If commenters would listen to Dr. Nichols' whole series on this subject you would have a lot of your questions answered. He is a church historian and has a wealth of information to share. Other good sources are Dr. Robert Godfrey, Voddie Baucham, RC Sproul.
Codex Amiatinus has 72 books. Add Baruch, and we have the 73 books of the Gutenberg Bible. Then Luther shunts 7 books into his “Apocrypha”. Then the 7 books are deleted in the 1820s to save money. Then Protestants announce that the Bible always had 66 books, and 7 books were added by the Council of Trent. The Didache is worth a read. It condemns abortion, and advises saying the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.
How dare you suggest that Christians be allowed to research The Early Church Fathers! LOL You know that history for some didn't start until King Henry wanted his divorce. I think they should study Martin Luther who on his deathbed said... "Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church." --Martin Luther, Letter to Pope Leo
@@YankeeWoodcraft Luther didn't write that in his deathbed nor was it written to Pope Leo. This is a sermon by him. Here's more of that quotation so you don't go around quote-mining: "In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the *true and the false Church.* The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals *the Jews excelled the apostles* and the papacy excels us by far. _Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them._ In view of these prerogatives, they make their perverse boast against us and censure and curse us as obstinate and recreant apostates and enemies of the Church. It is unpleasant to suffer such reproach, and for this reason the devil easily terrifies the hearts of some of the ignorant and overwhelms men with the thought: Alas! the Church has pronounced the ban and it really possesses the office; this is certainly a thing not to be made light of, for Christ says in Mt 18, 18: "What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." Therefore whom the Church excommunicates is undoubtedly also condemned by God. Most assuredly they do not excommunicate in the name of the devil, nor of the pope, but in the name of God the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the authority of Christ etc., embellishing the ceremony with appropriate and high-sounding and solemn words. It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches: One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations: The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, *though it may occupy* the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment. The reason for the difference in the two Churches is contained in Christ's saying: "Because they have not known the Father nor me;" that is, the false Church regards itself as superior to the teachings of Christ, when a knowledge of Christ is the very basis of distinction between the true and false Church. It is not enough merely to have the name and the office of the Church since these could be unlawfully assumed and abused; the second commandment and the second petition of the Lord's Prayer indicate that the name of God is often abused, not hallowed but blasphemed and dishonored. Hence, we must not be too ready to endorse the declaration: I say or do this in the name of God or of Christ, and at the command and by the authority of the Church." - Martin Luther, Sunday After Christ's Ascension John 15:26-16:4
@@awake3083 Yeah, there it is again. He states clearly that The Catholic Church is the authority. He's attacking the Pope, not The Church. I can do this all day. You can pull where he criticizes The Church that ordained him and I can post where he defends The Church that ordained him. No matter how you slice it, he said what he said. He went down recognizing the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. He even continued to defend the perpetual virginity of The Virgin Mary and praying to her (something his followers abandoned). "The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . . Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church..." (Sermons on John 14-16, 1538) "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ." (Sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption) That's the problem with Luther; He was both anti-Catholic while remaining a Catholic. He spoke against it and defended it's most Catholic/non-Protestant beliefs. Think about it... If he REALLY believed that The Church was corrupt and not authoritative, why would he even be addressing it? Or writing to it's leader? Or talking about it? If it had no authority, then it's nothing to talk about, but obviously, in his heart, he felt it was something that needed to be attacked. He himself gave it authority (not to mention the centuries of Church Fathers before him throughout Christian history for those allowed to study "before" the 16th Century. 😉)
@@YankeeWoodcraft There is no reason to go back and forth with you. I'm merely pointing out your lie in saying he wrote this in his deathbed to the Pope. Why lie in the first place? To "own" the Protestants? You're kind of vindicating Luther when he quotes John 16:3 in response to his opposition. Why bear false witness to a heretic if he was so wrong? If you read the entire citation of his sermon _without quote mining_ you'll realize the section that you copied from (The Cause of This Hatred and Persecution) is speaking directly about the Catholic Church and why it is a false church. Here's an excerpt: "That they do not know this Christ is true without a doubt. Their own confession and deeds prove it. It is plainly evident in what high esteem they hold themselves as being the people of God, who possess the Law, and the promise, the priesthood and worship of God (even as our people possess the Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament and the name of Christ); yet *they are blind and without the true knowledge of God and of Christ, and consequently have become hardened, opposing God and his Son with their acts of ban and murder, under the very appearance and with the boast of thereby serving God.