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis)
St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch)
Eusebius of Caesarea (Catholic Bishop of Caesarea)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Catholic Arch Bishop of Nazianzus)
St. Athanasius (Catholic Bishop of Alexandria)
St. Augustine (Catholic Bishop of Hippo)
St. Polycarp (Catholic Bishop of Smyrna)
So to on page 264, Kruger writes. quoting Origen: _“we approve nothing else but that which the Church approves, that is, four Gospels only as proper to be received._
Which raises again the questions, never answered in his book :
- what Church specifically was Origen referring to?
- who led it?
- what authority did they have that nothing else would be approved but by this Church?
- where did that authority come from?
Without a critical eye, one could be easily duped by Kruger's poorly substantiated canon thesis.
This is great stuff. You are the most insightful apologist on TH-cam. Thanks. Truly.
My brother in Christ: why a 5 am upload. Is everything okay?
He's trying to accommodate his Irish subscribers 😂
@@lukeohanlon2960And Australians
Where the intro song 😢
@@Mxswanson500 this seems to be an accidental early upload. There are editing issues as you go through it
He knows that its lunch time here in South africa. And that it's the perfect time for me😂
My born again convert sister insisted that I attend a boot camp ran by ex Catholics. On the first hour of the lectures, they proclaimed that the reason Protestants had less Old Testament books is because they followed the Jewish bible. So what better authority. What they neglected to say was that during Jesus's days all the books in the Catholic Old testament books were present. It was decades later that the Jews remade their bible. I knew that these born again converts were doing everything including lying to convert Catholics. I left the boot camp and never looked bak.
Itching ears! We can pray for them, as they are also made in the image and likeness of God.
They’re like Muslims. Without lies they have nothing.
Great book: "Where We Got The Bible" by Rev. Henry G. Graham. Places the scriptures in context and identifies the authority which compiled the scriptures, vetted them, and laboriously copied and re-copied them hundreds of times, preserving them for us today. Excellent read. In his earlier life, Rev. Graham "was" a Presbyterian in the Scottish church.
Great video. Paul obviously used Wisdom and Sirach in writing Romans. Only caught portions of presentation, you might have mentioned that as well. Thanks Joe.
Literally as soon as you brought up James White I immediately knew (without having seen the reference) that he was going to talk about a debate in the 90s that he had with Gerry Matatics. White is so predictable and (in the most genuine sense of the term) retrogressive when it comes to the Catholic Church that it defies imagination how people still take him seriously about Catholicism.
Hey Joe. Will you ever do a video on the typology between Eliakim and Peter? Is there enough of an argument to be made for Eliakim to be a type?
Brant Pitre has a great talk on this called "The Jewish Roots of the Papacy"
Dude, you should be promoting Gary Michuta's channel on the canon, "apocrypha," and deuterocanon.
The enthusiasm and joy shown in the introduction
Joe, God gave you a wonderful mind and such a gift for teaching and articulating your thoughts.
God Bless you Joe,Keep up the good work!
I'm reminded of the saying - History isn't written by who's right, but by who's left.
I am reminded of the saying "The smoker you drink, the player you get" - Joe Walsh
A lot of Greek scrolls did have markings to help with reading and finding places, which eventually turned into punctuation marks. It is fun stuff.
I find it fascinating to see biblical references to other documents that seem to not exist today, eg. the chronicles of the kings of Israel, or that of the kings of Judah. I wonder if any existed in Jesus' day at all.
I really enjoy how you present complex topics and explain them using various sources and walk us through things one step at a time.
Man…. This was brilliant. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Your excellent videos are very informative and enjoyable. Thank you. God be with you.
19:18 Had to rewind a couple times just listening to audio cause I got confused and thought I missed something😅
Hahaha! Same
Excellent Joe. Keep'em coming. Educational and inspirational.
