Five Misconceptions: 5:14 Christianity was a purely oral religion that was not interested in writing books 9:20 The authors of the New Testament did not think they writing the Scriptures 13:25 Early Christians disagreed widely over which books belong to the New Testament 18:02 Apocryphal books are as popular or more popular than New Testament books. 20:52 The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicea Thank you. Dr. Kruger
"Christianity was a purely oral religion that was not interested in writing books" No New Testament writing was put to writ until approx 50ad. And during this first 17 years, the Church grew in great numbers. Jesus himself never told anyone to write anything down. The NT writings themselves are all letters. The New Testament itself is a collection of letters, letters later deemed as inspired writings. No NT author said "I am going to write a book." "The authors of the New Testament did not think they writing the Scriptures" The bible: Not one writer refers to their writing as scripture. "Early Christians disagreed widely over which books belong to the New Testament" While the NT canon was formed over the first few centuries, there was not agreement to a final canon, 27 writings, no more, no less out of 300+ early Christian writings, until the late 4th century when the Bishops met at Hippo and Tunisia. Even the very first list of the New Testament that we have from St Athanasius, Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 does not represent the doctrine or belief of the wider Church. "Apocryphal books are as popular or more popular than New Testament books." Not sure who made this claim. Sounds like red herring. Though it is clear that Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint which included all the Deuterocanonicals plus a few more, akin to the Orthodox canon. "The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicea" Agree that this is a misconception yet I know no one who makes this claim. Red herring?? Who specifically makes this claim? 318 Catholic Bishops met at Nicea to counter the Priest Arius on his teaching that Jesus was created. The council had nothing to do with deciding a upon a canon.
LoveGreek, I was with you until 20:52 :) 'The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicaea'. The Council of Nicaea was in 325 AD. The first un-official complete list of the NT canon was not recorded until 367 AD by the Eastern Alexandria Catholic Church Bishop Athanasius. HIs list was later listed at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and later affirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 AD. The reason Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea was for the purpose of bringing political stability to his Roman Empire being torn apart by the Arian controversy. An interesting note about the Council is that the majority of Catholic bishops at the Council were Arian but that heresy was still condemned by the council.
@@TruthHasSpoken 😂 not one point of that list is true. 1. Nobody really knows when the first writings were put down. The dating of all the gospels are based on theories. There are good points against those theories as well as for them. 2. 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture. 3. Luke opens his gospel clearly stating what he wanted to do. You can call it a "letter" if you want. Nobody claimed they were writing novels. You obviously didn't watch the video if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea.
@@MrSeedi76 " if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea." Please cite who in history first decided the list of scripture exactly as you have it, both for your Old and New Testaments? "Nobody really knows when the first writings were put down." Not exact calendar dates but one can reason closely on many of the writings within a year or two. A very good book that addresses dates is by Michael Gorman, a protestant scholar, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. "Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture." Yet there is no list of what is written by Paul and not. Many of his letters, many protestant scholars argue, were not written by Paul at all. Gorman's book discusses this too. "Luke opens his gospel clearly stating what he wanted to do. You can call it a "letter" if you want. Nobody claimed they were writing novels." Agree. " if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea." The canon wasn't decided at Nicea. At Rome, Hippo, and Carthage some 60 plus years later, yes. But not Nicea.
Thank you for uploading a very informative and helpful session. As a request, please use a microphone for Q&A to enable listeners to hear the questioner.
I have never heard anywhere that Christians don’t care about canon. I’ve heard that Christian’s argued quite a lot and don’t agree on what was canon, and the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries made a big effort to really organize the core of what they believed was “canon,” excluding popular books like the gospel of Thomas and such works.
Dr. Kruger did a fair job on point 4 but I wish he would go into more detail. He mentioned the questionable books including James, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John but he failed to include Revelation on that list which some churches did not consider inspired. Unless he will cover another point later, he also excluded some books that were considered but did not make the list such as the Epistle of Barnabas, The Sheppard of Hermas and 1st Clement. Another point, if he does not cover it later, is that the criterion the Catholic bishops used to select the books for the NT was based on what books or writings the majority of churches were reading in their liturgical worship. From my own readings, I disagree with his thinking that the core NT was settled. I do agree with him that those books were most likely being read in many, most or even all the churches but, I believe his conclusion is incomplete since he did not mention the non-canonical books I listed above. Many of these were considered to be inspired by many in the churches. Another issue he leaves un-addressed is the fact that Jesus left no instructions for a Bible. If we are to believe that the Bible is the sole guide for the Church, one would think that Jesus would have left instructions for the Apostles to write the NT, copy and distribute it among the churches. Also, the Apostles would have arranged for it to be done with instructions to their disciples that it should be given to every Christian instead of allowing the final Canon list to go until the late 4th C. Another point he missed was the 'oral' teachings Paul referred to. That was the only teaching Jesus left His Apostles. Those oral teachings included...you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build My church...I give you the keys to the Kingdom....whatever you bind and loose on earth (See Isaiah 22)...whoever hears you hears Me...whoever rejects you rejects Me....whoever sins you forgive or retain, they are forgiven or retained...if they refuse to listen to the church, have nothing to do with them....do this in remembrance of Me. Another point he failed to mention is, if the Apostles knew they were writing Scripture, how was Hebrews chosen since the author is unknown. Plus, how do we know Jude should be in the Canon? Jude does not tell us and it quotes the book of Enoch which is not in the Canon. No other book says Jude should be in the Canon. No other book, in fact, says any book should be in the Canon. How do we know the Catholic bishops included all the needed books or included some that should not be in the Canon? So many questions:). God's blessing to Dr. Kruger and all his followers.
