I can definitely understand that there were good reasons that the writings of Polycarp weren't included in the Canon, but I pray more people can read them because he talks about the Eucharistic so beautifully.
Catholics and Orthodox somewhat do consider Polycarp, 1 Clement, and Ignatius as canon in the sense they were written by the saints. The New Testament is just the first volume of Church Tradition.
Thank you for this brief primer on canonicity. It's nice to occasionally be reminded that the Church has a rationale for all it's beliefs and doesn't have to rely on circular reasoning, sleight of hand or specious argument. This is most evident in the JPII Catechism which lays out the foundations of belief in excruciatingly fine detail.
Gospel of Thomas as well as Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of James, Appocryphon of John, etc remind me of the day when I was a bad student who plagiarized a famous story, wording some extras here and there in a fabulous sounding sentences while using a fake name to make it more "cooler and philosophical" just to finish that one English homework. I used to have fun with apocryphal gospels back then because I consider them as the fanfiction net of the Holy Bible. Those stuffs were cool and hilarious imo, ranging from different versions of Jesus, cool Hellenist/non Jewish philosophies, etc. God bless. Peace and love from Indonesia.
3:43 it seems like this is an error. It’s correct that we don’t talk that way but it is a functional way to pass down an oral tradition. Which is very probable
Great video and explanation👍! It always makes me chuckle whenever someone asserts: "The reason why the books of Thomas/Mary Magdalene/Enoch didn't make it into the Bible is because (you guessed it) the Roman Catholic Church SUPPRESSED them!" Uh-oh! Here we go again!
The Pontifical Biblical Commision published on June 19, 1911 that the Gospel of Matthew predated the other three Gospels: "ON THE AUTHOR, ON THE TIME OF COMPOSITION AND OF THE HISTORICAL TRUTH THE SECOND GOSPEL OF MATTHEW The Pontifical Commission decided to answer the following doubts "on the Biblical matter" in this way. II. Is the opinion that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then in use by the Palestinian Jews, to whom that work was directed, to be considered sufficiently supported by the vote of tradition? Answer: In the affirmative to both parties." This was issued when the PBC had teaching authority; it was abrogated after Vat II. So we have to follow Church teaching which is that Mt was written first.
That you very much Jimmy for this very simple to understand shirt statement to more clarify ghis long disputed issue of how the Bible existed and by who? Now the world believes and understands that its is from the Catholic Church and its the Church's property. And it's final interpretation is the work of the author - the Catholic Church.
“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition; of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.” (F.V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist)
That is not the only criteria of valid teachings, regardless of the church view. Thomas does not look like it is a later work or a copy. Thomas reads as authentic words and as less of a literary work and as an earlier book. And as a book of deeper spiritual insight+understanding.
I do not believe Mark was the first gospel. I'll take the notes in my Douay-Rheims that Matthew was written in 39 AD, Mark in 43 AD, Luke & Acts in 55 & John in 96 AD.
@@zimriel The opening to the gospels of the Douay-Rheims were written in the late 300s AD by Jerome who was way closer to the original writers than any modern atheist scholars attempting to destroy biblical credibility.
Just looking for an answer to the adoration of Mary. I have heard about a gnostic text or legend that elevated Mary and it seems to have risen in the 4th century. Which is around the same time that the church started to develop this high level of adoration and the assumption . Is there anything to show this is untrue
I can think of one mention of adoration to Mary and it was ruthlessly suppressed by the Church. It never gained any traction as it's just plain stupid. Where have you ever seen adoration to Mary in your entire life? I've heard some wild things here in South America, rural folks giving Mary some titles she obviously doesn't have, but I've _never_ heard of one literally adoring Mary.
How does Enoch fail that test? Michael Heiser (seems) to have been of the opinion that Enoch 1 was rejected because early Christian leaders assumed it was an amalgamation of Jude and Genesis. And thus lumped it in with the recently manufactured gospels. But of course that’s nonsense, the text of first Enoch was around in the time of Christ and the apostles. So unless the book was forgotten in just a few generations of Christians, they were surely aware of it. So what gives?