* But Christ strengthens and comforts his own people that they may not fear harsh judgment, nor be intimidated by jealous authority from preaching and confession, but may say to their adversaries as the apostles answered the chief-priests and the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 5, 29: "We must obey God rather than men." He goes on to write, "In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the *true and the false Church.* The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. *The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not.* Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals the *Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far."* He surely did recognize the authority of the *Roman* Catholic Church, but in the same breath he condemns them for drifting away from the apostolic faith and added false doctrine. Luther didn't seek to create his own sect, but to cleanse the Church of any heretical accreations. "He even continued to defend the perpetual virginity of The Virgin Mary and praying to her (something his followers abandoned)." I would say all magisterial reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary as well as her being "Mother of God" AKA "Theotokos" and some would even accept some forms of veneration (not praying), but they all rejected the ideas of consecrating yourself to Mary (or any of the Saints), having heretical prayers, or focusing so much on the Saints that you undermine Christ. Both the Anglicans and many Lutherans view saint intercession as true Christian doctrine but it becomes risky when you purposely seek them out for help when you should be seeking Christ alone as he is the only mediator between God and man. The quotes that you gave are all wrong by the way. Where did Luther say "we ourselves find it difficult to refute it"? Please give accurate sources and not lies since it seems you enjoy bearing false witness. "If he REALLY believed that The Church was corrupt and not authoritative, why would he even be addressing it?" This just doesn't make sense nor is it mutually exclusive. Are the Eastern Orthodox part of the Catholic Church? No? Then why does Rome continually try and bring them back into communion if Rome didn't view something wrong with them? X sees Y as being deficient, so X engages in dialogue with Y to bring them into communion and agree. It's the same thing with Luther and the reformers. They viewed the Roman Church as corrupt and heretical, so they wanted to engage in ecumenical dialogue to bring the Church back. Obviously, he viewed the Roman Church to have a sort of authority bestowed upon them from Christ but that doesn't mean this authority can be abused and misused as we can clearly see throughout history. "If it had no authority, then it's nothing to talk about, but obviously, in his heart, he felt it was something that needed to be attacked." The only things that were attacked were the perceived false doctrines that Rome had accumulated without reform. No actual protestant would attack the Roman Church as a whole as they'd see it as an institution of Christ inasmuch as they faithfully preach the Word and administer the sacraments in accordance to Christ and His name. But, due to Rome's excommunication of Luther and his followers for their evangelical preaching they've essentially anathemized themselves for exercising their office against other Christians.
I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help.
Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that he said he would address the question of where the 7 extra books came from, but then he never did. He said they were “added much later”. For those interested in the question, they would probably be interested to know that the Council of Carthage in the 390s that he mentioned as recognizing the New Testament, and apparently settling the question there, that same council recognized the 7 deuterocanonical books (also called apocryphal) as being part of the Old Testament. So if it’s not too late to recognize the New Testament, it’s not too late to recognize the Old Testament. These books were always part of Christian Bibles, and it’s a problem that they aren’t in most Protestant bibles today.
Council of Rome in 382 also recognized the 7 books. And these facts don't even get into all of the early Church fathers that accepted them both explicitly in their lists as well as in their use to affirm doctrine and use them in the public readings of the Church. This issue was a big part of what convinced me to leave protestantism, sola scriptura has no way to account for the canon and, even if we abandon sola scriptura, there's no logically consistent way to get to the 66 books alone apart from appeals comparable to the Mormon appeals to just feeling the Spirit in them and not others. Appeals to the early Church invariably fail because the same fathers they try to cite would reject everything they stand for. Even the lists they find that sometimes list the 39 book OT are usually just lists of what the Jews were using after the corruption of the Masoretic text at the school of Jamnia by Rabbi Akiva and his followers, not a list of books the Church used. But so many protestants find these kind of lists and just pull them straight out of the context for why the list was made and miss the fact that the father who made the list wasn't actually listing what Christians of the time used, but what Jews of the time were using. And both Jews and Christians recognized that the deuterocanon was accepted by many Jews until the Rabbi Akiva and his school of Jamnia began editing the canon and trying to create a unified post temple Judaism. Although, even those efforts failed since many, many Jews to this day still have larger and smaller canons than the 39 books that Protestants use.
