How Did We Get The Bible | Michael Kruger
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- Join us on a journey into the origins of the Bible with renowned scholar Michael Kruger. In this captivating exploration, we delve into the historical context, the formation of the biblical canon, and the fascinating journey of how we received the sacred scriptures we cherish today.
Thanks so much!
Any well read Bible / theology student, can see Gods authority, and the accuracy, historicity, and sufficiency of Gods word breathed out.
Exactly. And the early church did just that. The same claim by Rome and the Atheists is laughable
Great clarification of scripture misconceptions that have persisted for hundreds of years and are used to dissuade unbelievers and new believers to reject the canon.
This guy is awesome! Never heard of him until now!!❤
Greatness! Thanks Dr. Kruger.
In essence - we have in the NT canon (as with the OT canon) the God-breathed words of Scripture through the pens of His chosen human representatives. Divinely inspired works through human personality. Utterly unique, absolutely amazing, and powerful to save. For they bear witness to the God-man, Jesus Christ...Saviour of sinners like you and me. Soli Deo Gloria!
Didn't Jesus Christ breath on the apostles?
@captainmarvelmsc7692 Yes indeed - John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. (ESV)
@@Shabeck100 so then the only bible verse in the new testimate that specifically mentions god breath is on the Apostles who were bishops, not paper text correct?
@@Shabeck100 oh esv...ya....not the best....oh well.
Do u not see the contradiction? Only the Apostles were God Breathed. Ur "oh well response" to the ESV (bad translation)...isn't give u doubt?
At the Council of Rome in 382AD, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393AD), Carthage (397, 419AD), II Nicea (787AD), Florence (1442AD), and Trent (1546AD).
Christian History 101
the canon already existed by 96 AD, because the 27 books of the NT were "God-breathed" as soon as written. The discernment process is what you are talking about. The church discerned the canon; not decided upon the canon. The church is not over the canon. The church did not create the canon! The Scriptures rule over the church. The apocrypha books of OT was in debate from Jerome's time until Trent. Jerome knew they were not canonical or inspired. Athanasius basically agreed - those are not in the canon - but they were good for reading and studying. Even Cardinal Cajetan around 1518 (who interviewed & examined Luther for the Pope in 1518) agreed that "all decisions about the canon are to be reduced to the judgment of Jerome".
"For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. " Cardinal Cajetan
around 1518
5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me"
7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.
Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, 367 AD
Notice about the 27 NT books in paragraph 6 : "in these ALONE" = Sola Scriptura in general principle
paragraph 7 - the apocypha (deuterocanonical) books are not canon.
Yes, I realize he included Esther in that group.
The point is there was real debate from Jerome's time until Trent. But Jerome and Athanasius and others represent the early church's better scholarship on the OT canon.
@@kentemple7026 "The church is not over the canon."
Prove that. We ALL know that The Church existed before the Canon did (scripture tells us that). We also know that the Canon didn't just fall out of the sky all leather bound with numbers & footnotes.
So, how would God allow something without authority to tell the world what are the authoritative works of God?
What did Jesus tell Peter and the Apostles? That He empowered them after He left. When did that authority cease?
When they died? That would make no sense since Jesus died and they succeeded Him right? Where does it say anywhere in Christian history that that succession didn't continue?
@@kentemple7026 There are several errors in your argument:
First. the bible did not come with a table of contents, so how did the Christians of the first century know what books or letters were inspired?
Secondly, Jerome never stated if the Deuterocanonical books were not of canon, but even if he did think this, his assignment was to translate the scriptures and not determine the canon. Jerome included them in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. What he wrote was that certain Jews he knew didn’t include them in their Bible; ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon. In addition, at the dawn of the fifth century, after Jerome finished his translation, Bishop Exuperous of Toulouse wrote a letter to Pope Innocent I, asking which books were considered Sacred Scripture. The Pope responded with a list identical to the Catholic Bible of today. The Catholic canon remained virtually unchallenged for the next thousand years. These decisions were echoed at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and infallibly declared at the Council of Florence in 1441.
I could go on but the bottom line is that the Church decided what is canon and not the individual no matter how learned he may be.
One other thing is that the scriptures came from the Church and not the other way around. We had the Church before a single word of the new testament was written.
@@gregwademan359
wrong on point # 2
In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."
this is common knowledge. I am surprised Roman Catholics don't do their homework on this issue.
He translated the Deuterocanonicals out of respect for the bishop of Rome, and because at the time they were considered "good to read" for piety, information, etc. BUT not "God-breathed" and not inspired, therefore, NOT canon.