Wait so did i hear him right? I was under the impression that the council of nicea at least confirmed the canon, but they had nothing at all to do with it in actuality?
You can even look at the documents from the council of Nicea. You won’t find anything about the canon at all. You’ll find the agreed date to celebrate Easter, agreement on the divinity of Christ, and a few other things the church agreed on, the Nicean Creed, and a few other topics, but not once is the canon mentioned.
Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint Scriptures when quoting the Old Testament which contained all the Old Testament books in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles today.
If the Catholic Church didn’t accept the apocryphal books until the council of Trent then why does Wycliffe’s bible Include them? I’m not Catholic and don’t recognise their authority but don’t see your answer as correct
So too, why did the Original King James Bible of 1611 include them along with a list of Catholic feast days, and the current King James Bible exclude them? Who had the authority to say that the books removed were not scripture and where did this criteria come from? And finally, what the criteria for canonicity that this source used, and did it match those bishops in the late 4th century that decided the New Testament canon ? Lots of questions. (and not, the claim is not true that the Catholic Church did not accept the deuterocanonicals until Trent)
@@TruthHasSpoken There is no, so too, you hold rome as the standard bearer, are you now holding up the King James as the standard? Trent was held in the mid 1500’s
@@timrosen1618 How about answering my questions. Here they are again ... I'll even number them. 1. why did the Original King James Bible of 1611 include them (the deuterocanonicals) along with a list of Catholic feast days, 2. why does the current King James Bible exclude them? 3. Who had the authority to say that the books removed were not scripture ? 4. where did this criteria come from that they should be removed? 5. What was the criteria for canonicity that this source, #3, used? 6. Did it match those bishops in the late 4th century that decided the New Testament canon ?
@@TruthHasSpoken There is no, so too, you hold rome as the standard bearer, are you now holding up the King James as the standard? Trent was held in the mid 1500’s
The Rabbinical canon comes around the second century. There are only a handful of first century writings. Most of Jesus's early followers were illiterate. There is an explosion of writings over the next two hundred years. I am interested if you would accept any evidence against your early canon thesis..or is the methodology purely verificationist?
Paul was an educated man . He was a Pharisee before his conversion. . The disciples were also educated men. Matthew was a tax collector for instance. Please research the disciples and you will see that they were literate. They also studied and referenced the old Testament scriptures. You can see this when they allude to O.T in the gospels. Hope this helps you
Jimmy Akin has an excellent detailed book title The Bible is a Catholic Book. Jimmy is from a Reformed Presbyterian background. He shared details I never knew from the pens and paper used to the scribes who travelled with the Apostles and wrote for them and the average cost of writing and copying their writings. Paul being a good example. Since many people were illiterate, a scribe going to a particular place would take dictation of a letter, deliver it to the receiving party then write a dictated response back to the sender. A very detailed and interesting read. God bless
Nestorius lived c.386 - c. 451 and was the Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to August 431. The first Council of Nicaea ran from May-August of 325 AD and it dealt with. among other things, the Arian heresy. The Second Council of Nicaea was not until the 8th C. The Nestorian heresy was dealt with and he was condemned and deposed from his see at the Council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical Council, in 431 AD.
Since the Catholic Church was the one and only church that sprang from the Apostles, it was, indeed, the Catholic Church. The name 'The Catholic Church' was first documented in 107 AD by a disciple of John, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Church in Smyrna on his way to martyrdom in Rome for his Christian faith. Ignatius wrote...'Wherever Jesus Christ is, there in the Catholic Church'. Catholic means 'universal'. Ignatius gave no explanation for the name of the church which is evidence that the name had most likely been in use for sometime.