After the canons of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ratified by the pope, the issue was effectively settled throughout the church, and it would have been very difficult to imagine how at an official level it could have been changed at that point. Jerome’s downgrading of the status of the books remained well-known in scholarly circles due to it being preserved in the prefaces to the books in Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Bible. For this reason, debate did occur in scholarly circles over the level of authority of the books, but their full authoritative and inspired status were re-affirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (which was pre-reformation) and the Council of Trent (which happened during the reformation).
@@michaeljefferies2444 So you are saying that Jerome's judgement of rejecting the deuterocanonical books as uninspired was a personal judgement? Why did he do that?
Very disappointing discussion on the OT Canon. 1st century writers quoted the Septuagint which included the deutercanonical books. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews includes a reference to the torture of the seven sons in Maccebees.The Letter of Jude quotes the book of Enoch which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian church. There has never been a whole church (ie, western, eastern, oriental) council listing the OT Canon. Even though their status has been varied, the deutercanonical books were included in the Authorised Version of 1611( KJV ) and only omitted in the 1800 by US publishers to save printing costs.
Please provide biblical sources that support your claim of apocryphal use in the NT. As far as i am aware, there are over 300 direct quotes of the Old Testament scriptures in the New Testament, none of which are direct quotes from any of the Apocrypha. At best, in rare cases, you have some similar themes. Do you buy a broken clock just because it is right twice a day? Jude paraphrases a quote from the Book of Enoch as a means of rhetoric to a people who would have been familiar with the content of the Book of Enoch. This does not mean he considered the entire book to be inspired. In fact, when you do a deep dive into the Book of Enoch, it's a clear case of pseudepigraphy and does not align with the Torah; therefore, it cannot have been inspired. Regarding the Septuagint, while it included the Apocrypha, this inclusion did not equate to their acceptance as inspired scripture. Not by Jews, Jesus, or the Apostles. Historical records such as those by Melito of Sardis and the Bryennios list, do not include the Apocrypha, reflect a broader historical consensus that these texts were not considered canonical by the early church. According to the Talmud, the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly and completed in 450 BC, with Ezra as their leader. This body of scripture was translated for Hellenistic Jews, who understood a hierarchy of divine inspiration regarding scripture It's likely that the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, which was the main copy of the Hebrew scriptures in circulation, caused confusion among early Christians, particularly Gentile converts unfamiliar with Jewish textual traditions. The distinction between what was considered authoritative and what wasn't may have been clear to Jewish Christians but not to Gentiles. The Jews and early church never considered the Apocrypha authoritative, seeing them instead as of some moral and historical value.
@@Daswaggermasta As Melito's canon omitted Esther and included Wisdom, it doesn't line up with modern protestant bibles, so I ind it odd that you would quote him.
@aussiebloke51 The omission of Esther is debated among scholars; while some think it was accidental, others believe it was intentional. Regarding the book of wisdom, that's also up for scholarly debate; some say it refers to the Book of Proverbs. The point is that as early as 170 AD, the church's idea of OT Canon closely resembles that of the Hebrew scriptures I.e what Prots have today
The Church did recognize Athanasius' list of NT canon at the Councils of Rome(called by Pope Damusus in 382AD), Synod of Hippo(393AD), and Carthage(397AD, 419AD). Those same councils did not affirm the Protestant OT canon, in fact those councils included books that Protestants would remove over a thousand years later. He keeps saying the Church recognized the canon, I wonder what Church that is? The Bishops he references; Polycarp, Irenaeus, Athanasius are all Catholic Bishops.