That was incredible, thank you
This is very insightful!
Excellent information!
Thank you!!
Speaking to an audience eager to have presuppositions confirmed, his lecture makes sense. People have to be ready to ask hard questions and hear uncomfortable answers. I don’t think that was his audience. When out in the ocean, you don’t drill holes in the hull of the ship in which you want to be, no matter how curious you are about its integrity and solidity.
He gave me reasons to question the Bible I never thought of
Thank God for The Catholic Church that gave us The New Testament!🙏🏽
Written entirely by the first Catholics.
Yea about that ‘’
It was the Catholic Church
Ignatius of Antioch
Was the first early church Father who used the word Catholic in 107ad - 109ad
So.................the church & the man you claim credit & flaunt are more important than the GOD whom all credit is to be given? You breathe & suck in GOD'S given oxygen because "you" opened your mouth & made your lungs work?
The Catholic church is not the original church. Roman emperors stole the church, which were started by Jesus and the apostles (Jews & then gentiles). Roman emperors added the paganism which IS the Catholic church today.
Mary is not equal to Jesus nor can she offer salvation, which Catholicism teaches. Mary IS NOT an eternal virgin. She was a sinner like everyone else.
It's sad that people think the Catholic church actually canonized the scripture. That's NOT the truth, but most people are too lazy to do their own research. Just like finding the dates and names of the Roman emperors who changed Jesus' church and what paganistic additives they placed, including many of the titles that the Catholic "church" uses today.
@@OrangeMonkey2112
Mr Monkey, in order for me to respond to your comments I would be typing for ever ,clearly I see you have not read about the early Church Fathers and the historical facts the Catholic Church holds , unlike Protestantism that can only go back 500 years . That said there was only one Church in existence during the Roman Empire and if you know history Christianity was ilegal until Constantine . Pope Miltiades was in Peter’s chair and it was Constantine who legalize Christianity. And Pope Damasus I was in Peter’s chair when the New Testament was completed. So I ask you where was your Protestant chair ? No where because Protestants came about in 1500 by Martin Luther.
And on the issue of Mary I see by your comments you have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary and the Church. I guarantee if you learn about the Catholic Church teaching you will become Catholic but first you have to stop learning about Catholicism through teaching of Protestants and non practicing Catholics that don’t know there faith.
@@simonquesi2869 people bury their heads in the sand to truth for two reasons. One, ignorance and that can be trained out of a person with study. Two, willing disobedience, which can not be trained out out of a person.
The dates, times, and truths of the horrid atrocities and deliberate disengagement of God by the Catholic church are available to anyone who cares about following God more than a worldly institution.
If you won't research your own beliefs as I have, and still am, mine then that's your "dedication" or lack of to God.
Best wishes
@@simonquesi2869 FYI being able to go back further doesn't mean the truth of your organization isn't true. Reformation had to happen because the pagan Catholic church was so perverted and murderous that no one was following God. Thank God for Martin Luther and many others who showed the world the truth of the un-holy Roman Catholic Church. There IS NO historical truth that Peter was tied to your church, but truth doesn't matter to most "Catholics".
Hell is all that's left for those who deny Christ as Catholics do. Not my opinion, just a truth.
Christians didn't have a BIBLE until the end of the 4th century. They had some books (letters), the larger cities had somewhat complete collections of NT writings. They also had the Septuagint version of the OT which was more dispersed than the Hebrew version. We have a complete collection of the 73 books by the mid 3rd century or end of the 4th century.
There are only 66 books. The apocrypha books were made in the intertestamental period and are therefore verifably the words of fallible men, not God. Many popes, including Gregory, did not recognize them as inspired scripture. Just one year after church tradition was to have equal authority with scripture, the apocrypha was added to Rome's canon, because the pope at the time, like most people that considered apocrypha books were scripture at the time, did not know much about the language or history behind them (which is why they were in that error). While we did not have a Bible until that time, the scriptures that compiled the Bible existed. Unless you're going to argue that it isn't the word of God until we have a complete canon, then this argument doesn't hold. By that logic, God had no authority in Moses' time, because the canon we have today wasn't anywhere near completed.
@@ExaltedTilemakeressentially everything you said was wrong.
@@ExaltedTilemakerwikipedia is a free online tool
Great to see you address this
Anyone know where the Q&A can be found? Thanks!