" Which Church decided that those Books should be in the Bible?"' And ... what did this Church profess and believe that Michael Kruger 2000 years later rejects?
there is no roman catholic church, it is the catholic church. it's teaching is the catechism is the catechism of the catholic , not roman catholic church.@@seeqr9
The Bible is actually an incredible Testament to the work of the holy spirit, both in the church as a whole and in the formation of the canon. The simple fact is that there was no early document or council that canonized the current new and old testament books and no others. This means that the perfectly consistent 66 books we have today came to be known as the Bible purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit if they were authoritative. If you look at it from a historical perspective the work of the spirit was right on time, refining and solidifying the current list right up until printing was invented. Of course there will always be evil intentioned men who try to pollute the scriptures but the fact that hardly anyone has actually read the apocryphal books and 5 billion copies of the Bible have been sold proves which the spirit backs and that no one can kill the true word of God.
"The Bible is actually an incredible Testament *to the work of the holy spirit,* both in the church as a whole and in the formation of the canon". Agree. Which is why Michael Kruger works so hard to develop an alternative theory as to how it came to be. Interestingly, in citing the development of the canon he repeatedly cites Catholics, including Catholic Bishops. Yet, he never compares their theological beliefs to his. If the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit on the canon, then Dr Kruger fears the implications of his theology repeatedly being in error. "The simple fact is that there was no early document or council that canonized the current new and old testament books and no others." History says otherwise. This includes the Council of Rome in 382, decreeing that the Old Testament has 46 writings. The synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) would say the same, while saying the New Testament had exactly 27 .. the same as in your bible. Note, Sola Scriptura fails right at the table of contents. To know what was scripture and not, the Church decided, not until the late 4th c. _“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.”_ Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). "the perfectly consistent 66 books we have today came to be known as the Bible purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit" No. All of Christendom held to 73 books until the 16th c (the Orthodox actually having a few more) when a fallible Catholic Priest named Luther, who had no authority, and certainly no Holy Spirit guiding him, said 7 Old Testament books were not scripture because he disagreed with the theology in one of them. "If you look at it from a historical perspective the work of the spirit was right on time" Agree ... that one tacitly trusts in the authority of the late 4th C Catholic Church to have decided the New Testament was 27 books, but believes that very same Church errored on the Old Testament, shows inconsistence. The Spirit is NOT inconsistent. Christ PROMISED that he would send it to lead His Church to ALL TRUTH (Jn 16:13). Not some truth. "Of course there will always be evil intentioned men who try to pollute the scriptures" Father Luther took away from scripture (Rev 22:19 warning). Interesting too, even the Original King James Bible of 1611 had all these 7 books in it. "but the fact that hardly anyone has actually read the apocryphal books" Rather, the Deuterocanonicals. Which are scripture to 1.35 Billion Catholics 260 Million Orthodox Over 1.6 Billion Christians ... far more than all of protestantism combined.
@TruthHasSpoken What I meant by "purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit" was that the Bible had not yet been perfectly refined even up until the invention of the printing press. Most of it was canonized very early but that is how the spirit works, He sets you on the right track and slowly teaches you what you were not able to hear in the beginning, correcting what you misheard. No matter how well intentioned a Christian may be they're not going to get it perfectly right on the first try and that's not God's intent as he wants us to constantly commune with and rely on Him to guide us. The reason we have not added further to the Bible as time has gone on (or subtracted) is because the spirit testifies that it is perfect. Of course, no amount of honest critical analysis can find any errors or lack in its revelation, but this alone is no safeguard of such a book that so many would love to destroy. The central thesis of the Bible is this 'Jesus Christ is Lord', and it is His spirit that established and guards it, nothing else.
@@christianknickerbocker604 "No matter how well intentioned a Christian may be they're not going to get it perfectly right on the first try" Rather, Christ made repeated promises related to His Church. Christ is the head of his Church. (Col 1: 18) Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10) *Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13) Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20) Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18) So if one trusts Jesus Christ - his Church can not error on doctrine. He won't let it. His Church won't have to change what is false and make it true. It's true right from the beginning. When 4th c Catholic Bishops meeting in Synods and Councils said the Bible was not only 27 New Testament writings but also 46 Old Testament writings, one can trust that they got it right. And when 16th c Catholic men come along, `~1100 years later, with no authority, especially a fallible Catholic priest named Luther, and said that 7 books are not inspired, one can reject this .... subtracting from scripture which Revelation warns about.
@TruthHasSpoken To be honest I think it is a mistake to rely on any human power to define the one and only divine book that is the Bible. Frankly the history of said book is long enough that humans are going to believe whatever they want to believe about it and dismiss any evidence to the contrary as unreliable, so if the Bible is to be the one and only divine word of God it must be by the testimony of the holy spirit. How is this testimony obtained? It is exactly the same as the salvation of souls, no one can be saved by the eloquence or piety of human servants but rather the spirit must testify to their hearts that Jesus Christ is lord and he died for their sins and rose again. In the same way the spirit had to place a divine seal upon each text in order for it to become an authoritative divine command. In this sense it does not matter exactly to whom or when the scriptures were certified, but rather that they were certified by the spirit and still are today.