@@bettyyu4112 that's funny because the early Church didn't think so. The pre-Nicene fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,” and NONE of the pre-Nicene Church fathers ever declares the deuterocanonical books to be uninspired or non-canonical.
@@kamii6359 Did not Constantine make Christianity officially the roman religion after 312 AD and then the roman catholic church started and a pope was selected?
I've read through several Catholic councils, such as the council of Rome, the council of Trent, Vatican I and II, and I didn't find the word "established" anywhere 🤔 Could I know where you found it?
To make a charitable statement to anyone who watched this video. This is not a good example of how the Catholic Church or how Protestants got there canon. The OT was not the Protestant 39, J.N.D Kelly (Protestant historian) says,”the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive…It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Church Doctrines, 53). The early church always had a bigger OT. And had regional councils in 393, 397, and 419 all affirming the Catholic Canon of scripture. Protestants later adopted the Hebrew mesoretic text in the 1500’s.
You conveniently left out how those books were used. There is a long long history of the apocrypha regarded as "ecclesiastical" books and Kelly points this out. The church fathers for the next 500 years bear witness to this tradition.
@@hexahexametermeter so there’s a long history of them using the deuterocanon as scripture in the churches liturgy. Thanks for the extra historical evidence in the Catholic favor!
But the talk never resolved the controversy of 39 vs 44 books in the Old Testament??? For example, how can the Council of Carthage be identified as recognizing the true New Testament Canon, but not be cited as an authority in recognizing the Old Testament canon as including the debated books??? Still seems apparent to me that the Reformation did indeed drop these books that were otherwise long recognized.
You are right, but the lecture does not stop here. However, it's true the Reformation did not drop the Apocrypha, because the Apocrypha was never part of the Canon. They were in a different category as good for reading and edifying but not "God-breathed".
@@Nolongeraslave yes they were put into a different category - but the source from which they came before did not have the categorized as such. If you wish to take the approach that those few books were not considered as “God-breathed” then you have the burden of proving how, when, where all the other books, including the 27 books of the NT, and only those 27 books became the “God-breathes” books of the canon. Please provide this for us Miriam because there is much historical evidence left to show otherwise…
Another one who 1. Skirts around any discussion of the Septuagint and the deutero canonical books and its historical relevance before, during and after Christ 2. Barely mentions historical details/facts regarding Council of Rome & Pope Damasus and the reaffirmation of its declarations at Carthage and Hippo establishing the canon for over a millenia before the reformation
The criteria of acceptance is a true criteria, but it was called Tradition. They appealed to Tradition for what was and was not scripture because the Apostle Paul had commanded them to hold fast to Traditions taught by Jesus and the Apostles. In other words, the early Church saw Tradition as a valid source for establishing doctrine, not scripture alone. This is clearest in how they used Tradition to affirm which books were and were not legitimate. If you accept sola scriptura, this entire argument falls apart with the canon.
90% of the time when Jesus quotes the OT, he's referencing the Septuagint, not the masoretic that the jews after 150AD would canonize that the protestant bible is based on. Which means Jesus knew about the DC and did not reject them. he even references them, as do other NT books. 100% of the Church fathers, who determined the canon, accepted them as canon and reject every doctrine of all forms of protestantism. especially calvinism.
This is great! I just had one question at 15:31. How did Paul quote the Gospels regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11 when it’s widely accepted that 1 Cor was written before the Gospels?
The sayings of Jesus, such as the institution of the lord supper, were circulated and repeated among Jesus’ followers for many years before they were committed to writing. Hope that helps!
There is no single verse in the Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to the Scripture. We need external authority to decide that. Dr.Nichols try to diminish the role of the Church by using the verb "to recognize", instead of "to establish". But even using the verb "to recognize" we still need to know who is entitled to recognize which books and how many of them belong to Scripture. The first Christians unanimously agree on scriptural status of 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT. The status of Esther and apocryphal books were disputed and so were 7 books of NT (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). While citing statement of Melito, bishop of Sardis, Dr. Nichols did not tell his audience that Melito's list of OT does not include Esther and includes Wisdom. When Luther made his German translation of NT he intentionally placed four books (James, Jude, hebrews and Revelation) as appendix or they are inferior to the other twenty three books.