Found it🙃
Why does codex Sinaiticus, 4th century Bible, include two other books as part of the New Testament:
Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
For the same reason that Michael Kruger spent 52 minutes speaking about the biblical canon without ever defining what canon means.
would have liked to see the Q & A
Wow someone recommended me to listen to him and I honestly had a great hope I was optimistic ready to listen the most important point for me was his first one and I man I couldn't believe it.. yes he offers an explanation thanks for that but nevertheless that's just an idea, an inference or hypothesis at best.. I was ready to listen to something more definitive. For a Christian protestant obviously this will be sufficient since you already believe in Martin Luther sola scriptura ideology but not for someone that is not into protestantism. Well I tried and I tried hard for my girlfriend only for here but someone must follow the truth and the most reasonable path which is that the early church was oral tradition, Christ founded a church not a scripture and the Bible also requires us to follow tradition. I will not leave my orthodox Christian faith and if that's the reason of she breaking out with me then I will accept it and trust Jesus Christ my lord
I’ve been looking for how Protestants claim to know what books are scripture and it always boils down to bc we say it is. Idk how anyone could be protestant except the momentum of culture and family that make them Protestant
Jesus Christ himself quoted scripture.
God himself.....quoted scripture...
That's because it is the infallible word of God. You would know nothing of Jesus if not for scripture.
Why do you think Paul had to write all those letters to the early churches? Cause they were made of men trying to do their own thing with the church even that close to Christ's resurrection. Preaching alternate Gospels and blending pagan ideas with Christianity.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says ""All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work".
I'll take an Apostle's word that scripture alone is enough to make the man of God complete, because those were God's words he wrote down.
@@geauxtohealth8699okay but that doesn’t get us to the Protestant Bible and interpretations… he quoted scripture for many reasons.
His book goes into more detail. You can't expect church history about the Canon to be fully addressed in one lecture or one book. History is messy
Notice the discomfort when someone innocently brought up the Dead Sea scrolls as evidence for the Old Testament Canon. Unbeknownst to the commentator, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain at least three works of the Apocrypha. Found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ben Sira (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus), the book of Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. non-Protestant canonical books . Oops! Move along.
7 books of the old testament are in Catholic Bibles and were in all Bibles for centuries before the reformation then removed. Luther didn't even want James. Many, many writings were considered by the bishops at councils of the church. Under the GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT and using connections to the apostles, the books were chosen. They looked to the writings being proclaimed when they broke bread and prayed in the gatherings of the early church.
He starts off talking about the book of Thomas. Lol Discovering extra books doesn't make them scripture. They are not even in harmony. They had false teachers just like we have false prophets on TH-cam
@@ofamaoI don't think they watched the video or they would have understood this.
@@ofamaoit’s the fact that the apocrypha are found among the rest of the Septuagint in the Dead Sea Scroll collection. The gospel of Thomas was not found alongside anything we consider NT canon, which makes a clear case for rejecting it as having ever been part of the biblical canon. The same cannot be said for the apocrypha, and the dead sea scroll collection confirms this contention.
@@paulallenscards not understand your response to me. Was it meant for someone else?
The question is who are those early christians that decided which books belong to the canon? You are avoiding this question because you can not accept that there is a body that Jesus left on earth to represent His authority...Matthew 16:16ff
TRUTH is always based on FACTS not in our own opinion or biases...
Then why isn’t Peter identified with this headship at any point or shown to have authority over the apostles?
@@mbell985 -- "Feed my sheep,' "Peter addressed the crowds,' Paul castigating Peter for not wanting to offend the jewish parties that demanded kosher for the new gentile Christians. These are some examples. Lsatly, the bones of Peter finally identified under the main altar at St Peter's. Mind you, this was exhumed, discovered in the 20th century, so no ruse here.
@@mbell985he was. You just have to know where to look.
The church created the Canon like Isaak Newton created gravity.
The Church does not consider herself the creator of the Scriptures, rather the custodian. No protestant can claim such since it took 16 centuries for protestant theologies to be created.
@@TheMenghi1
Wrong. I claim the Reformation corrected the corruption of the Church and returned her to faithful dependence on Scripture. Something no RC can claim since 16 centuries of RC accretions is exactly what The Reformation corrected.
@@kurtgundy First of all, you have to trust the Church to have given you the correct canon to the NT since they did so during numeous councils. Secondly, your reformer was an Augustinian monk named Luther. Lastly, you have to subscribe to the protestant idea that the church was in error for 16 centuries. So, how were Christians being fed? Were they all condemned? Where was Christ in all of this? Didn't he promise to guard his Church? Could you name a Christian who believed what Luther did prior to the 16th century? Please provide the year and area where these Christians lived.