@@christianknickerbocker604 " To be honest I think it is a mistake to rely on any human power to define the one and only divine book that is the Bible" God works his agency through his Church. And from his Church comes many writings, over 300 early Christian writings. Only his Church decided which of these were New Testament scripture. And the same Church, in light of Jesus Christ decided which Old Testament writings were scripture. "humans are going to believe whatever they want to believe about it" This happens when one decapitates the bible from the Church (and hence faith) from which it came. "so if the Bible is to be the one and only divine word of God it must be by the testimony of the holy spirit" Not testimony. Rather, the Holy Spirit led His Church to know what was true and false, scripture included. Christ promised just that. _When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into ALL the truth_ (Jn 16:13) " no one can be saved by the eloquence or piety of human servants" One is saved ... - 100% by God's Grace, an unmerited gift - Through faith (a response of the intellect and will) - A faith working in love, made complete by love (Ja 2:22)
His characterization of the codex as almost a Christian invention is incorrect. It was 1st century Roman invention and popularize by them that didn't replace the scroll until the 3rd century. Also, there was no "bible" until the 4th century ce. Each church had a different collection of texts. Every Bishop gave a different list of accepted books as scripture. The bible is a collection of the common and agreed to texts. A bottom-up consensus, not a top-down.
The 4th C. Councils used what books were read the most throughout all the churches across the Empire as the criterion for which books would be allowed to make up The Canon. Some books, like Barnabus , 1st Clement and the Sheppard of Hermas almost made the cut while books like James, Hebrews, 2&3 John and Revelation were thought to not be inspired but did make the list.
I generally find these talks on how the Bible was put together as theology first and then chronology. You can predict where someone will go and how they'll get there when you learn their theological tradition. For instance, the earliest gospel was Mark, written around 70 AD. His assertion that Christian writings appeared in the 40s AD is gravely optimistic. Most fundamentalists like to put earlier dates to writings than they actually were in order for them to seem more legitimate. Incidentally, one of his videos defends inerrancy. The Bible isn't inerrant, so right there you can tell he puts theology ahead of scholarly biblical criticism.
"The Bible isn't inerrant" Properly speaking the bible is inerrant and inspired. Infallibility though is a charism of the Church, to pronounce what what is true and what is false in understanding scripture itself.
Actually hebrews was also disputed and revelation was disputed for nearly 300 years. True a core existed but the core is not the whole. The whole come from the decisions of the Catholic Church
The first 10 minutes was basic, well known stuff. It gets more interesting after the first 10 minutes. For example, to understand the authority comes from reading Paul, not any church authority - the apostles themselves. There goes all those churches throughout history that claim the authority to speak in God's name. Written in the books of the bible themselves! Amazing! " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord"
No - the disagreement was about revelation, Hebrews, even acts, Clement, shepherd, barnabas, didache, ignatius, etc. This guy is delusional. The Orthodox bishops closed the canon by the inspiration of the holy spirit. Synergy. Calvinists hate synergy… they are monoenergists. If God does not determine things alone apart from man, His sovereignty is damaged. This is a false dialectic. Christ is both man and God. His Body (the church) and He, Himself, determined the canon in synergy in councils.
Yeah, no. Couldnt stomache any more of this clap trap. There was huge diversity in the early church. There was no canon. So one extremely popular book at the time, the shephard of hermas, didnt make it into the nt.
Five Misconceptions:
5:14 Christianity was a purely oral religion that was not interested in writing books
9:20 The authors of the New Testament did not think they writing the Scriptures
13:25 Early Christians disagreed widely over which books belong to the New Testament
18:02 Apocryphal books are as popular or more popular than New Testament books.
20:52 The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicea
Thank you. Dr. Kruger
"Christianity was a purely oral religion that was not interested in writing books"
No New Testament writing was put to writ until approx 50ad. And during this first 17 years, the Church grew in great numbers. Jesus himself never told anyone to write anything down. The NT writings themselves are all letters. The New Testament itself is a collection of letters, letters later deemed as inspired writings. No NT author said "I am going to write a book."
"The authors of the New Testament did not think they writing the Scriptures"
The bible: Not one writer refers to their writing as scripture.
"Early Christians disagreed widely over which books belong to the New Testament"
While the NT canon was formed over the first few centuries, there was not agreement to a final canon, 27 writings, no more, no less out of 300+ early Christian writings, until the late 4th century when the Bishops met at Hippo and Tunisia. Even the very first list of the New Testament that we have from St Athanasius, Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 does not represent the doctrine or belief of the wider Church.
"Apocryphal books are as popular or more popular than New Testament books."