I am by no mean a scholar or a theologian, but from what I've heard it contains heresy, hence why it's not considered scripture. Specifically, Enoch is viewed in that book as the "Son of Man" (a reference to the title of the Messiah in the book of Daniel) but obviously Jesus was the Messiah and the "Son of Man" (you can see in the gospels Jesus claiming that title multiple times), that would be the primary reason I think Enoch was not accepted as scripture.
1. Enoch has a lot of contradictions to scripture like stating the Garden of Eden was still around after the flood or that heaven is a physical place on the eastern edge of the earth. 2. It was not part of the Jewish Canon. 3. It was not referenced by Jesus. 4. It has weird specific information about the solar system or cosmos that is inaccurate. Overall the book has a lot of weird information that is contrary to scripture or information that isn’t found anywhere else. But I still think it is interesting especially stuff about the nephilim.
Bible PEOPLE listen: There were fake gospels and true gospels. The CATHOLIC church was the authority or magisterium to compile the real ones and reject the dubious copies.
The Bible that we have, The King James Bible, Is the Bible the GOD ALMIGHTY wanted us to have! In The catholic version the DOUAY version,the ten Commandments were Changed to support catholic Doctrine books were added Again,to support catholic Doctrine !
I can definitely understand that there were good reasons that the writings of Polycarp weren't included in the Canon, but I pray more people can read them because he talks about the Eucharistic so beautifully.
Thank you for the suggestion.
They're in a "complete 53 (or 54, idr) book apocrypha" on Amazon. I bought three for some family. 👍🏻
Catholics and Orthodox somewhat do consider Polycarp, 1 Clement, and Ignatius as canon in the sense they were written by the saints. The New Testament is just the first volume of Church Tradition.
Thank you for this brief primer on canonicity. It's nice to occasionally be reminded that the Church has a rationale for all it's beliefs and doesn't have to rely on circular reasoning, sleight of hand or specious argument. This is most evident in the JPII Catechism which lays out the foundations of belief in excruciatingly fine detail.
Gospel of Thomas as well as Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of James, Appocryphon of John, etc remind me of the day when I was a bad student who plagiarized a famous story, wording some extras here and there in a fabulous sounding sentences while using a fake name to make it more "cooler and philosophical" just to finish that one English homework.
I used to have fun with apocryphal gospels back then because I consider them as the fanfiction net of the Holy Bible. Those stuffs were cool and hilarious imo, ranging from different versions of Jesus, cool Hellenist/non Jewish philosophies, etc.
God bless. Peace and love from Indonesia.
Is there a full version of this video?
This was an excerpt from this show: th-cam.com/video/eaKhOUJRQCc/w-d-xo.html
I've linked to the time of the question for you😄
Thanks for the response and link. Will check it out . God bless you and the team.
Thank you for explaining! I always wondered about those so called gospels.
Thank you for that explanation
Always wondered about the Gospel of Thomas but I just trusted in the Churches judgement on it. Its interesting to know why it was rejected though.
3:43 it seems like this is an error. It’s correct that we don’t talk that way but it is a functional way to pass down an oral tradition. Which is very probable
GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.
Great video and explanation👍! It always makes me chuckle whenever someone asserts: "The reason why the books of Thomas/Mary Magdalene/Enoch didn't make it into the Bible is because (you guessed it) the Roman Catholic Church SUPPRESSED them!" Uh-oh! Here we go again!
The Pontifical Biblical Commision published on June 19, 1911 that the Gospel of Matthew predated the other three Gospels:
"ON THE AUTHOR, ON THE TIME OF COMPOSITION AND OF THE HISTORICAL TRUTH THE SECOND GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
The Pontifical Commission decided to answer the following doubts "on the Biblical matter" in this way.
II. Is the opinion that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then in use by the Palestinian Jews, to whom that work was directed, to be considered sufficiently supported by the vote of tradition?
Answer: In the affirmative to both parties."
This was issued when the PBC had teaching authority; it was abrogated after Vat II. So we have to follow Church teaching which is that Mt was written first.
That you very much Jimmy for this very simple to understand shirt statement to more clarify ghis long disputed issue of how the Bible existed and by who? Now the world believes and understands that its is from the Catholic Church and its the Church's property. And it's final interpretation is the work of the author - the Catholic Church.
The Jews wrote the Bible. The catholic church stole the Bible from the Jews.
