How the Canon of the Bible Was Formed
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- How was the canon of the Bible formed? "Canon" refers to a standard or rule used to determine which books belong in the biblical corpus. In this short lecture Dr. Licona provides answers to the questions we've all thought at some time or another: Did Constantine decide which books belong in the Bible? Why is it that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John's gospels make it but not Thomas's, Peter's, or Mary's?
We apologize for a glitch that occurs shortly before the 9:00 mark in this lecture.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
DONATE: www.risenjesus...
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.li. .
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
#MikeLIcona #BiblicalCanon #CanonofBible
Fantastic, enlightening lecture. Thanks for making the complex history of the NT reasonably accessible.
Excellent presentation, clear and transparent - thank you Dr Licona
I can't believe it. An actual historical and correct presentation concerning the canonization of the NT. There is so much false information out there that this is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Diane Dawson - Same here and i agree
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't the oldest manuscripts of mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
@@YTRhymsThe genealogies in Matthew and Luke complement, not contradict, as one lists the mother’s side and one lists the father’s side.
@@lisanloves Li San, I have been a Christian since I was 3 years old; and I've studied extensively while living what I learned. First Century Jews/Israel would never believe that a greek/roman document would be inspired by Heavenly Father. I'll write more soon. Yah Bless You.
@@lisanloves
The greek/roman gospel Luke 14: 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
This is a command to disobey Heavenly Fathers Command, "Honor your Father and Mother".
The Hebrew Matthew says, 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Messiah in the One True Hebrew, Testament, Obeys Heavenly Fathers commandment; yet He gives use Command to Love Him more, even to The Cross.
He also commands us to Love our enemies, He would never command us to hate our parents and families. There are many gross and dangerous differences. I pray that you see this revelation that is being revealed to you in these last days.. 🤔
The Catholic Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St. Damasus" and reads as follows: "It is likewise decreed:
Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing; however, is listed separately in later editions).
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Note, Italicized and bold books are the ones Martin Luther pulled out of the Old Testament).
St. Jerome was chosen to perform the translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was (and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is interesting to note that the 7 books later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe. Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7 Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation). The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead, Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and reconciliation.
Still Bill I just want them to stop pedophilia!
@@frankpichardo5299 Mr. Pichardo, we all mutually agree that this entire pedophilia matter has gravely affected the Church (as it should...you reap what you sow). Under no circumstances is this kind of behavior acceptable in regard to Catholic Theology, divine law, cannon law, natural law or (in most cases) even most secular law (some civilizations as well as some religions endorse/permit pedophilia). Please be aware that our Church does not condone this though (unfortunately) evil (perverts) have entered our Church with a motive to destroy Her. This is a world wide problem and has not only affected the Catholic Church but all organizations (both religious and secular). Please do not perceive me as trying to lesson the reality of these perverted acts by Catholic clergy by including my Protestant/Evangelical brothers and sisters as I believe Catholic clergy should be held to a higher standard than all others (no disrespect to everyone else). I hold true to the belief that God will remedy this matter and believe our Lord when he said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church". I will pray for Her and all my brothers and sisters in Christ as well as those in the secular world. May God bless you and your family and have a blessed Easter.
Still Bill Catholics do not preach a saving faith, and the result is the great majority of them aren’t saved. I would assume some are, if they have received salvation through faith by grace. Solely relying on Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Works are futile, you don’t need anything else than Scripture to figure that out. You can start with Romans. It will take you 1 hour at the most to read through. Also Ephesians 2:9. And if you’ve read it and you don’t see it...well, there’s nothing else to say.
Frank Pichardo www.huffpost.com/entry/protestant-sex-abuse-boz-tchividijian_n_4019347.
Yeah here’s a story about Billy Graham’s grandson who is a child abuse prosecutor saying that evangelicals are worse than Catholics when it comes to sexual abuse of children👉😮👈
@@frankpichardo5299 Just avoiding Catholicism and relying on Christ's sacrifice by grace through faith is no guarantee that the seed will not be snatched up by the enemy due to the mass confusion in Protestant and Evangelical doctrines and practices due to their lack of solid authority.
Many of their errors, which contradict each other, have the effect of negating the salvation by faith.
There is no salvation in denomination membership, but as far as doctrine you will be most safe with Orthodox teaching.
I suggest, Ethiopian Orthodox.
Be blessed.
Haven't seen 2 seconds of vid, but I just wanna say with all seriousness, Hayah bless you to know him.
Lol, what a drag that is. What do you mean by "bless" exactly? You don't know do you? That's because you're saying it for your own ego. You should educate yourself on this topic to prevent future such self-serving BS.
(P.S. While you're at it, try defining what you mean by the term 'god'. Then read your bible. Then realize it doesn't match your definition. Get it now?)
@@shannontaylor1849 You should also educate yourself in scripture and i made that comment a year ago, i was not using his correct name as god isn't a name though a title, i was using Christian terms when the creator isn't even a Christian. Actually he's not a religion all together. I could also define the term god or blessing for you but I'd rather you simply go do that on your own time also, you make claim that I was acting to serve my own ego right? But how do you know that was my intent? Where's your certainty? If you don't know then don't claim something you aren't sure of. (PS...I'm not trying to start confrontation with anyone but if you have an issue with me simply ignore me.)
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13)
Even apart from the brilliant scholarship done on this issue, we can have confidence that our Bible is truly God's word through faith in God's providence and Christ's promises. If the Holy Spirit can move men to write down the words he wants communicated to His people, He is also powerful enough to ensure that His people receive them as His words.
Great job. Simple and to the point. God bless!