Not sure who made this claim. Sounds like red herring. Though it is clear that Jesus and the apostles used the septuagint which included all the Deuterocanonicals plus a few more, akin to the Orthodox canon.
"The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicea"
Agree that this is a misconception yet I know no one who makes this claim. Red herring?? Who specifically makes this claim? 318 Catholic Bishops met at Nicea to counter the Priest Arius on his teaching that Jesus was created. The council had nothing to do with deciding a upon a canon.
LoveGreek, I was with you until 20:52 :) 'The New Testament was decided by Constantine at the council of Nicaea'.
The Council of Nicaea was in 325 AD. The first un-official complete list of the NT canon was not recorded until 367 AD by the Eastern Alexandria Catholic Church Bishop Athanasius. HIs list was later listed at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and later affirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 AD.
The reason Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea was for the purpose of bringing political stability to his Roman Empire being torn apart by the Arian controversy. An interesting note about the Council is that the majority of Catholic bishops at the Council were Arian but that heresy was still condemned by the council.
@@TruthHasSpoken 😂 not one point of that list is true.
1. Nobody really knows when the first writings were put down. The dating of all the gospels are based on theories. There are good points against those theories as well as for them.
2. 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture.
3. Luke opens his gospel clearly stating what he wanted to do. You can call it a "letter" if you want. Nobody claimed they were writing novels.
You obviously didn't watch the video if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea.
@@MrSeedi76 " if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea."
Please cite who in history first decided the list of scripture exactly as you have it, both for your Old and New Testaments?
"Nobody really knows when the first writings were put down."
Not exact calendar dates but one can reason closely on many of the writings within a year or two. A very good book that addresses dates is by Michael Gorman, a protestant scholar, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters.
"Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture."
Yet there is no list of what is written by Paul and not. Many of his letters, many protestant scholars argue, were not written by Paul at all. Gorman's book discusses this too.
"Luke opens his gospel clearly stating what he wanted to do. You can call it a "letter" if you want. Nobody claimed they were writing novels."
Agree.
" if you have to ask who claimed that the canon was decided at Nicea."
The canon wasn't decided at Nicea. At Rome, Hippo, and Carthage some 60 plus years later, yes. But not Nicea.
Inspiring. Informative. Godly. Praise be to Adonai El Roi.
Thank you for uploading a very informative and helpful session.
As a request, please use a microphone for Q&A to enable listeners to hear the questioner.
the sound tech never
gets told to set it up lol
He repeats the questions so whilst it could be better set up, it's not a problem.
I have never heard anywhere that Christians don’t care about canon. I’ve heard that Christian’s argued quite a lot and don’t agree on what was canon, and the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries made a big effort to really organize the core of what they believed was “canon,” excluding popular books like the gospel of Thomas and such works.
Informative, provides clarity...
Brilliant. God bless you 🙏🏼
The Council of Trent did not adopt the additional books, but simply confirmed the books already in use for centuries.
Dr. Kruger did a fair job on point 4 but I wish he would go into more detail. He mentioned the questionable books including James, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John but he failed to include Revelation on that list which some churches did not consider inspired.
Unless he will cover another point later, he also excluded some books that were considered but did not make the list such as the Epistle of Barnabas, The Sheppard of Hermas and 1st Clement.
Another point, if he does not cover it later, is that the criterion the Catholic bishops used to select the books for the NT was based on what books or writings the majority of churches were reading in their liturgical worship.
From my own readings, I disagree with his thinking that the core NT was settled. I do agree with him that those books were most likely being read in many, most or even all the churches but, I believe his conclusion is incomplete since he did not mention the non-canonical books I listed above. Many of these were considered to be inspired by many in the churches.
Another issue he leaves un-addressed is the fact that Jesus left no instructions for a Bible. If we are to believe that the Bible is the sole guide for the Church, one would think that Jesus would have left instructions for the Apostles to write the NT, copy and distribute it among the churches. Also, the Apostles would have arranged for it to be done with instructions to their disciples that it should be given to every Christian instead of allowing the final Canon list to go until the late 4th C.
Another point he missed was the 'oral' teachings Paul referred to. That was the only teaching Jesus left His Apostles. Those oral teachings included...you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build My church...I give you the keys to the Kingdom....whatever you bind and loose on earth (See Isaiah 22)...whoever hears you hears Me...whoever rejects you rejects Me....whoever sins you forgive or retain, they are forgiven or retained...if they refuse to listen to the church, have nothing to do with them....do this in remembrance of Me.
Another point he failed to mention is, if the Apostles knew they were writing Scripture, how was Hebrews chosen since the author is unknown. Plus, how do we know Jude should be in the Canon? Jude does not tell us and it quotes the book of Enoch which is not in the Canon. No other book says Jude should be in the Canon. No other book, in fact, says any book should be in the Canon. How do we know the Catholic bishops included all the needed books or included some that should not be in the Canon?