Brant Pitre's book _The Case for Jesus_ has some more good details and scholarly references on the gospels and apocryphal gospels.
Love Dr. Brant Pitre so much.
It has its ups and downs. It plays too coy with Markan Priority (although I think it's good on Q, that it's not a thing).
“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition; of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.” (F.V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist)
Goodacre and Gathercole are good here too.
That is not the only criteria of valid teachings, regardless of the church view. Thomas does not look like it is a later work or a copy. Thomas reads as authentic words and as less of a literary work and as an earlier book. And as a book of deeper spiritual insight+understanding.
5:55 this is clearly a metaphysical comment. But yes a different tradition for sure
I do not believe Mark was the first gospel. I'll take the notes in my Douay-Rheims that Matthew was written in 39 AD, Mark in 43 AD, Luke & Acts in 55 & John in 96 AD.
Then what you believe is wrong >shrug
@@zimriel The opening to the gospels of the Douay-Rheims were written in the late 300s AD by Jerome who was way closer to the original writers than any modern atheist scholars attempting to destroy biblical credibility.
Just looking for an answer to the adoration of Mary. I have heard about a gnostic text or legend that elevated Mary and it seems to have risen in the 4th century. Which is around the same time that the church started to develop this high level of adoration and the assumption . Is there anything to show this is untrue
I can think of one mention of adoration to Mary and it was ruthlessly suppressed by the Church. It never gained any traction as it's just plain stupid.
Where have you ever seen adoration to Mary in your entire life? I've heard some wild things here in South America, rural folks giving Mary some titles she obviously doesn't have, but I've _never_ heard of one literally adoring Mary.
Asking for the intercession of Mary can be traced back in writing to the mid 3rd century thanks to the Sub tuum praesiduum.
@@crusaderACR??????
@@zeektm1762 I got a notification for a reply of an 8 month old comment, and it contained nothing.
How does Enoch fail that test?
Michael Heiser (seems) to have been of the opinion that Enoch 1 was rejected because early Christian leaders assumed it was an amalgamation of Jude and Genesis. And thus lumped it in with the recently manufactured gospels.
But of course that’s nonsense, the text of first Enoch was around in the time of Christ and the apostles. So unless the book was forgotten in just a few generations of Christians, they were surely aware of it.
So what gives?
I am by no mean a scholar or a theologian, but from what I've heard it contains heresy, hence why it's not considered scripture. Specifically, Enoch is viewed in that book as the "Son of Man" (a reference to the title of the Messiah in the book of Daniel) but obviously Jesus was the Messiah and the "Son of Man" (you can see in the gospels Jesus claiming that title multiple times), that would be the primary reason I think Enoch was not accepted as scripture.
The title of the video should probably be "How the New Testament Got Its Books" because he's only talking about the New Testament
1. Enoch has a lot of contradictions to scripture like stating the Garden of Eden was still around after the flood or that heaven is a physical place on the eastern edge of the earth.
2. It was not part of the Jewish Canon.
3. It was not referenced by Jesus.
4. It has weird specific information about the solar system or cosmos that is inaccurate.
Overall the book has a lot of weird information that is contrary to scripture or information that isn’t found anywhere else. But I still think it is interesting especially stuff about the nephilim.
@@brucewayne2255
No kidding? I haven’t read it yet, I only became aware of it recently while going through a book series by Michael Heiser.
We have a podcast episode on the Book of Enoch specifically. Hopefully this helps!
th-cam.com/video/_HtViNaODqs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qRwZorKDtvyUVLqi
Even though the true bible has 73 books, if all the 12 apostles have wrote a gospel in the Bible: there would be 12 instead of 4 gospels.
No evidence so far as I’ve heard that they all wrote a gospel. We have the 4 that’s it
Bible PEOPLE listen:
There were fake gospels and true gospels.
The CATHOLIC church was the authority or magisterium to compile the real ones and reject the dubious copies.
The Bible that we have,
The King James Bible,
Is the Bible the
GOD ALMIGHTY wanted us to have!
In The catholic version the
DOUAY version,the ten
Commandments were
Changed to support catholic
Doctrine books were added
Again,to support catholic
Doctrine !
Apparently G-d is English and didn't really talk to people for 1600 years