@@NKBC1689 it’s a logical fallacy that’s what’s wrong with it. For example, “ God exists because God exists”. This is not an argument. That is exactly what the guy in the video is doing.
@@zeektm1762 You didn't say anything of substance. Christ rose up out of that grave. He is truth incarnate. You would do well to repent and believe instead of the nonsense you just espoused.
Melito of Sardis left Esther out of the OT Canon, it was his opinion and not authoritative. This is why the church councils were essential, to establish the truth, based on the broader church authority and not one or a few persons opinions. And the councils were the continuation of the first council in Acts concerning circumcision. The general rules of a church council as established in Acts include: anecdotal evidence, Scripture, some reasonable arguments, and finally ‘what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and them’ (apostles). This is the foundation for future church councils. The church only had councils in response to heresies, schisms, serious problems that were troubling the broader congregation. The Canon was defined in the 4th century, confirming what had been filtering through previous centuries to the last apostle and included the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha for Protestants). The proof of this is obvious; the Orthodox Church has the same Canon as the Catholic Church, although they split 5-6 centuries later. The canon was already established. Then in 1500’s along comes a few people who question the established Bible, thus the council of Trent is tasked with reaffirming the Bible to reassure the church that they do in deed have the word of God. This is the Bible. I am a Protestant but reject Luther, Calvin, and a few others regarding their attempt to thwart scripture. The fact that my people reject the historical record is convincing me to cross the Tiber. Time will tell.
Michael Kruger's books on canon are a great resource. Nichols has a kind heart, but its a shame he addresses adults as if they were junior highers. Nonetheless, Im grateful for his work.
Kruger’s book “Canon Revisited” was good. However, I did not like how is straw-manned the Catholic position on the canon of Scripture and used some circular reasoning on how the canon was decided. The biggest separation between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Scripture is the Old Testament.
Old comment but you would be AMAZED how many ‘high school’ minders Christians are walking around. The majority of ‘Organized’ church’s (unfortunately) does not teach the history of the Bible. There is a famine in tha’ for walls.😔
The apostle John canonized in the first century! I am not a protestant I was never in the Roman Church. The bible was and translated into Old Latin in 157 AD.
Where are you getting that??? The earliest Latin Translations I can find mention of are about 350 AD with the Vulgate about 380 AD. Where did the Apostles John set the canon rather than just write the last book in the canon??? You cannot just say startling things with no proof and not expect to be called a liar. Proof please.
The Protestant canon is ahistorical. Luther was rejecting even James by the end of his life. They were not added, the Church has always seen them to be an necessary part of Sacred Scripture.
Your right in terms of Luther was rejecting James, he didn't though. He didn't know how to reconcile the idea of salvation by Grace through faith without work lest any man should boast and James teaching of faith without works is dead. So he questioned it. He realized later that they're not contradicting statements. Your faith will produce works but the works do not save.
@@Jondoe_04 Bro. I genuinely think and believe that what you said is truth. That’s amazing how God can show you things even in a random UA-cam comment I chose to read.
Why 66 books? Because the Apocrypha isn't inspired. 1- Jesus summarised the OT canon as "The Law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44) 2- Nowhere in the NT does it say "As it is written" and then goes on to quote the Apocrypha 3- Church Fathers like Athanasius and Jerome did not view them as inspired 4- Rome only affirmed them as inspired in 1546 as a kneejerk reaction to the Reformation. Conclusion - The Apocrypha DOES NOT belong in Holy Scripture. The Bible contains only 66 books
@@MrColinwith1L is there an "As it is written" and then quotes the Apocrypha? That is how you know the inspiration of the OT. For example, in 2 Cor 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:8, Paul speaks of a "sorrowful letter". I can't say with certainly but since most do not believe he is referring to 1st Corinthians, there must be a letter that was sent by Paul between 1 and 2 Corinthians. This letter we know of course is not in Holy Scripture. So there is just one example of a non-scriptural letter alluded to in the NT.