So many questions:). God's blessing to Dr. Kruger and all his followers.
2nd peter was also disputed
No one said the early church was antibook. They just didn't have a universal canon.
Wait so did i hear him right? I was under the impression that the council of nicea at least confirmed the canon, but they had nothing at all to do with it in actuality?
That’s correct, the council was about the trinity and Jesus’ divinity
You can even look at the documents from the council of Nicea. You won’t find anything about the canon at all. You’ll find the agreed date to celebrate Easter, agreement on the divinity of Christ, and a few other things the church agreed on, the Nicean Creed, and a few other topics, but not once is the canon mentioned.
Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint Scriptures when quoting the Old Testament which contained all the Old Testament books in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles today.
If the Catholic Church didn’t accept the apocryphal books until the council of Trent then why does Wycliffe’s bible
Include them?
I’m not Catholic and don’t recognise their authority but don’t see your answer as correct
So too, why did the Original King James Bible of 1611 include them along with a list of Catholic feast days, and the current King James Bible exclude them? Who had the authority to say that the books removed were not scripture and where did this criteria come from? And finally, what the criteria for canonicity that this source used, and did it match those bishops in the late 4th century that decided the New Testament canon ? Lots of questions. (and not, the claim is not true that the Catholic Church did not accept the deuterocanonicals until Trent)
@@TruthHasSpoken There is no, so too, you hold rome as the standard bearer, are you now holding up the King James as the standard? Trent was held in the mid 1500’s
@@timrosen1618 How about answering my questions. Here they are again ... I'll even number them.
1. why did the Original King James Bible of 1611 include them (the deuterocanonicals) along with a list of Catholic feast days,
2. why does the current King James Bible exclude them?
3. Who had the authority to say that the books removed were not scripture ?
4. where did this criteria come from that they should be removed?
5. What was the criteria for canonicity that this source, #3, used?
6. Did it match those bishops in the late 4th century that decided the New Testament canon ?
@@TruthHasSpoken There is no, so too, you hold rome as the standard bearer, are you now holding up the King James as the standard? Trent was held in the mid 1500’s
@@timrosen1618 Don't dodge the questions Tim.
Very interesting about Q. I wonder if the political version used that as a base.
Q never existed
ua-cam.com/video/_AdPoHDebjU/v-deo.html
True facts aleluya 🙏
English translations this is mostly rendered as "Hallelujah", but it has been seen as "Alleluia" in several translations,
The Rabbinical canon comes around the second century. There are only a handful of first century writings. Most of Jesus's early followers were illiterate. There is an explosion of writings over the next two hundred years. I am interested if you would accept any evidence against your early canon thesis..or is the methodology purely verificationist?
Paul was an educated man . He was a Pharisee before his conversion. . The disciples were also educated men. Matthew was a tax collector for instance. Please research the disciples and you will see that they were literate. They also studied and referenced the old Testament scriptures. You can see this when they allude to O.T in the gospels. Hope this helps you
Add Apollos, Luke and others
Jimmy Akin has an excellent detailed book title The Bible is a Catholic Book. Jimmy is from a Reformed Presbyterian background. He shared details I never knew from the pens and paper used to the scribes who travelled with the Apostles and wrote for them and the average cost of writing and copying their writings. Paul being a good example. Since many people were illiterate, a scribe going to a particular place would take dictation of a letter, deliver it to the receiving party then write a dictated response back to the sender. A very detailed and interesting read. God bless
bad sound
Nicely done Michael! Far to often the biblical canon is attacked by people who want to discredit the faith with a false Dan Brown narrative.
ua-cam.com/video/_AdPoHDebjU/v-deo.html
He is wrong
The Council of Nicaea was about Santa Claus vs. Nestorius, the greatest Christian boxing match of all time. 🥊🥊🛎️🛎️
Nestorius lived c.386 - c. 451 and was the Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to August 431. The first Council of Nicaea ran from May-August of 325 AD and it dealt with. among other things, the Arian heresy. The Second Council of Nicaea was not until the 8th C. The Nestorian heresy was dealt with and he was condemned and deposed from his see at the Council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical Council, in 431 AD.
You mean Arius. Nicea was 325 and Nestorius 386-451.
He keeps on mentioning church.. Which Church decided that those Books should be in the Bible?
Ah... the universal church during those time. At least between pre and during roman pope time which another story all together.
Since the Catholic Church was the one and only church that sprang from the Apostles, it was, indeed, the Catholic Church. The name 'The Catholic Church' was first documented in 107 AD by a disciple of John, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Church in Smyrna on his way to martyrdom in Rome for his Christian faith. Ignatius wrote...'Wherever Jesus Christ is, there in the Catholic Church'. Catholic means 'universal'. Ignatius gave no explanation for the name of the church which is evidence that the name had most likely been in use for sometime.