Where did the person or person get the authorisation to canonise the bible ?
Thank you for the precise, well researched and concise history of the New Testament canon.
This was an interesting and captivating explanation. Thank you
Very good presentation. Perhaps you could do a follow up on who exactly made the decision to include these books. Were they catholic and orthodox bishops or who?
ahh there is a good point.
Its classic among evangelical scholars to omit the fact that it was the Catholic Church who put the Bible together. All of the guys Licona mentions on this video were the Latin and Greek fathers, all of them were Catholic.
@@LaFedelaIglesia at that time for your information catholicism was different they was not using idols till year 700 and mary was considered mother of god in 431 and so onn.
@Asaph Vapor The Jews didn't have a canon until the late 2nd century AD. By then the Christians had determined which OT books were inspired, and that included the deuterocanonical books which Protestants reject.
@Asaph Vapor Not referring to Jabneh in 90AD. Jews didn't have a closed Bible until after that.
While Jesus didn't quote from the 7 deuterocanons, neither did He quote from other books which you accept as inspired, so if you are going to argue that Jesus had to quote from a book, then you must reject all the books he didn't quote from.
After Jesus, the authority was taken from the Jews and given to the Christians. Remember, the Jews also rejected all of the New Testament.
It was Rabbi Akiba after the second Jewish revolt (following the killing of their new Messiah Bar Kokhba) where, being upset with the Christians for not participating in the revolt, declared that the Gospel books and deuterocanon books (that were accepted by Christians) as not inspired.
The fact is that the Catholic Church didn't add any books. The Protestants in the 16th century rejected them and removed them from the canon. Martin Luther even had trouble with some new testament books and didn't consider them inspired.
hi mike I’m really encourage by your videos thanks for taking your time to share with us very useful information
Great stuff, big help in my current study.
You made it so simple to remember, i am thankful to you...
Dr. Licona may be mistaken about Cyril including the Gospel of Thomas. To quote Cyril, "Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being infused with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort." (Quoted in Gallagher and Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, 115).
1 Timothy 5:18 is referring to a passage in Luke that quotes Deuteronomy. Scripture at the time was a term used for referencing the Old Testament law and books, not a growing collection of works that would eventually become the New Testament.
still Christians saw the apostolic teaching as a scripture.
M.H And that's exactly the problem. People felt like it was scripture and so that's how it made it into the Bible.
@Asaph Vapor what a desperate attempt , we know full well nt NT came after pauls writings , YEARS LATER so dont insult your own and others intelligence by saying it was referring ti the nt when it did not even exist at the time of pauls writing ,
@@mistahaych9552If Paul’s writing ARE much of the NT, how can you claim the NT came AFTER his writings?
@rlanderson3 do you reaearch on the cannon. The NT is comprised of picked books, which includes paul and ither writings that came after paul
FYI, the Early Church based their theology on Apostolic tradition and Apostolic succession. There was no canon of the NT yet. And the Catholic Church made the NT canon based on oral Apostolic traditions of the Catholic Church. Nearly all of the authors are actually unknown because the author doesn’t usually identify himself. The titles of the books and epistles came from the Church and the Catholic Church also sectioned the Bible into chapters and verses. Later on, around in the 8th century, a Lope coined the name, Bible in reference to holy scripture.
Do you not fight it odd that Catholics don’t claim full authority until they are in bed with the Roman Empire in the 300s
let the scholar speak :/
@@omnitone Let the Truth Speak, and history. Ur arguement us self contradicts itself. JESUS CHRIST THE KING over a scholarly man.
@@captainmarvel76927 we modern people are plebeians and cannot interpret history or scripture properly on our own so we need experts to lead a way. Jesus gave us scripture and then let us mess it up, as is with any gift of God. when i say, "let the scholar speak" i am saying that the root comment is very unnecessary and irrelevant. possibly presumptuous. the root comment doesn't have the truth in mind, it just wants us to subscribe to a specific doctrine, regardless of its veracity :/
@@captainmarvel76927 I don't understand your argument
How do you figure out who the apostles are independent of the gospels content. It would be a circular argument to use the gospels to determine who the apostles were and use the apostles names from the gospels to figure out which gospels were canon.
So to recap:
Someone named Polycarp refers to Paul's writing as "scriptures" (which means writings)
Someone named Irenaeus declared that there should be four gospels
Hundreds of years later, someone else makes the following criteria for what documents should be the basis of Christianity:
1. Should be written by an apostle (who determined who an apostle is? How did Paul become an apostle?)
2. Should be orthodox, which means it should be what the church leaders at this time (hundreds of years later) agreed should be taught
3. Should be relevant, which is the same as above
4. Should be already popular and believed
5. Should be verifiably true. Oh wait, no, that wasn't one of the criteria
Then, based on these criteria, most of the books included did not fit these very subjective and arbitrary criteria, or at the very least were questionable as to meeting the criteria
Excellent video.
Pray "Jesus I want to follow you no matter what, tear down the walls around my heart and the scales from my eyes. Lead me to the fullness of truth." Meditate on John 6:54 and Matthew 16:18. Trust that when Jesus prayed to the father his church would be one, it was granted. Trust in Jesus and the church he founded and not man-made ideas like Sola-scriptura and Sola-fide. Surrender to Jesus, ask him for the truth consistently with an intent to follow it regardless of how hard it is. Trust in God to clear up the confusions introduced to lead those away from his One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, and God gave us the bible through that church. May God bless you all and grant us the grace to worship him for all time and eternity. Jesus, we surrender to you! We trust in your one sacrifice on Calvary, thank you for allowing us to partake in that one sacrifice through giving us yourself in the Holy Eucharist!