@@TheMenghi1
Thanks for the questions. I'll have to get back to you with specific examples. But for now, I'll just say, I think the proper way to word it is, the Church recognized or discovered the Canon. Obviously Protestants agree that God inspired the Church, the Apostles, to write the books of the NT. But it was an organic process which formed the Canon, as books were written and recognized as authoritative, and as nearly everyone agreed what books should be included. Hopefully we can agree on that much. By the time of the early councils there was almost unanimous agreement. It's not as if there was a debate about the Gospels; should we include them or not?
Secondly, I misspoke when I said 16 centuries of corruption. Protestants agree with many if not all of the early councils, probably up until Nicea 2. So again, before the corruption started, there was no need for a Reformation.
The OT Canon is an altogether different discussion. The Jews do not recognize the apocrypha as inspired. And there are contradictions between the Canon and apocrypha.
@@kurtgundy I’m not sure you mean what you think you mean by this. Isaac Newton was the first to mathematically describe general, universal gravitation. For this analogy to hold water, you would be contending that the biblical authors did not write with any special interest or revelation, but that they simply described God’s new covenant in the same manner that anyone else looking hard enough for God’s foreordained canon could also have done.
Thank you
My question is, what about the books mentioned in scripture that aren’t in the canon? Jashar, Enoch, and the epistle to the Laodiceans?
Dr Kruger has detailed teaching series on these things- concerning the canon…
My question to you, what about these books?
Those books are not considered inspired.
A single line of Enoch is inspired. It is quoted in Jude.
The Bible is a Catholic Book kiddos.
Amen brother. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
@@DD-bx8rb
Well said brother!!! It is funny to think that most folks don’t realize the facts you have so eloquently displayed in your comment. They either know and deny it or they decide they want to live in an alternate universe. I had a conversation with a Methodist and simply said the year 1829. He did not know what I was referencing and asked him did Luther take those books out of the Bible? He said we added them and I had to chuckle. Simply said 1829 and if he wanted more information on which Old Testament Jesus more than likely used we could also get into that. He never wanted to talk about it again which is unfortunate but we all make our own choices. Love your comment!!!
@@Kalmar917 God bless you brother
How Did We Get The Bible?
Through the Roman Catholic Church (or KATHOLOS EKKLESIA if you want to go by the original Koine Greek scriptures in the book of Acts).
You couldn't be more wrong but then you have problems with basic scripture verses.
Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH and that NOT of yourselves. It is the GIFT of GOD NOT WORKS lest any man should boast. "
NOT WORKS
1Timothy 2:5
'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
NOT MARY
Matthew 23:9
"And call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father which is in heaven."
NO priest, cardinal, bishop or pope
@@Ken-dh2te That's for Christians. Non-Christians are justified to God by living good lives. Romans 2
@@Ken-dh2te Matthew 7 is talking about calling man Father (capital F) as in God the Father.
1 Corinthians 4:15
"For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
@Ken-dh2te Plus, there are saints in heaven praying for us (not mediating):
Revelation 5:8: "In heaven the elders and angels offer up the prayers of the saints as incense before the throne of God."
@@Ken-dh2te James 2:14
"Faith Without Works Is Dead What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
You got the Bible from Catholics. Look at the 1611 King James Version of the Bible it contains the Apocrypha a.k.a. the Deuterocanonical books in both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. The Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint Scriptures which were established in 283 B.C. (Alexandria Egypt). The entire canon of Scripture both Old and New was finalized in 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome we have today. Protestants removed the Apocrypha from their Bibles in 1885. These types of talks are somewhat intellectually dishonest.
I stopped listening after point number two. Krueger’s Bias won’t allow him to simply tell us the historical facts surrounding the emergence of the canon. He would prefer to tell us what to think, shaped by his own preferences, and understandings.
I don’t even know where to begin in critiquing his first two points. Comparing the necessity of a New Testament canon to the delivery of the law on Mount Sinai dismisses, the promises made by God through Ezekiel and Jeremiah Who prophesied that God’s Future plan would be to describe the law on the hearts of his people Instead of tablets of stone. Writing the law on their hearts, doesn’t dismiss the need or relevance of a written New Testament canon, it’s simply qualifies it as peripheral, and secondary to the law, having been written on their hearts.
His second point is poorly presented. He jests at the idea of the church’s authority in recognizing/affirming the writings as inspired as if to say the church does not possess such authority. Jesus would disagree. He last words to his disciples suggest the transfer of agency in terms of authority from himself into his people (his body). As they go, so he goes and vice versa. As they speak, so he speaks. Clearly, they did have the authority to perform all task relevant to establishing and upholding the life of the church. He did not leave them equipped for that task.