Augustin (paraphrase) "Rome has spoken. All the rest are poseurs"
Thanks Joe, as always. I am going back to this video ( Bible in Jesus' Day) after watching your latest release yesterday. I have to reprocess your videos by going back over them, sometimes one after another in order to really unpack the depth of understanding. How interesting that the history of Codex just happens to perfectly parallel the development of the Bible. Logically it totally makes sense. Once you realize that the very concept of moving from a collection of scrolls to a bound codex in and of itself must have taken a few generations. By the time of the early Councils, such as Hippo in 393 AD the transition to a book such as the New Testament representing a complete collection of related manuscripts/books makes sense.
And this was permitted by God rather than commanded. That is very curious to Americans in particular.
Also "The Church" that the holy spirit is guiding that James White says we should trust is the Ekklesia Kath Oles (Acts 9:31). The Catholic Church.
Every time I hear James White do his “back in the 90s” spiel, all I can think of is Uncle Rico. Awesome job, guys!
"No one who puts hand to plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of Heaven" - Really Famous Guy.
Just as an aside: I could never understand how a Bible commissioned by a King with a predilection for young male courtiers could become the 'standard' for half of Christendom. I mean, I know it doesn't affect the translation, but to put so much stock in a Bible that includes a dedication to a pederast on it's first page - well, even Catholics with all their problems never did _that...._ OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. 😄
By “half of Christendom” do you mean ‘half of the English-speaking Christians”? 😅 If so, I have some great news for you!
…?
Western Christendom*
And it actually did and still does affect the translation. It's an interpretive job, translating scripture.
@@Cheyajm : Fortunately, not even close to half, even if we exclude Eastern Christians. 😉 I assure you no Christian community from France, Poland, Mexico or Brazil prescribes using KJV. 😅
The KJV - until at least 1769 that I have verified - had all the books. Sure they were in a separate section "Called Apocrypha", but they were on the Table of Contents under the greater heading: The Names and Order of all the Books of the Old and New Testament, with the Number of their Chapters"
When cross-references were added, those cross-references to the Deuterocanon still remained for decades after the KJV stopped printing the books themselves.
This is so fascinating! Thank you for this!
In regards to the sadduccees poking fun of the resurrection with the story of the woman widowed 7 times, are they also poking fun at and referencing the book of Tobit?
In Tobit there’s an example of 7 men being married to a women who all die on their wedding day?
I say mocking because they also do believe in angels and the book revolves around the angel Raphael
I think so, that would make sense. Implicitly then, Jesus is defending the book of Tobit as true
Many thanks Joe.
There was no "Bible" in Jesus' Day. In His day, the 'New Testament' did not exist (had not been written yet), and, the Scriptures that did exist were not called the "Bible". The first canonization, of the "Bible", as we know it today, did not happen until around 380-382 AD. That was also about the time that the Scriptures were first referred to as the "Bible".
Pretty irrelevant to the point here. You've not watched the video, have you?
Thank you for correctly explaining our Lord's condemnation of the 'traditions of men.'
common popery banger
As a non believer only interim this for academic curiosity this was still pretty helpful
The Jews removed the Deuteros when they rejected the New Testament: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira, and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands” Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13 (Rabbi Akiva)
Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20. Who does that describe?
@@HAL9000-su1mz Jesus, of course. My point was not to justify the Jews, of course.
@@tonyl3762 Posted mostly for those who have not read it. Yeah, much was prophesied about the Jew's rejection and eventual return.
Can you do a video on the end time views of Catholics? Thank you!
Do you have any show notes? Where we could go back and look up the documents and stuff that you mention. So that we can study further? Thank you. God Bless you and your podcast they have been a blessing in my conversion.
The introductory song is missing
Very good treatment of the canon.
An even better fact about Josephus and his canon is that he utilizes deutro-Esther and Daniel in his writings
Re-upload when?
You forgot to edit out a sound spike marker.
LIVE! Catholic Saturday Night!!!