For anyone reading this who is confused… the Catholic belief of Purgatory (suffering in torment & flames before going to heaven) contradicts the Bible. It basically says Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t enough. It’s rejecting what Jesus did for us. He paid the price for our sins. It’s finished. It’s done. ❤
There are so many heretical things about the Catholic Church.
*I have a public playlist called, ⛪️“Catholic Corruption.” It’s a compilation of various videos from different channels that do a great job of exposing the Catholic Church.*
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Thank God for the Church and the Councils which compiled the Canon.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Why you don’t accept the Catholic Church did it???
Paul referring to "Scripture" in 1 Tim. 5:18 when quoting "Do not muzzle the ox..." is not a specific reference to the gospel of Luke, but to the Torah in Deuteronomy 25:4. 2 Peter 3:16 is also likely referring to the Hebrew Scriptures... but yes, I agree that the New Testament is authoritative Scripture, but because they are the divine and apostolic exposition and writings concerning the Hebrew Scriptures
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Since the catholics have had questionable beliefs and traditions from day 1 is it not unreasonable to think that many of our evangelical beliefs and traditions have been heavily influenced by them?
There is absolutely no doubt that the answer to your question is yes, in regards to Protestants taking on Catholic doctrines. However, concerning Scripture, the arrogance of man is so great that, even though God was the One who (ultimately) formed the canon, these councils may have believed their influence would carry the day. God always outsmarts those who _would be wiser._ Case in point, the inscription over His head at the Cross. Satan & his children thought they were mocking Him when in fact there were identifying Him.
How you going to recognize the Church fathers authority to determine the canon but ignore their rejection of all 5 points of calvinism and faith/scripture alone?
2:08 But the two letters you cite are among those whose authorship is still disputed. Suppose the idea that Luke's and Paul's writings are divinely inspired was rare or disputed before those were promulgated?
From my understanding from this video, the canonisation of the bible was very much subjective and could have been entirely different. If one of the criteria was that it must be from an apostle or a colleague and we do not know who wrote Hebrews, this become very problematic. One of the criteria should have been authenticity.
Fatima Ahmad the oldest records showed Paul wrote Hebrews, it said at one point "the epistle of Paul" in the oldest records. But if you read Hebrews you see certain things that only Paul said and the person who wrote it was with Timothy and it was Paul who was with Timothy all the time. So I personally believe because of the evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews. Plus it was Paul in the beginning who was trying to preach to the Jews. Hebrews was probably the first book Paul wrote.
EatScrabbleGoo there's no such thing as a infallible person regardless if they're preacher or not! You're brainwashed to believe this so you will believe whatever they tell you. Scriptures says the opposite! 🤦🏼♂️
EatScrabbleGoo God spoke the scriptures through men throughout history and those men wrote everything God told them to write. What we have today known as the Bible is prophesied in the scriptures for our time. Catholicism try's to claim and take Gods credit but that's false. The scriptures were given to the world through the Jews as it's written.
Do you trust God? We know they are exact and correct because God says his words are preserved until the end of time. We also know the scriptures are true by the accuracy of the biblical prophecies. If you study prophecies you find out it matches our human history exactly. You know they're correct because of the Jews. The Jews are the only ancient civilization that is still around today because they're Gods chosen people. Not because they're better than the rest of us though because they're hard headed people and need Gods help more than anyone else. The Jews will not believe unless they're given sign where as the rest of us we believe by faith. The scriptures proves the existence of God. There's not another book on the planet like the Bible. There's a reason it's the most powerful and popular book from day one.
Im sorry no disrespect but if you think you can't understand the scriptures on your own you're in the wrong place. Do you really think God would give us the scriptures that are the things he wants us to know but make it so you can't understand them? That's seriously makes zero sense and anyone who tells you can't understand them on your own is someone trying to deceive it's that simple. That would be confusing and God isn't the author of confusion like it tells us in his words. You're cutting your own throat if you think you can't understand the scriptures. Children know the scriptures from being a child, like it's written. Read it for yourself. Whoever told you that is keeping you from the truth because either they are trying to deceive you on purpose or are deceived themselves.
2 Timothy 3:“14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. 👉And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.👈
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
1 Corinthian's 14:“33. 👉For God is not the author of confusion👈, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”
You don't have to be some super intelligent person to understand Gods words. It's literally written in a third grade vocabulary. If you actually knew the scriptures you would find out that Catholicism actually goes directly against the scriptures themselves, they have removed lots of scriptures and added lots of scriptures. Those people who do so will have their names removed from the book of life. However Catholicism teaches you that you can't understand it which is ridiculous and the reason why they make you guys take classes right away. So they can tell what o believe by mixing the scriptures up in a way that seems right but once you find the real truth it's literally impossible to fall into false religions. The Bible tells us not to let men teach you and not to go outside of what is written. And that's why Catholicism goes just about everywhere except the scriptures. I study Catholicism and actually know more than most Catholics because they don't research things they just believe what they're told. Most Catholics don't even know what you're own catechisms actually says. They believe no matter what they're in the right place and they don't look into things and by doing so they're cutting their own throats without realizing it. If you want I can show you using the words of God just how wrong they are on everything. Or you can stay where you're at and find out the hard after it's to late. Just let me know and we can go over it each issue scriptures by scripture.
Nicholas James so you’re saying that there was no canon until the 16th century from the council of Trent. Even though your own popes have not seen the apocryphal books as divine. The thought that Jesus would have a man replace him as lead for the church on earth is foolish. The Old Testament was completed before Christ came to earth, yet you add to the book so you can have erroneous views and made them dogmatic.