Krueger is simply parroting another flimsy post reformation argument for sola scriptura, denying the authority given by Christ to the church empowered by the spirit to bear witness in life and writing. Authority rests in both the church and in its scriptural witness, they belong together, not pitted against one another.
Agree
This man is clueless and has no idea, don't waste your time listening to his opinions he has not done his research
More Catholic malarkey
Similar to the worship and adoration of Jesus mother totally unbiblical
@@sidneymenough8669 Show be from the Scriptures how our relationship with Mary is "against Scripture". We do not worship Mary. We honor her as the mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son. She carried him in her womb and gave birth to HIm. He is our brother, and she is our mother. She prays for us unceasingly.
why would anyone think that the apostles didn't think they were writing scripture when they were clarifying scripture to those who didn't seem to understand it??? smh that's just silly.
If there were arguments on what books were canonized. Wouldn’t some in that time consider apocryphal books “canon”?
They probably would have. Unfortunately, Michael Kruger fails to define “canon” despite using the term nearly a hundred times in this video. So, he’d probably waffle on your question and say something like “well they were mistaken because that wasn’t the ‘true’ canon”
He explained this. There was a core group of the new testament letters/books that were already part of the canon. The few that were not in the list were recognized later. There were requirements that were met to determine if a book was canonical. There were at least 4 things. The apocrypha doesn't 'look' like the inspired scripture and they weren't written early enough to be considered. There were others.
@@paulallenscards He defined the canon.
@@ContendingEarnestly thats historically inaccurate. there was much debate by early church fathers of what books were to be in the bible. its definitely not about when they were written. scholarly consensus is that the gospel of john was written far far after.
@@Wylistens There was debate about some of them, many were considered inspired canon. And yes, it is about when they were written as 'a' test, not 'the' test as i've said. The Murtorian fragment/canon says of The Shepherd that it was written to late to be included. It wasn't allowed to be read publically.
As for John, what do you consider 'far far after?' The earliest fragment they have is P52 from approx 120 maybe 140 depending on who you ask. It was certainly written by John in the first century.
but even of almost all agreed on the canon how woud we know they werent mistaken?
Yes! How can we trust the Catholic Churches Councils that had such a great influence on which books would be included in The NT Canon??
@@johnsteila6049 The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
💜💜💜💜💜
Does he mean that each of the 4 gospels has 2500 manuscripts or does he mean each one has 625 manuscripts for a combined total of 2500 ?
He meant that there are manuscript fragments of the 4 Gospels, which totaled up to 2,500.
It does sound impressive doesn't it. Unless you do research into, then not so much.
Michael Kruger: “The gospel of Peter is not like the other gospels. It is very very odd and therefore it cannot be the word of God.”
Book of Revelation: “Excuse me?”
Great point!
You mean the book that utilizes metaphor, hyperbole, and Old Testament imagery?… that’s not the same as comparing “the gospel of Peter” which was already attributed to Mark being the student of Peter and stating that Jesus came out of the tomb 60 feet tall… cmon bro..
@@boughtbyblood1 Why are you willing to accept that Revelation uses metaphor and hyperbole but Peter doesn’t?
@@jc_alpha Because Peter didn’t write it for one… the gospel of Mark is already attributed to Peter and the Petrine community being that Mark was his disciple. Saying that Christ stepped out of the tomb 60 feet tall is not hyperbolic in its context as Revelation in its context is MEANT to be metaphoric and hyperbolic.
It is comical to see Romanist make claims about how they defined the cannon. Same arguments that atheists make. News flash, nobody in the early church was running around distraught not knowing what was scripture and what wasn’t and they were just waiting for Rome to tell them. The fathers weren’t sitting around wondering what to read or believe. There was nearly universal agreement in the early church what was scripture and what wasn’t, what took time was to combine them into a “cannon”. Nobody needed Rome for that. Nobody in the early church, NOBODY, affirmed or believed what Rome now believes about itself or many of its dogmas. There is zero biblical or historical evidence for their dogmas that they claimed from pagan, mystic and gnostic sources-see the Marian Dogmas, and the papacy was invented out of whole cloth and is now desperately crammed back into scripture by taking verses out of context and twisting them into pretzels. In fact, there were ecumenical councils in the early church that Rome wasn’t even invited to, much less consulted for their “primacy”. This “authority” Rome claims for itself was invented hundreds of years later. They don’t have and never had the “authority” that they claim they have. Difference between now and then, is in the early church even those in Rome didn’t believe what Rome now does. The Catholic Church is the universal church. All those who have been saved by grace, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s not Rome, or the East or any one place. It is Christ’s church, handed to the fathers by the Apostles. There was no imaginary succession from Peter. Not even Peter believed that, just read scripture. Rome’s “official cannon” that they use now wasn’t canonized until the 1500s. Don’t try and pretend what the early church did is by extension now Rome. It isn’t. Rome has departed from the faith and over hundreds of years introduced all manner of heresy. In fact, Rome’s cannon added books that the Jewish Cannon didn’t recognize. The Reformers simply returned to scripture and the early church and away from the accretions of Rome. Scripture has been scripture from the moment it was written. It didn’t take hundreds of years for that to be recognized. It did take time and some development to organize them and combine them into an “official cannon” but that is something that happened organically as the Lord lead his people. It wasn’t Rome, never has been, never will be.