@@HAL9000-su1mz😂😂😂
My understanding was that when the Book of Psalms was assembled from the songs that were in use... some of them came from the Northern tribes and some psalms were used in Jerusalem.
Hello, Joe, could you or someone else please answer me two questions?
1. In John 2 it is written that the first miracle Jesus performs is turning water into wine and He's in the presence of His disciples. However, in Luke, it seems to imply that before picking the twelve He had already performed miracles, for example, healing St. Peter's mother-in-law, and that seems to happen before He picks the twelve. Perhaps the disciples mentioned in John 2 aren't necessarily the twelve but I wanted to know your view.
2. John wrote that his mother and him were atbthe foot of the cross. Why would Luke, Mark and Matthew omit such detail and mention other people present, when those are two of the most important people in the life of Jesus? I'd love to know what y'all think. Of course it's hard to put ourselves in the lenses of those people who wrote almost two millenia ago. But these objections come up often. Thank you
For the first point, I'd argue that it just says "Jesus's disciples" and that would just refer to all the disciples he had with him at that point in time. It doesn't say Jesus's Apostles, or the 12 Apostles. Jesus had more disciples than just the apostles, and so the disciples he had with him may not have been all the apostles, and included some who were not apostles.
For the second, omissions were not considered big issues even among secular critical scholars. Paper was expensive! I would also argue St. John was the only disciple who was present at the cross. One of the fathers, I believe St. Augustine, said that St. John wrote his gospel later than the other gospels, and did so because he wanted to add important details that the other three evangelists had left out.
@@telstraRobs5 yes, I agree. The synoptics don't mention John or Mary because they were at the foot of the cross, they only mention the disciples that were away from it
Also, John was still quite young and not considered a physical threat by the Roman Authorities. The others were hiding out of fear that they would be next!
On your second point, I have a theory, pure conjecture, of course. If the 3 synoptics are written earlier in time, and John's gospel is the last, closer to the end of the century, consider that while Matthew, Luke, and Mark are written, there is extremely heavy persecution of Christians, esp. by the Jews. Jewish authorities are rounding them up and killing them, the Roman persecution picks up a little later. One of, if not THE key message, of the gospels is the DEATH and resurrection. There are hundreds of witnesses who saw him after he resurrected, so they can't kill all of them. But what if they could spread the "fake news" that he didn't actually die, that they just thought he was dead and he recovered and faked being resurrected, nothing to see here, just a charlatan. Who is the only apostle who witnessed Jesus dying? The synoptics could have been protecting John from certain death to prevent him from witnessing to the world Jesus actual final moments and death on the cross. If John is killed early on, the Jewish/Roman authorities may be able to convince more people that these Christians are just a bunch of deep fakes trying to start a rebellion. So none of the synoptics reveal that detail, to protect John. When John is very old and already exiled, though, he is free to reveal the truth of his eyewitness testimony of Jesus death on the cross. Just a theory, but makes sense to me.
For your 1st question. This was the 1st Public miracle Jesus performed. The other miracles were done privately or with very few people present & were told to keep it quiet.
For your 2nd question. Differences in eyewitness testimony is very very common. Some things are noticed & remembered while others aren’t. It isn’t considered an issue for veracity. Also as mentioned by another poster identities needed to be kept private because of persecution.
Dear Gary Michuta;
Man, Your Joe Heschmeyer impersonation is Amazing!
;-)
Sincerely in Xto
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
P.S. Apocryphal Apocalypse is a really good Channel.
Where in the Jewish writings is the term "inspired Scripture" ever found? Did they even have such a concept?
More or less. Suggest you watch Gary Michuta over at Apocrypha Apocalypse. They had a much more diverse concept.
“ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
@sunnyjohnson992 That is not a Jewish writing. Paul was a Jew by birth, but a Christian in belief. He was a Jew of the Diaspora. The Jews of the Diaspora used the Greek Septuagint. Paul is therefore saying the Greek Septuagint is inspired by God. As far as is known there is no pre Christian Canon of Scripture. Paul is declaring the Greek Septuagint to be inspired for the very first time.