Michael Borg are you on drugs? I am not catholic so I don't know what you're talking about plus I never said the Old Testament was not finished before Jesus! Maybe you meant your comment to someone else?
Excellent. So concise and to the point. Absolutely loved this. Thanks so much.
Well done presentation.
With Church father debating. How did that affect Christians faith of the time? Revelation is very important, adding or subtracting it from the Bible really changes a lot about Jesus being the final judge and our hope in him. How did the Christian of that time live with that?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
What sort of evidence do people use to say hebrews was written by a colleague of an apostle? Is it assumed based on the contents of the writing or is there other evidence. Are there any books that were left out who we dont know the author of that were left out based on content or other evidence?
Is the circle diagram available on-line?
let me get this straight - at certain period they include some, then another period they exclude, then include?
Although I am not informed enough to know whether what you claimed is accurate, this was an excellent overview.
@ 2:30...1 Timothy 5:18 is quoting Luke but Luke is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4.
Nightcrest Actually that isn’t true. Part A of the verse is quoting Deut. 25:4, but is not found in Luke. Part B of the verse is found in Luke, but is not in the Old Testament. The author of 1 Tim. writes, “For the scripture says...” and then gives two quotations, one from Deut, and one from Luke, both joined by “and.”
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
In reference to the 1 Tim 5:18 bullet point - if Paul's writings are the earliest (as most bible scholars agree), how could he be referring to the Gospel of Luke?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
You are not giving any credit to the Catholic Church for the formation of the Canon.
Because he is a heretic and giving any credit to the Apostolic churches is very difficult for them
1. The term “Catholic Church” didn’t come around until almost 400 AD
2. The ecumenical council wasn’t only comprised of who you would presuppose to be the “Catholic Church”
3. There were many other churches apart from the one in Rome, it wasn’t until 607 AD when Boniface III asserted that the Roman church should be the “universal church”. Not everyone agreed.
@@PizzaFvngswrong.
St. Ignatius of Antioch - “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
He calls the Christian Church, “Catholic” in the early 2nd century in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans in Chapter 8.
remind u that this is a direct disciple of John the Apostle.
the Roman Catholic church starts in the 4th century AD
Catholic simply means universal, just because the namesake is still there doesn't mean it looks anything like it was meant to@@ty_m02
@@ty_m02you couldn’t be more wrong. Asserting the “Catholic” church is the mess that became the RC Church
Those who decided all about the inspired canon...is none other than the catholic church..
I thought it was the councils of the Catholic Church that decided what books to be in the Bible.
It was. The video mentions a few.
It was, he's not catholic, most protestant's don't really like to talk about church history or the church fathers for obvious reasons.
Yup
Great and informative. God bless you.
such a great presentation.
He fails to mention all the people assembling the Bible were catholic.
Very informative but i would love to know more in details.
The people you mentioned were all Catholics. Why did you not mention that it was the Catholic synod that collated the books?
Helpful. Thank you!
I'd like to see more discussion and research into this topic. I say this because the NT canon was closed only after Christianity was granted the patronage of Rome, nearly 400 years after Jesus. So, how much were the 4th century bishops influenced by the offer of all the privileges of the Empire?
Who came up with the 4 criteria for canonicity? Luther? Calvin? Aren't those 4 criteria called tradition?
Overall a good presentation and very informative. Thank you.
I do not agree on a couple of points, but the most glaring is when you stated that 1Timothy 5:18 is pointing to the Gospel of Luke as scripture. This is impossible. Nearly all biblical scholars will agree that all of Paul’s epistles were written before the gospels. The first gospel written was Mark, and that was long before Luke.
The verse you mentioned, 1 Tim 5:18 was referring to a passage in Deuteronomy, in the Old Testament.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Either Paul wrote Hebrews or one of his close friends did. From the beginning, it was included in Paul’s writings.
Also from the beginning no one thought Paul wrote it. Oriegen express his disbelief that Paul wrote the letters so it wasn’t considered written by Paul for very long.
Many say that Apollos wrote Hebrews.
@@moonlapse_vertigo Apollos was a close co-laborer of Paul’s . That’s what I meant when I said either Paul or a close friend
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Thank you sir lecture is good to hear as my man of God
Excellent teaching
1 Timothy 5:18 is referring to Deuteronomy 25:4 and Leviticus 19:13/ Deuteronomy 24:15. Paul makes the same statement in 1 Corinthians 9:9. It is not referring to Luke 10:7. Indeed, Luke 10:7 is also referring to the OT. 2 Peter 3:16 indicates Paul's letters have something in common with scripture in so far as they are difficult to understand and distorted by some. It does not call Paul's letters scripture explicitly. It would have been an absurd notion for the apostles to think their writers were at the same level of scripture. Whenever scripture is mentioned, it's referring to the OT. Oftentimes, Paul will say "I write" with his own authority rather than calling his own letter scripture. Where is the evidence that the apostles called their own writings scripture?
So, once the synods decided, "yes, this is the list we are going to use" that was it? The scriptures where then compiled into one volume and eventually printed together?
Yep!
Athanasius was the first to list all 27 books of the New Testament. He actually gave reasons for it, it wasn't like people just said believe it because we say it.
Yup, until the protestants removed some of the books over a thousand years later.
it was take it from the scrolls and made it into a book that’s what a canon is! everybody wasn’t gonna run around with scrolls! that would be ridiculous!
Rome has spoken, the issue is closed
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Some one had to have the AUTHORITY to exclude. Who or what had that AUTHORITY?