Amen!
You need to read both the Apostolic Fathers and early Fathers of the Church. As Cardinal Newman so aptly said, ' to go far in history is to cease being Protestant.' He was part of the Oxford movement of the 19th century. He tried to discredit the claims of Rome by reseraching their claims. He converted to Catholicism.
the canon eas used "in littergy" not in protestsnt bible study.
Would there ever be a Bible if God did not inspire the Church which is composed of the people of God? Was the selection and compilation of New Testament books which passed through canons and voted by the Councils of the Church not the INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? If Yes, then the BIBLE we have is not of GOD but of another being?
“In the early church”
“The church in the beginning”
All these phrases this guys uses makes me laugh.
Be honest.. it was the catholic Church!!!
The one true church… by the way started by an Apostle.
Sure because as a Catholic drone church teaching installed that in you. Peter was not the 1st Pope, he did not start the Catholic church, he most likely was never in Rome. The church, the true body of believers, not the RCC which you bow down to was built on Peter's confession in Matthew 16. The RCC was born out of Constantines mingling of Roman paganism with Christianity. It became evil with the evil greed of a Pope who was allowed to be the singular Christian Emperor along side the Roman Emperor. Up until that time diciples went out and witnessed the gospel & churches began. The new church & new Christian Emperor was butt hurt & sent out his armies to destroy all the true believers who would not submitt to the RCC, these are the original Protesters. The RCC had to manipulate history & later the vatican but the gates of hell can not prevail or the true Christian faith. History has been tainted by the RCC, just like today - there is no pedifilia or sexual immorality among its celebate clergy, it just gets settled out of court & covered up. That my friend is what you people call God's church and we all know God has no part in none of the past RCC evils or today's. Wake up
Was the church mentioned in the books of Ats that net and broke bread together and were baptized by the holt spirit Catholic? Was the church ag Antioch Catholic. Did they believe all the Catholic dogma about praying to Mary and other dead saints instead of praying directly to Jesus? When the name Roman Catholic church arise?
Sorry Acts
I told myself if this dude mentions his book on the back table one more time, Im going to another scholar on this topic whos not trying to promote his book lol
Yes! 😂
Huh
😮
This quote at 22:00 is really messed up when you understand in which the context Kruger gives the quote. This is not good. Not good at all. I have had my suspicions about Paul but the way the church seems to have placed authority to scripture is... problematic to say the least.
My struggle with Paul recently started with two specific quotes he makes in Romans 10:18-21. Those quotes from Isaiah and Hosea is supposed to give support to the calling of heathens to the word of God. Because Israel rejected him.
But Paul took those verses totally out of context. I mean TOTALLY. Both those verses from Isaiah and Hosea is about Israel!! If he can make that mistake in what other ways is his ideas at fault? Why should I believe the rest? Think about it.
Ironically the time stamp of 26-27 min he mentions 2 or 3 historical names that greater evidence as catholic bishops. It's an interesting omission.
None of these “historians” wants to admit the early church fathers were catholic. They’ll quote the fathers ad nauseam when it helps their Protestant position but as soon as we get to topics such as the authority of the bishop and even more so, the Eucharist, these historians go quiet real quick.
💖💖💖💖💖💖
Since I believe GOD is A good GOD and he is not laughing at us for reading and believing his chosen 66 books, and if he did not want us to have 66 books in our bibles, he would of act.
“He would of act”??
Where is your divine guarantee for 66 books? The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
AD 390 cannon. thst settled tbe canon. tgats in the second century.
Just ask Siri. Thank you Catholic Church
❤
It took 2000 years of debating before it was finally settled into what it is today
Why would you say that?
That’s absolutely wrong.