@@lyriclotto but that Catholic Church and what we know as the Roman Catholic Church aren’t the exact same thing
" Which Church decided that those Books should be in the Bible?"'
And ... what did this Church profess and believe that Michael Kruger 2000 years later rejects?
there is no roman catholic church, it is the catholic church. it's teaching is the catechism is the catechism of the catholic , not roman catholic church.@@seeqr9
The Bible is actually an incredible Testament to the work of the holy spirit, both in the church as a whole and in the formation of the canon. The simple fact is that there was no early document or council that canonized the current new and old testament books and no others. This means that the perfectly consistent 66 books we have today came to be known as the Bible purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit if they were authoritative. If you look at it from a historical perspective the work of the spirit was right on time, refining and solidifying the current list right up until printing was invented. Of course there will always be evil intentioned men who try to pollute the scriptures but the fact that hardly anyone has actually read the apocryphal books and 5 billion copies of the Bible have been sold proves which the spirit backs and that no one can kill the true word of God.
"The Bible is actually an incredible Testament *to the work of the holy spirit,* both in the church as a whole and in the formation of the canon".
Agree. Which is why Michael Kruger works so hard to develop an alternative theory as to how it came to be. Interestingly, in citing the development of the canon he repeatedly cites Catholics, including Catholic Bishops. Yet, he never compares their theological beliefs to his. If the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit on the canon, then Dr Kruger fears the implications of his theology repeatedly being in error.
"The simple fact is that there was no early document or council that canonized the current new and old testament books and no others."
History says otherwise. This includes the Council of Rome in 382, decreeing that the Old Testament has 46 writings. The synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) would say the same, while saying the New Testament had exactly 27 .. the same as in your bible. Note, Sola Scriptura fails right at the table of contents. To know what was scripture and not, the Church decided, not until the late 4th c.
_“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.”_ Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).
"the perfectly consistent 66 books we have today came to be known as the Bible purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit"
No. All of Christendom held to 73 books until the 16th c (the Orthodox actually having a few more) when a fallible Catholic Priest named Luther, who had no authority, and certainly no Holy Spirit guiding him, said 7 Old Testament books were not scripture because he disagreed with the theology in one of them.
"If you look at it from a historical perspective the work of the spirit was right on time"
Agree ... that one tacitly trusts in the authority of the late 4th C Catholic Church to have decided the New Testament was 27 books, but believes that very same Church errored on the Old Testament, shows inconsistence. The Spirit is NOT inconsistent. Christ PROMISED that he would send it to lead His Church to ALL TRUTH (Jn 16:13). Not some truth.
"Of course there will always be evil intentioned men who try to pollute the scriptures"
Father Luther took away from scripture (Rev 22:19 warning). Interesting too, even the Original King James Bible of 1611 had all these 7 books in it.
"but the fact that hardly anyone has actually read the apocryphal books"
Rather, the Deuterocanonicals. Which are scripture to
1.35 Billion Catholics
260 Million Orthodox
Over 1.6 Billion Christians ... far more than all of protestantism combined.
@TruthHasSpoken What I meant by "purely by Christians reading them and deciding under the guidance of the spirit" was that the Bible had not yet been perfectly refined even up until the invention of the printing press. Most of it was canonized very early but that is how the spirit works, He sets you on the right track and slowly teaches you what you were not able to hear in the beginning, correcting what you misheard. No matter how well intentioned a Christian may be they're not going to get it perfectly right on the first try and that's not God's intent as he wants us to constantly commune with and rely on Him to guide us. The reason we have not added further to the Bible as time has gone on (or subtracted) is because the spirit testifies that it is perfect. Of course, no amount of honest critical analysis can find any errors or lack in its revelation, but this alone is no safeguard of such a book that so many would love to destroy. The central thesis of the Bible is this 'Jesus Christ is Lord', and it is His spirit that established and guards it, nothing else.
@@christianknickerbocker604 "No matter how well intentioned a Christian may be they're not going to get it perfectly right on the first try"
Rather, Christ made repeated promises related to His Church.
Christ is the head of his Church. (Col 1: 18)
Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10)
*Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13)
Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20)
Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18)
So if one trusts Jesus Christ - his Church can not error on doctrine. He won't let it. His Church won't have to change what is false and make it true. It's true right from the beginning. When 4th c Catholic Bishops meeting in Synods and Councils said the Bible was not only 27 New Testament writings but also 46 Old Testament writings, one can trust that they got it right. And when 16th c Catholic men come along, `~1100 years later, with no authority, especially a fallible Catholic priest named Luther, and said that 7 books are not inspired, one can reject this .... subtracting from scripture which Revelation warns about.