Exactly my thinking 🤔
The one who can bind and loosen. The heir of St. Peter
I am the research scholar on Christianity. I want to know the Historical background of Canonical Gospels. Please suggest me books for that purpose. I shall be very thankful to you.
The Catholic Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St. Damasus" and reads as follows:
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing; however, is listed separately in later editions). Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
St. Jerome was chosen to perform the translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was (and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the 7 books later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe. Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7 Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation). The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead, Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and reconciliation. The later councils: Carthage (391 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Trent (1545~1563 A.D.) further ratified the Canons as Scripture.
@@stillbill6408 I am very grateful to you. If you grant me permission, I need more help you about research in Christianity.
@@muhammadjamil7899 Read the holy scriptures beginning from moses to christ. Never start with the new testament or quran or the book of mormon else you gonna destroy the foundation. Logic 1&1 is to add on secure foundation. If the foundation is corrupted the whole fundament becomes invalid.
? -> 2 -> 8
? -> 2 -> 3
The jews collected the holy scriptures and secured their accuracy to the jota, every letter and point is as it was in the beginning, its called masoretic texts.
If one starts with the new testament he will twist alot of basic doctrine, like for example the insanity of eternal life in hellfire, the abomination of the 3 headed God, the lawlessness of Christ, the idea of a christian religion and church-buildings. It is saver to read it in chronological order.
@@amanda.collaud Thank you so much.
If you grant me permission, I will contact you for more research help. Thank you so much again.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Given the contents of the book, it's pretty funny that the Laodicea Synod excluded Revelation and only Revelation. Yeah I know it was a heavily debated book early on but I still laughed.
Who canonised these books? What is their authority?
@David Ortiz Yup
Definitely the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church and Pope Damasus who declared the canon at synod of Rome 382 AD, and then the councils of hippo and Carthage and further councils. There is no Protestant in that time, AT ALL...
The Catholic Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St. Damasus" and reads as follows:
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing; however, is listed separately in later editions). Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
St. Jerome was chosen to perform the translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was (and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the 7 books later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe. Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7 Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation). The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead, Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and reconciliation. The later councils: Carthage (391 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Trent (1545~1563 A.D.) further ratified the Canons as Scripture.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Honest question Dr. Licona, why does it matter who wrote Hebrews? It seems to meet the criteria of canonization, heavily quoting the OT and from the 1st century era.
Scriptures was referring not the books they had, thou shalt not muzzle an ox was law, he wasn't talking about the book of Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 referred to the books they had(Which the didn't understand. Not having a foundation in these things) thanks for the video though.
In the bullseye photo, what are the noncanonical books? Were they books/letters that were circulating widely but that everyone knew were not canon? Just wondering why you included these noncanonical and not say Judith or Nicodemus as well...
I am assuming Judith and Nicodemus (amongst many others) simply didn't circulate as widely as these in the photo?
1 Timothy 5:18 "...and 'the laborer deserves his wages'" < Luke recorded Jesus saying that in Luke 10:7.
Toward the end of the video the pastoral epistles were listed among the antilegomena. Is this a reference to an orthodox patristic source having disputed their authenticity? I wasn’t aware of any other than heretics like Marcion having disputed them (Marcionites standing out because they did apparently accept the other 10, unlike other group like the Ebionites).
Didn't Eusebius say that Revelation was either to be accepted or rejected, whatever seemed proper? So weird, considering he left 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James and Jude in the disputed category that lies between accepted or rejected, but put Revelation on both extremes.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
*Polycarp, the disciple with John, wrote a letter to the Church at Philippi and he quotes from Ephesians and refers to it as apart of the sacred scriptures.
*4-5th century Lists of Christian literature
4 Criteria:
1. Apostolic or written from secondary source close to the apostles as a colleague
2. Orthodox: in line with the teachings of Jesus
3. Relevant to the time
4. Widespread use in the churches
Eusebius (320-330 AD)
Recognized: 22 N.T Books
Doubtful: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John
Did these authors write them?
Cyril (350AD)
- He wanted the Gospel of Thomas included and Revelation excluded (bc he didn’t think John wrote it)
1. Athanasius (367AD)
-Recognizes the 27 NT Books we hold today
2. AFRICAN Canons (393-419AD)
-Recognized the 27 NT Books
3. Carthage Synod (396AD)
-Did not include Revelation bc they didn’t think John wrote it, but they included in a meeting in 419
That background music is terrible overriding and many times, but you were saying.
Thanks for the amazing video and explanation!
I live in Brazik an would like to provide portuguese captions for it, may I?
Sure.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial 11:25 I had a debate against Gary Michuta a couple of years ago on the OT canon, where I mentioned the Carthage of 397 excluded Revelation, and I cited Lee Martin McDonald in his book, "The Biblical Canon" as evidence. Michuta claimed he spoke with McDonald privately who claimed he was in error & needed to write a retraction in his book. But when Michuta & some other Roman Catholics interviewed him live about this on TH-cam, he didn't say one way or another. He was almost evasive about it. Do you have any historical evidence from earlier to the councils that Revelation was indeed "not" in the Council of Carthage in 397? Thank you & God bless! Steve Christie.
This needs to be renamed to Canon of the NT not Canon of the Bible. Was hoping for discussion on Deuterocanonical canon formation
The authority of inspiration and councils, based on Apostolic tradition, decided the canon, so you cannot use the New Testament text to overthrow tradition and inspired authority.
New Testament itself can be used to determine which books should be in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Peters 3:16.
Those two scripture verses don’t make sense. How does the talk about muzzling an ox and those who are misunderstanding scripture make it so scripture can decide the canon of scripture?
No, brother. That’s just weird.