They had the concept, if not the exact terminology. See Psalm 119 (or 118, if you're using the Douay-Rheims Version). The importance of God's word is undeniable.
@GizmoFromPizmo But did any authority ever put together a list of Books they proclaimed to be the inspired Writings of God? It would have to be prior to Pentecost as they were stripped of authority afterwards.
The clip from James White at the end is pure brilliance
Uhm actually I'm pretty sure St. Paul used the KJV
Most definitely.
Yes, I believe he had the red letter edition.
good video, laughed at the little editing mistake
ive disagreed with you and the other major pop apologists of our day plenty, but keep up the good work
i greatly recommend your early church book
14:37-14:42. Lol!
Amen and amen. The Catholic church decided the books of the Bible. But we must follow the Christ Jesus revealed in the Catholic Apostolic Church
It begins with humility: "Deny yourself." It continues with understanding: "Take up your cross daily." It is completed with fortitude via grace: "Then come, follow Me." Luke 9:23
Why did the scribes and pharisees reject Jesus?
Because they're sad you see😂
I'll get my coat
Doesn't make sense, the pharisees were not sadducees.
@@Tyler-iv7po He got all 3 in one riddle. ucee?
Eh seen what you sayin', lol
Do not play the James White drinking game, you will die. You have to take a drink every time he mentions Gerry Matatics or Mitch Pacwa
Or every time he scowls?
Or every time he mentions the '90s.
@@catholicj0eHe has not updated his arguments from 90's till now some say....😅
“Here’s James white recounting a debate from decades ago and talking about a debate point he thought went really well” hahaha! That sums up James white perfectly
James White is SOOOOOO 90s.
I love Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).
A good question to ask Protestants and Muslims
Just so you know that, in Jesus's day there were no Bibles. The Christian Bible came about afterwards, through the converts to Jesus Christ teachings and through the witnessing of the Apostles.
Your quote was taken out, from the Thora of the Jewish book of the Old Testament.
The NEW Testament contains mainly the four Gospels the letters of saints Peter and Paul and the other disciples' accounts of their lives in the company of Jesus.
Constructed by and through the Holy Spirit's directives and compiled by the Catholic Church instituted by Christ Himself. Amen!
Do 3-way Debate! 💪
Steve Christie (66) vs Joe (73) vs Dennis G (76) for Protestant vs Catholic vs Orthodox!
We did a 3-way Josephology debate recently:
Steve (Jesus = oldest son) vs John (Jesus = only son) vs Dennis (Jesus = youngest son)
(ie, did Joseph have kids?)
Excellent content as always!
First ❤😊
Dang calling James White uncle Rico... Back in 1993 I could throw Gerry Matatics a quarter mile.
59:53 Woof! James White looked like he ate another James White in this clip! 😳😳😆
So much to learnnnnnn
James White reliving “the White question” reminds me of Al Bundy reliving his four touchdowns in the city championship.
PERSONAL NOTES:
0:00 What Was The Bible Like In Jesus' Days?
7:13 What's the Tanakh?
15:37 The Jewish Factions
18:28 The Dead Sea Bible(s)
26:07 The Samaritans' Bible
28:17 The Sadducees' Bible
43:06 Josephus and The Talmudic Canon
47:18 The Rabbis' Bible
53:51 The Christians' Bible(s)
1:01:03 Conclusion
i never even knew there was a Samaritan Bible. Thanks, Joe.
There are all kinds of so-called "Bibles" out there.
@@alpscraftshack599If you want anyone to take anything you comment even remotely seriously, you probably shouldn’t start all your comment with LOL.
Just some advice.