@@johnsteila6049 nope,do your own research
@@johnsteila6049 part of the Bible can and we know of today came from the Torah which was being used before Christ. There are 3030 different versions of the Bible. Depending on what religion you are and there are over 4,000 different religions..... Yes the Bible Canon did take that long to finally be put together into one large book. I've researched the history of the Bible for a very very long time, it's definitely not a secret and you can do the same thing and you will find out the same thing.
29:39 well tell me you don’t anything about Mormonism without telling me you don’t know anything about Mormonism
the books have authority but only the Church has the wisdom of the holy spirit to descern brcause the Church was handed doen by the apostles to their successors.
Quite sad. This issue breaks empty protestantism apart.
Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel and practices idolatry.
why does the 'name' of roman survive through the ages? why does the name of king james survive through the ages. I wonder why.
In china, there is an attempt, or perhaps already done, version of the xi jinping (china's ???tator) "translation"(alteration) of the Bible.
is it important to just focus on Jesus Christ?
Please kindly share with me. I'm still learning.
I don't find this video useful at all, for the record.
Different religions decided on different books that were going to be in their Bible or not so every religion has a different amount of books in their Bible if you want to look at Catholic or Christian or Protestant all of the Bible's are different there are different amounts of books, everybody decided what they thought was best for their religion!!
Pure BS
@@sidneymenough8669 The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
Campus ! Please you mean a church !!!!!
Get to the point
Ahh, but the authority of the scriptures DOES come from the Church, specifically the Catholic Church, which was the ONLY Church in existence for the first 1000 years. The Bible itself says, in 2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter." This tells us that the REAL authority is in the Apostle's teaching, which is referred to as TRADITION, both in the Oral form, and in the Written form as letters. We know that these letters were passed around from church to church. Multiple copies were made, and they were sent out from place to place. The actual authority of the Bible comes FROM the Church. Is there a place that the bible confirms this? Yes, there is:
1 Timothy 3:14-15
14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these things 15 in case I am delayed, so that you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
So, by looking at this verse in 1 Timothy, we can ask, what is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? NO! It is the Church of the Living God.
So, Mr. Kruger is correct. If the Bible is a late book, then the authority for it comes from the Church! Exactly! Jesus gave us a Church, not a bible. The Church gave us a Bible, and the main reason was to combat confusion in the 4th century, which is when a lot of books were being produced. Prior to this, books were very expensive and hard to come by. Also, the format was scrolls, which were bulky and hard to carry around. The growing popularity of the Codex (our present book format) really caused more people to learn to read, and more books to be produced. Even with this, it was only a small fraction of people who could actually read, so people relied on going to Mass in order to hear the Bible read out loud.
By the 4th century there were MANY books floating around Christendom, and this was causing a lot of confusion. People did not know which books were actually from REAL Apostles, and which were fakes. This prompted the Catholic Church to undertake the task of producing a canonized New Testament. The Catholic Bishop of Antioch, St. Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon. Earlier, in the year AD 331, Emperor Constantine commissioned 50 bibles to be produced. This was a huge undertaking, because they all had to be produced by hand.
The authority of the scriptures come from God (Matthew 22:32).
I wld like to see a teaching when the bible was being taught as a whole OT and NT, you know the saintheadreain wldnt allow the two they wld have destroyed any wrighting from gospels are apistels of paul,God done it by his soverign will and they fit like a glove . The decipels lived by OT wrightings ,They cld see jesus all threw sciptures and we can in NT, they cld have had a spiritual resurrection, been a lot eaiser out come been the same. The bodily ressurection cld be when we are raised, No if you really think about it. It all happened the way you cld really exspect it to by God ,If it had been found by one man with no explanation for it .thewld have destroyed it. But God scartered the decilpels and them go wroght the sciptures bring at the right time to accomplish his will.God breathed inspjred
Confirmation bias, speculation and very little evidence of the early church and their involvement in Canonization. Besides academic thought and because God did it... Let's all swim with Alligators, and note God's holyest of work. By who survives...
the new testament scripture were all used in tbr littergy, the littergu that tgr protestants latter dropoed like a hot potato when thr masd was banbed.
Lots of conjecture...not a ton of proof.