God established His church upon St. Peter, with the authority to make decisions, so he used human beings to write scripture and conclude which books were inspired or not.
The Catholic Church was this authority to determine the canon, which happened hundreds of years ago. Martin Luther has really made a mess of things that persist to this day, unfortunately.
Tradition is not recognized as authoritative outside of Catholicism.
@@mikef6063 Yes it is in the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Eastern Orthodox churches.
@@住居1& 2Peter may have been written by two different authors, neither of them was Peter.
The letters to Timothy are not attributed to Paul too.
How ironic.
How can you say Christians must believe in the New Testament when it wasn't compiled or ever even mentioned by Jesus? There is a huge problem here.
The cannon was established by the church He created.
Very sound material very well presented. F. Harry Stowe
All these men he mentions in church history...were they protestants? What church did they belong to?
Paul's letter was never refereed to as scripture by Peter. Also The reference in 1Tim 5:18 is to A passage in Deuteronomy that has the same worda Jesus said as reported by Luke, and it is very common that Jesus quoted from scripture(what we call the OT now) throughout his ministry.
I will give the benefit of doubt you didn't intentionally misreprent those facts to fit your lecture
Easy. They asked the question, "Can this book push our agenda?" If yes, lets include it.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
It is astonished that you could believe and live by something so extremely vague.
While there was some variability, many fail to recognize that this adds to our reliability because the church did not just go “oh I want this in there” because they had a method for determination, this is why it took so long, also they wanted to make sure that what they were giving was accurate had to have apostolic authorship.
There is a rumor that they threw the books on a table and the ones that fell off were junked...
And who or what decided to classify the first 39 books as the "Old Testament/Covenant" and the last 27 books as the "New Testament/Covenant?" Is it possible this labeling created a subtle theological "lens" through which for centuries Christians have misinterpreted the Bible's contents? While the "covenant" was of central importance to God's earthly people--Israel, it did not play that role for God's heavenly people, the Church.
does this mean that my Jesus fanfiction isn't canon
Wonderful explanation regarding NT. Though there many books and many had their own canon but all accented the Church's final authority and accepted 27 book after many centuries of discernment . Great. You accept it. Wonderful.
But why the standard changes when comes to OT. There were many Canon of OT, but with the church's discernment accepted what we have in Catholic canon. How can you change standard with OT and accept one person, Luther' s canon who just followed some criteria unknown to all. Or just accepting Jerusalem canon. He also wanted to remove sone books of NT which he was not successful. If people say that Luther was wrong regarding NT then why we accept his canon on OT?
Is there cherry picking?
Or restated - questions for Father Luther:
Why would he accept the authority of late 4th century Catholic Bishops to have decided on 27 NT writings out of 300+ early Christian writings yet profess the very same men error'd on their saying the OT was 46 writings?
How does the Holy Spirit work, consistently or inconsistently?
What did Jesus mean when he promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church to ALL Truth ?
What is his criteria for canonicity, for both the Old and New Testaments?
What authority does he have to say he is right and the bishops (1,100 years earlier before him, and their living within 400 years of the death of Jesus Christ) wrong ?
Fr. Nilesh... Because the then church did not say, "we say it is so, so believe it". They based their arguments on certain priciples which protestants agree. However the principles that were used to recognise the OT were not accepted by protestants because of which they did not follow catholic ot cannon. Again i repeat, protestants did not accept the nt canon because the the church declared it. Protestants accepted their priciples to recognise the nt books.
If protestants did not accept the nt canon because of the respect it had for the catholic church, they don't have to agree with the ot canon because cc declared those apocryphal books to be inspired.
After all, before the counsil of hippo, no bishop listed the deuterocanonical scriptures among the inspired books.
I can use the same sort of logic you used. You are accepting Jewish septuagint "canon" as scripture. That means you are indirectly accepting the authority of the Jewish group of people who codified "septuagint". Why don't you then follow those Jews and reject Christ?
Is there a cherry picking??
@@danieljoshua4352 "rotestants did not accept the nt canon because the the church declared it. Protestants accepted their priciples to recognise the nt books."
No Daniel. Evidence needed. First, Protestants need to be clear on what the criteria for canonicity is, then be consistent and apply the same criteria to ALL of the early Church writings, of which there are over 300. Second, Protestants, adhering to Sola Scripture - scripture as the final authority - need to show from where in scripture that they get their criteria. If not from scripture, from where and what authority do they get their criteria ??
(note, both points above, lead one back to the Catholic Church to have decided. Remember, Jesus Christ refers to the Church as the Pillar of truth, the Bulwark of Truth, as where the Manifold Wisdom of God is made known ... and Jesus himself PROMISES to guide it to ALL Truth)
@@TruthHasSpoken
Let's get this first. Jesus did not say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. It was Paul. Next, prove me that the verse talk about an instituition. To me it looks like the verse is talking about the body of christ as a whole. It doesn't sound to me like it was referring to an instituition.
Next, give me evidence about the existence of papal authority of supremacy of a Bishop before 180 AD.
If you give sufficient evidences to prove about the Catholic authority, then I will discuss about the two points you raised. As you said that both of the questions you asked point out to the authority of Catholic church, I want to know about the authority it had to begin with.
If you cannot show references from scholars about the existence of papacy before 180 AD, then you don't have the foundation to lead me to the authority of cc.
@@danieljoshua4352 “then I will discuss about the two points you raised.”
You are dodging the questions. NONE of the points you made above are needed to answer the two questions that I posed. Try answering the questions first, then I would be happy to have a discussion on the points you are posing.
That said, I’ll address your first claim as I never, ever heard this one before from a protestant !