In Jesus's day, the New Testament had yet to be written. The jewish Bible was the Old Testament as we call it, and as a practising Judaist said to me, they still use the O.T. today. The primitive book, or codex, was first used by Christians, but I have no timeline. There is an episcopalian Church in Australia that accepts the Gospel of Thomas and friends. The 66 Books are not the only candidates. The Book of Esther was part of the Septuagint. It is the only Book that makes NO mention of God. The Evangelists refuse to accept that the Books have different authors, saying that they were written by God, and it is quite permissible to choose quotations from anywhere. A Catholic priest on a video appeared to believe the same.
"The jewish Bible was the Old Testament as we call it, "
Well no. At the time of Jesus, outside of the Books of Moses, the various Jewish religious sects disagreed as to the Old Testament canon of scripture. As you alluded to, the Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint, which included all the Catholic writings plus more that the Orthodox hold as inspired - and the Sadducees only held to the Books of Moses, in part because of their rejection of life after death.
Hey Joe, what do you think of the book “the Making of the Bible” by Konrad Schmid and Jens Schroter? Is it a good resource?
"Where We Got The Bible" by Rev. Henry G. Graham. Hands down.
Thank you
At 54:40, when you are talking about the LXX, would you make a distinction between the LXX as a translation (or translations), and the LXX as a closed canon? Is there a closed LXX canon in Justin Martyr's day, and if not, does this affect your point there? Thanks for the helpful discussion!
How did the Sadducees and Samaritans understand Genesis 19:24 "at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven)."?
Was it Yahweh alone?
How have I heard of all these Rabbis before? It's weird. I'm not a Rabbinical Jew, and I've barely read the Talmud, but most of the people Joe is referencing I've somehow heard of and sound familiar to me. 🤔🤔🧐
Is Ben Shapiro subliminally teaching me the Talmud? What's going on here??
James White once threw 4 touchdowns in a single game for Polk High lol
"An old essay from 1986" Ouch!
No chapter #s (Catholic added those) nor verse #s (Protestant added those). What if anything did the Orthodox add?
Kruger and White are beyond strange, too be that ignorant and arrogant is dangerous.
Wow in Jesus day there was only what we call the old testament, the Torah. It was scrolls not a book.
Why 4 Gospels? Read once by some ancient monk in the East (can’t recall who?) that is because 2 came from 2 of the 12 apostles while 2 came from 2 of the 72 apostles. I.e., Matthew & John of the 12 and Mark & Luke of the 72.
Thoughts? Any help helping me find who said this again pls?
MATHEW: Jewish audience, Jesus as the Jewish Messiah
MARK: Romans, Jesus as servant.
LUKE: Gentiles, Jesus as man
JOHN: everybody, Jesus as the sob of God
Jews n' prots removed books 😢
It's really not down to how many books but do you keep those teachings in your life and in your doctrine? What does it matter if you have an entire library, if you don't know or care what is contained therein?
This is FUNCTIONALLY how Catholicism rolls. Ask any Catholic what the Apostle Paul taught about (for example) baptism. They will just give you a blank stair and move along to the next thing.
It doesn't matter how long your list is if you refuse to abide by any of the teaching. This is why there is no emphasis on "which books are to be observed" anywhere in the bible (Old Testament or New). Instead, the bible tells us that the word of God is what is of utmost importance.
Expressions such as: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path", and "I have more understanding than all my teachers for thy testimonies are my meditation." This is what bible lover thrives on.
But Catholics, by and large, are not so inclined. Seriously, how many Catholics do you know who enjoy reading the scriptures? I know a LOT of Catholics (I'm related to DOZENS of them) and not a single one of them ever expressed an interest in studying the bible. I mean, ANY PART of the bible.
Yet, I know members of the church of Christ, who read and study scripture every day. Old Testament and New. Who do you think God is more interested in? I mean, Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well that the Father is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. Jesus later prayed to the Father, "Sanctify them through thy truth. Thy word is truth." (John 17:17)
We have two sets of people, okay? One group claims to have all the right books in their library but doesn't read, study, or honor any of them. The other group makes daily effort to hear from God's word. Who is God more interested in?