14:29: Respectfully sir, Jesus did not say, "Behold I am making a New Covenant." He said, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20, NKJV). So... the New Covenant is not simply some sort of agreement. The New Covenant, according to Jesus, is a cup filled with the blood of Jesus. Pretty clear. Sure, it can be argued that the idea of writing down the nature of the covenant into a document could have been a factor in assembling the NT canon, but let's not allow ambiguity regarding what the New Covenant actually is. The New Covenant is the physical blood of Jesus (and, one can easily argue, the bread which is his body as well). Our Lord tells us so. No, Jesus did not say, "Behold I am making a New Covenant." Sounds like the Catholic Eucharist to me, according to the document. :)
This is the same error that Muslims make. They refuse to accept what the Bible clearly teaches because it doesn't word things in the exact way that they have ahead of time approved. You can point to all the verses that teach the diety of Christ, but they will refuse to accept it because Hesus never said the exact phrase "I am God. Worship me." This is narcissism and not wanting to believe what scripture says, simple as that. Jehovah's witnesses do the same thing too I've noticed. "The Bible says Jesus is the firstborn of creation! That means he's the first thing ever created! Otherwise it would be worded differently!" And catholics do this on a many number of things. "Where in the Bible does it specifically say that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith?" Same thing. Heretics seem to have zero originality.
To be exegetical and honest, the new covenant in Jesus' blood referred to His sacrifice on the cross, which is the propitiation for sin. John 6:53-56 takes place before this, so trying to inset the eucharaist into there as Catholics do to support transsubstantiation is disingenuous.
This guy is full of it
Prove him wrong …. I dare you
You apparently have not done your homework.
Look up Jimmy Akin
Enjoy his book
THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK
Jimmy Akin shows how the Bible cannot exist apart from the Church. In its origins and its formulation, in the truths it contains, in its careful preservation over the centuries and in the prayerful study and elucidation of its mysteries, Scripture is inseparable from Catholicism. This is fitting, since both come from God for our salvation.
If you’re a Catholic who sometimes gets intimidated by the Bible, this book will help you better understand and take pride in this gift that God gave the world through the Church. Catholics really are the original Bible Christians! Even non-Catholics will appreciate the clear and charitable way that Jimmy explains how the early Church gave us the Bible and how the Church to this day reveres and obeys it.
@@chrisvanbeekum2694 Well first off, Jesus quoted from the books that he said weren't included in the New Testament (the Septuagint). That automatically credentials them as authorized by Jesus Himself (even if the Jews and the Protestants reject them).
@YankeeWoodcraft there was no single septuagint collection. The septuagint originally referred to the pentateuch alone translated into Greek, then various other translators over the centuries had different collections and different Greek translations. Origen compared several in his hexapala. So there wasn't a "septuagint" that Jesus quoted that authorized different specific apocryphal books that He didn't specifically quote from. Whether they should be in the Canon is a separate question, but not resolved by Jesus' quotes.
Mr. Kruger speaks to the audience as if they are stupid and uninformed, he has an arrogant way about him, that speaks self love thy self, and he does.
This man provides no evidence
For what exactly?
@@Well04fLife his position. Only in christian echo chambers can he present this. Once he goes into the real world, he will be undone. For example, all the "chruch fathers" names are catholics, he just drops the "Saint" word, but those men and their accounts actually disprove what he is trying to say.
It’s all in his book , he’s just giving a quick summery .
@@chrisvanbeekum2694 why do i need his book and pay for a rabbinical tradition commentary like the Pharisees when i can just search the scriptures and let the word of god speak to me? Martin Luther would have said as such.
@@captainmarvel76927Catholic means universal. They were not Roman Catholic.
The real truth would set me free ,my truth ,whst they thought us to be true is a lie ,church and religion is another way of control 😢😢😢😢😢
Weak arguments
Then give some contra arguments.
@@kubanad794contra arguments would be the best possible scenario of what we know.. Jesus founded a church and not scriptures. Scriptures came later from oral tradition as tools and to document Christianity but without them Christianity was working perfectly fine
This guy is not giving facts. He’s giving assumption. He think he knows what happened almost 2000 years ago. The way he’s talking is the same way Muslims say the Quran is the word of God. or Judaism say the Hebrew bible is the word of God. Please be open minded that people wrote these books. Also be open that Jesus (Yeshua) was talking about something that even the disciples didn’t fully understand.
Have you tried reading the entire Bible? Or the Gospels? Please do that would help.
For a thousand years all the books that are in the Bible were separate and in no order, just writings that could be read.
Were separate from what?..
@@johnsteila6049 they were just writings that were collected over the years and then finally put together in one book
@@johnsteila6049 there are 3030 different versions of the Bible
@@reginafisher9919 No kidding. The Church was responsible for putting those books together (New Testament).
Why would you say that the books of scripture were separate for a thousand years? That’s not correct.
False information
Booooooohe has no clue!!
He's just making stuff up
Unfortunately yes. Specially point 1 that's a hypothesis at best