*“Jesus did not say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. It was Paul.”*
Check your bible, 1 Tim 3: 15 below.
_15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, _*_which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth._*
Let’s summarize :
The Household Of God is THE CHURCH.
AND ... that CHURCH is
The Pillar of the Truth
The Bulwark of the Truth
ALL of Paul's words are the Written Word of God. When Paul speaks - God speaks. God ... includes Jesus.
ALL OF SCRIPTURE is the Inspired AND Inerrant Written WORD of God.
10:9 I thought Cyril declares that NT contains only four gospels and warns his hearers against other gospel. Metzger mentioned in his book.
Who was Cyril of Jerusalem ? Do you know what else that he professed and taught?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Hey um, I don’t want to be that guy, but you completely skipped the Council of Rome in AD 382 where Pope Damasus I canonized the 27 books of the NT. Every time you acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God you are inadvertently acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church. I guess I kind of understand why you would leave that out.
There were over 200 early Christian texts. The Catholic Church decided THEIR Canon circa 350 AD. Are you a Catholic, Mike ?
The question isn’t “which books belong in the canon?“ (Dan Brown/ DaVinci Code is low hanging fruit.)
The real question is, why think God wanted there to be a New Testament Canon in the first place?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Catholics put the Bible together and Protestants main job was to rip it apart 😢
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart the God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved..you will receive the Holy Spirit Repent of your sins. ("Repent" is Latin. It means "To Turn Away." Turn away from your sins, refuse to go back to who you once were.) Be baptized. (Be completely submerged under water) And the Holy Spirit will gift you. Hell is real and is forever. God loves you. Amen
"Be baptized. (Be completely submerged under water) "
Baptizo means immerse though its meaning is not limited to being completely submerged under water, though doing so is the fullest expression of the sacrament. Through baptism, we receive God within us, the Holy Spirt and sanctifying grace, lost in the sin of Adam. This sacrament was prophesied in the Old Testament :
_25 I will _*_sprinkle_*_ clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and _*_a new spirit I will put within you;_*_ and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh._ (EzZ 36)
Isn’t he reformed? Why is he referencing Self proclaimed Catholics? Then again he’s using the Catholic Holy Book. The canon of scripture was initially and officially established in 382AD at the Council of Rome. Two additional Councils of Hippo and Carthage were held to further establish the “deuterocanonicals of the NT. Pope Damsus commissioned St Jerome in 385AD to translate the original languages into Latin. The first Bible came into being in 404AD.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
Since most of the NT was written in the second century your arguments do not really hold up to scrutiny. Just a few Pauline texts & a gospel of sorts is attested by Marcion. Prior to that you don't have any evidence of first century gospels.
This is hysterically funny coming from a BAPTIST.
Personally I don't care if someone is protestant or catholic etc.
But there were 73 books in the Bible for over a thousand years, and in the Gutenberg Bible
Until Luther decided he didn't like seven books and removed them from the canon.
do you think revelations was accepted for theological reasons? To put a stamp on Jesus' return?
Sounds plausible!
First a Christian should state they base their belief on the testimony of Christ.
From there one goes to the testimonials of the Apostles as they are the legit witnesses of Christ.
From these testimonials all the current books in the Bible can verified as Canon.
these church fathers where bishops debated indeed, but all to gether the holy spirit guild them all to the truth in the matter. this explaination is good but not detailed to knowing more on the canons of the bible
The biblical canon itself did form over the first few centuries but there was not universal agreement until the late 4th century Church, Catholic Bishops meeting in what is today Tunisia (Hippo and Carthage) decided: 27 New Testament and 46 Old Testament writings.
One needs to read what these early Christians wrote, St Justin Martyr included, who says that they have been TAUGHT ... that through the words of consecration (by a priest), the bread and wine are transmuted (transformed) into the resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as Jesus himself says : This IS My Body.
_“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have _*_we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”_* Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
St Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons France) saying the same thing, the _thanks_ meaning Eucharistic prayers.
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
St Cyril of Jerusalem's (Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem) words are consistent to the above.
*“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ;* and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
And note, the criteria of canonicity were:
- Consistency with the faith passed down
- by an apostles or one close to an apostle
- whether the writing was WIDELY read in Church, at Mass.
(note, the biblical canon is proof positive that Sola Scriptura fails at the table of contents)
Sorry but the Scripture alone is sufficient, just like the Scripture itself says
@@eagleclaw1179 I'll go by scripture just 100% fine.
Does scripture ever say to go by scripture alone?
Do you have a verse that says so?
What does _scripture_ itself say :
_15 So then, brethren, STAND FIRM and HOLD to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, EITHER by word of mouth or by letter._ (2 Thes 2: 15)
Does "scripture alone" tell you which writings belong in the table of contents ?
Yes
No
@@TruthHasSpoken
2Timothy 3:16, says that the scripture is sufficient.
What traditions did the Apostles teach that they didn’t put in Scripture? So you would say that not all inspired revelation is in scripture?
I answered your question, return the courtesy and answer mine
@@eagleclaw1179 "2Timothy 3: 16, says that the scripture is sufficient."
No it does not Amber. Here is the verse below. I agree 100% with it but it says nothing about scripture alone. So the question that I asked, "Does scripture ever say to go by *scripture alone?"*
The answer is no.
_16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,_
What Amber is the answer to the question below?
Does "scripture alone" tell you which writings belong in the table of contents ?
Yes
No
What traditions did the Apostles teach that they didn’t put in Scripture?
I am working toward an answer. Please answer first the yes or no question above.
So you would say that not all inspired revelation is in scripture?