The list of books doesn't matter nearly as much as the underlying desire to hear from God. As it is written: "Today, if you want to hear His voice, harden not thine heart."
@@GizmoFromPizmo , eat and drink God or you have no life.
Kruger is so full of it
Was the bible written during the time of Jesus.
Well no. Who has taught you that??? There was no New Testament writing put to writ until ~50ad, with the latest perhaps as 75 ad. And for the Old Testament writings, they were all written ~200 years before Jesus, with some writings much earlier.
The jewish canon is the old testament and had been closed for 400 years before Christ. The apocrypha was used as historic purposes because it records what happened to the jews between the old and new testaments. That is why the apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus as scripture because it was not the inspired word of God.
"The jewish canon is the old testament and had been closed for 400 years before Christ. "
Well no. The Jewish religious sects did not agree to an Old Testament of scripture outside of the Books of Moses. This includes the Sadducees who held to these books, in part as they rejected the resurrection of the dead. And the Diaspora Jews - and they were no less Jews - used the Septuagint, which included all the Catholic OT books as well as some used by the Orthodox. So too, Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint. Eventually, Christians - the Catholic Church - would decide the OT canon in light of Jesus Christ, but not until the later 4th century.
"the apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus as scripture "
Note, this is a very problematic argument for you ... as a criteria for canonicity it is not found in scripture, plus Jesus never quoted all the writings of the OT to begin with.
@@TruthHasSpoken that is not true. All of the jewish sects had all the scriptures of the old testament. Some of the sects may not have agreed with some of them but they alll had them for 400 years before Christ - that makes it a closed canon. No new revelations till Christ. The Septuagin consists of the old testament and a written history, known as the Apocypha, of the jews between the old and new testament. No jews considered the Apocypha as scripture. All scripture that Jesus quoted was from the old testament only, nothing from the Apocypha because he knew the Apocypha was not scripture. Jesus only quoted his father nothing from man.
@@sweetsilage no sweets. The only writings that all the Jewish religious sects agreed held as scripture were the books of Moses. The Sadducees rejecting everything else and the diaspora jews used the Septuagint, as did Jesus and the apostles
@@TruthHasSpoken your statement proves you false. The Septuagint contains the entire Old Testament. So your statement proves they had it., all the jewish sects had it. The Septagint was in existence in the time of Jesus but he never used it because it was not his fathers word, not the breathed out word of God. Every quote he made is from the Old Testament. You say he used it - then prove it.
@@sweetsilage you miss the point: the various Jewish religious sects only agreed on the Books of Moses being scripture. This includes the Sadducees who only held to these writings. You are using the canon of the pharisees. God never gave them any authority whatsoever to decide they were right. And note, they dont have a very good track record as it relates to Christians.
The Essenes seemed to be opposed to the "hard temple". They were more in favor of the Tabernacle (which is a tent, for all intents and purposes). Solomon's Temple necessarily locked God to Jerusalem. God should be available to all of Israel and not just in Judea. They make a good point.
Interestingly, the Book of Hebrews always references the Tabernacle. There are 10 references to the Tabernacle and NO references to the Temple in Hebrews. I find that an interesting statistic. I used to think that maybe the Temple had been destroyed by the time Hebrews was written but that is not necessarily inferred by the lack of Temple references in the text.
But there was a "No Temple" movement within Israel. I would probably have been part of that movement.
They were also out in the sticks, living simply, studying scripture, and worrying all day about the imminent arrival of the Messiah and how everything will fall apart and change forever. Almost like me fr fr
Kind of unfortunate they didn't survive the Jewish War.
Well, one fact is the New Testament didn't exist..and fact..the Old testament didn't exist as we read it today
And here I thought making the hands unclean meant putting your hands before scripture exposed how spiritually unclean your hands are.
I like cookies 🍪 (for the algorithm).
Still used in Jewish synagogue