@TruthHasSpoken To be honest I think it is a mistake to rely on any human power to define the one and only divine book that is the Bible. Frankly the history of said book is long enough that humans are going to believe whatever they want to believe about it and dismiss any evidence to the contrary as unreliable, so if the Bible is to be the one and only divine word of God it must be by the testimony of the holy spirit. How is this testimony obtained? It is exactly the same as the salvation of souls, no one can be saved by the eloquence or piety of human servants but rather the spirit must testify to their hearts that Jesus Christ is lord and he died for their sins and rose again. In the same way the spirit had to place a divine seal upon each text in order for it to become an authoritative divine command. In this sense it does not matter exactly to whom or when the scriptures were certified, but rather that they were certified by the spirit and still are today.
@@christianknickerbocker604 " To be honest I think it is a mistake to rely on any human power to define the one and only divine book that is the Bible"
God works his agency through his Church. And from his Church comes many writings, over 300 early Christian writings. Only his Church decided which of these were New Testament scripture. And the same Church, in light of Jesus Christ decided which Old Testament writings were scripture.
"humans are going to believe whatever they want to believe about it"
This happens when one decapitates the bible from the Church (and hence faith) from which it came.
"so if the Bible is to be the one and only divine word of God it must be by the testimony of the holy spirit"
Not testimony. Rather, the Holy Spirit led His Church to know what was true and false, scripture included. Christ promised just that.
_When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into ALL the truth_ (Jn 16:13)
" no one can be saved by the eloquence or piety of human servants"
One is saved ...
- 100% by God's Grace, an unmerited gift
- Through faith (a response of the intellect and will)
- A faith working in love, made complete by love (Ja 2:22)
His characterization of the codex as almost a Christian invention is incorrect. It was 1st century Roman invention and popularize by them that didn't replace the scroll until the 3rd century. Also, there was no "bible" until the 4th century ce. Each church had a different collection of texts. Every Bishop gave a different list of accepted books as scripture. The bible is a collection of the common and agreed to texts. A bottom-up consensus, not a top-down.
The 4th C. Councils used what books were read the most throughout all the churches across the Empire as the criterion for which books would be allowed to make up The Canon. Some books, like Barnabus , 1st Clement and the Sheppard of Hermas almost made the cut while books like James, Hebrews, 2&3 John and Revelation were thought to not be inspired but did make the list.
Great mental gymnastics
I generally find these talks on how the Bible was put together as theology first and then chronology. You can predict where someone will go and how they'll get there when you learn their theological tradition. For instance, the earliest gospel was Mark, written around 70 AD. His assertion that Christian writings appeared in the 40s AD is gravely optimistic. Most fundamentalists like to put earlier dates to writings than they actually were in order for them to seem more legitimate. Incidentally, one of his videos defends inerrancy. The Bible isn't inerrant, so right there you can tell he puts theology ahead of scholarly biblical criticism.
"The Bible isn't inerrant"
Properly speaking the bible is inerrant and inspired. Infallibility though is a charism of the Church, to pronounce what what is true and what is false in understanding scripture itself.
Actually hebrews was also disputed and revelation was disputed for nearly 300 years. True a core existed but the core is not the whole. The whole come from the decisions of the Catholic Church
First 10 minutes, sounds rational and sane. I should have quit while I was ahead.
Usually what happens to roman catholics when they hear the truth of holy scripture.
@@tricord2939 Why would the "truth" sound so insane? Not sure God planned it very well with that strategy. After all, He would know our limitations!
@@stephenpayne9120 Usually what happens to roman catholics when they hear the truth of holy scripture.
The first 10 minutes was basic, well known stuff. It gets more interesting after the first 10 minutes. For example, to understand the authority comes from reading Paul, not any church authority - the apostles themselves. There goes all those churches throughout history that claim the authority to speak in God's name. Written in the books of the bible themselves! Amazing! " If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord"
@@tricord2939 It is Catholic, not Roman Catholic. And we have heard scripture a long time before Protestant did
No - the disagreement was about revelation, Hebrews, even acts, Clement, shepherd, barnabas, didache, ignatius, etc.
This guy is delusional.
The Orthodox bishops closed the canon by the inspiration of the holy spirit. Synergy. Calvinists hate synergy… they are monoenergists. If God does not determine things alone apart from man, His sovereignty is damaged. This is a false dialectic. Christ is both man and God. His Body (the church) and He, Himself, determined the canon in synergy in councils.
No nuance and broad generalizations
He spent the first 6 minutes rambling about nontopics so I turned him off.
NO problem Dan........!!
Taking notes will usually help you with your comprehension
Yeah, no. Couldnt stomache any more of this clap trap.
There was huge diversity in the early church. There was no canon. So one extremely popular book at the time, the shephard of hermas, didnt make it into the nt.
how about Qanon? LOL