What do you mean by "Revelation" ? Does this in your mind include doctrine (infallible beliefs)? Always helpful to define terms.
@@TruthHasSpoken
“So that the man of God may be fully equipped ready for every good work.” It’s the Scripture that does that. I like how you didn’t quote the rest of the verse
Revelation is the act of God by which He makes himself known, And this Revelation comes through Christ and the Scripture, only. I think you just didn’t understand what I was saying, as far as that Goes.
So yes the Scripture specifically says it’s the scripture which is sufficient.
We are taught by Christ and the Apostles themselves to trust only the Scriptures.
Look, you want to trust the pope and the Catholic Church, go ahead. You want to worship Mary and pray to the dead, go ahead.
But you can’t justify those doctrines in Scripture, all you can point to is some guys in history who said they got it from the Apostles, yet the Apostles didn’t teach it in Scripture.
Me, I’ll stick with Christ and his word
Are you really suggesting that we can’t k ow what Scripture is? Seriously? We know what is Scripture because we know what the Apostles wrote, it’s that simple, and those letters were written and used by believers before there ever was a pope or Catholic Church
You should go find out those traditions that you are speaking about that aren’t found in Scripture, I would’ve thought you already knew what they were, considering the claims you are making
Please activate subtitles in English for all videos, thanks!
Sometimes the simplest explanation is True. The Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, the romans wrote in greek.
The so called modern scholars, like to say Mark was written first. Because it is the least flattering. Under this assumption any degraded document would be called first/original. What they don't say is why don't mark mention a resurrection? He didn't believe it? or he didn't think it was important? or was it that it was written by a roman stooge to destroy the message of The Messiah?
In Matthew and Luke the genealogies are a contradiction. Matthew said the woman held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Luke says that Jesus said, don't touch me for I have not ascended to My Father. Spaul contradicts all the other 40 Inspired Books including Matthew.
Old Testament so called "contradictions" are few and can be easily explained with proper translation. In the "New Testament", there are many irreconcilable differences. Because only Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. "Matthew" was written anomalously/untitled. It is The Testament of Messiah the last Inspired book. The roman/greek books that fallow are roman lies, propaganda and contradictions. Wake up brothers and sisters, God didn't start speaking greek after they killed His Son. Rome is the beast of Daniel 7 that was given power over the saints for a season. Wake up the Brothers and Sister, He is coming soon.
www.amazon.com/Labyrinth-Time-Y-T-Rhyms-ebook/dp/B0BMWKFLCG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1B3V9KA85ZCBH&keywords=ebook+Poems+A+Labyrinth+In+Time&qid=1670960840&sprefix=ebook+poems+a+labyrinth+in+time%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1
Do we have early writing from Gnostics sects and Heretical sects that show as to what they included in there cannon and why ?
About 15 years ago I researched the history of the Gnostics. The Gnostics were not Christians initially and had a totally different belief system. Basically Christianity becomes overwhelmingly popular and the Gnostics adapt, evolve and develop a Christianity that suited there belief system. They claim to use a book of Thomas as one of there sources. I read excerpts and from the clearly fake Thomas's book very inconsistent with Christs message and as a youth Christ touch's someone and kills them. I believe the Gnostics had there own agenda and were just using Christianity.
@@leeeng478 ya I've read some passages from the supposed extra canonical gospels and it sounds really far fetched and just plain weird. i guess i am more curious as to all the first century texts that we dont' have (as luke refers to them) and what was the original belief of paul and even peter himself. how do we know that the Christianity we have today wasn't altered to what it originally believed. not to mention there were many different sects right from the beginning, as paul even refers too
@@leeeng478 but i was more referring to the fact we only have writings from the canonical sects, do you think Christians with a completely different cannon/beliefs would say there cannon/beliefs are NOT authentic, don't go back to the dating, from a true apostle of Jesus, etc. It's just hard when you only have one side of the argument.
Yes. Do you want a link?
@@leeeng478 no, there never was a church of gnostics. They were normal Christians that did not align with the future canon.
So for the first couple hundred years there were many wild variations of Christianity.
Do you want a link?
Jesus created One Church (Matt 16:18), the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth), 1 Tim 3:15, and his Church is the Final Authority, Matt 18:15-17., NOT The Bible Alone, which Martin Luther made up 1100 years after the Catholic Church decided the Canon. All of the “Bishops” and Councils he talks about like Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, were ALL Catholic.
Thank you for the video, I believe God knows the future and controls history, if there was something to correct, He would do it as He did with the Reformation. I trust what we have in the Bible is all we need to be saved.
Why would God allow scripture to be incorrect for 1100 years? Isn't it more likely that the protestants were wrong in removing the books? If someone in the modern day didn't like a few books of the Bible and threw them out would you say the same?
@@mytestimonytojesuschrist
" Why would God allow scripture to be incorrect for 1100 years? Isn't it more likely that the protestants were wrong in removing the books? If someone in the modern day didn't like a few books of the Bible and threw them out would you say the same? "
The Catholic bible was corrupt for 1100 years, not the Holy Bible, and still is today. We have New Testament books that were beinq quoted by the end of the first century A.D. so that shows that the Holy Bible was intact early on. The Latin Vulgate is where the Catholic Bible went south, which added the apocrypha under the protest of Jerome in the 5th century A.D. so the book that were removed were books that had been added to the Bible.
nice voice crack at 10:19 and 10:42
Notice how Dr. Licona is referencing the Fathers of the Church, who were Catholic, to explain how the canon of scripture was solidified? 🤔😏
The church = The catholic church
And you forgot the council of Rome 382AD