@@thomasnorton2679 How can you even know the inspiration of the NT? Only because the Church has consistently held it as such in its continuity of history. The same Church that used the Vulgate throughout this time for over a thousand years before it had to be reaffirmed (not newly proposed; read the actual documents from the council) at Trent. The same Vulgate that is quoted in the NT every time the phrase "as it is written" appears, and a quote from the Apocrypha or the OT follows. You cannot separate the OT from Apocrypha using strictly biblical evidence alone. Only by citing a particular Protestant dogma which arose after 1517 can this argument be logically made, albeit a wrong argument.
@@MrColinwith1L So that's not an answer to my question. Can you give me an example of where the NT says "As it is written" and then quotes the Apocrypha? I understand that many books from the OT are not directly quoted such as Ruth for example, but for the Apocrypha collectively to not be quoted shows that the Apocrypha is not considered inspired. The Church is not the author of scripture, nor do I have the Church to thank for giving us scripture, I have God to thank for giving us scripture. You will see if anything from Romans 3 that the oracles of scripture were given to the Jews. You mentioned how a view of the Apocrypha not being divine can only be brought about using post-1517 thinking, well the Apocrypha wasn't considered as scripture by the RCC until 1546. What kept them then? And why don't the Church fathers like Jerome or Athanasius recognise them.
@@thomasnorton2679 ive established why your very question is irrelevant, because it cannot prove anything. It seems you misunderstood the points I've laid out. There is no reason to listen to you or your church about Scripture because you are opposed to the Church God established and the canon of Scripture it has proposed for us. You have no authority and therefore can affirm nothing but that you have a personal opinion.
After wacthing this I was hopeing for some arguments of the disputed texts in the Old Testament. All I seen was an agrument on the New Testament books. We actully agree with Rome on this. I have not seen any good arguments against haveing the Apocrypha as not as scripture. Sadly the Roman Cathliocs look smarter on this subject. In my opinion we need to learn and explain why the doctrine of purgotoary is not in the Apocrypha rather than just ignoring it.
The Apocrypha were written between the 400 urs. AKA the silent period where no prophets were writing at this time. God spoke thru prophets during the OT. And through Jesus in the NT. The Jews rejected any writings after Malachi or in the Hebre bible it is Jeremiah placed as the last prophet. Josephus the Jewish historian wrote Jews have only 22 books tht are Devine. The 12 minor prophets they counted as 1 book. 1 and 2 Sam. Are 1 book. 1 and 2 Kings 1 book, 1 and 2 Chronicles 1 book, Ezra and Nehimiah counted as 1 book, Ruth and Jidges counted as 1 book, Lamentations and jeremiah and Malachi as 1 book.
Thanks human, I don’t know who you are but I appreciate your expounding on the subject of canonization. Question: what do you consider the apocryphal books to be and when and where did they come from? My wife is Armenian and she grew up reading them in her Bible and we’re both struggling to understand their origins.
The apocrypha is an extra biblical book (meaning it's not cannon) that was written before Christ but after the last book of the old testament. It is viewed by most Catholic as biblical while protestants and all jews don't (I say that because the old testament cannon was adopted by Christians). Helenist jews had the apocrypha in there bible but they were viewed as history not inspired scripture.
@@Jondoe_04strange how rabbinical Jews are the authority prots turn to when defining their canon. Why shouldnt the Hellenized scripture be recognized when all the church fathers and early Christians recognized it as inspired scripture. Protestants cut these books out in the middle ages because they didnt fit their narrative.
367 AD - St Athanasius of the Roman Catholic Church declared the NT canon 382 AD - Synod of Rome established the official Roman Catholic Bible Canon with the world’s diocesan bishops and Pope Damasis 1 393 AD - Ecumenical Council of Hippo re affirmed that canon 397 AD - Ecumenical Council of Carthage re affirmed it a third time 405 AD - Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed it a fourth FINAL TIME with the release of The Vulgate by St Jerome 1500s AD - Martin Luther ( a Roman Catholic monk ) formed the Protestant Bible Canon when he himself removed the 7 Old Testament books (thus a total of 66 books in the “Martin Luther” Bible aka all of today’s Protestant bibles ) and he altered a few verses in the NT Martin Luther and another Catholic priest named Erasmus helped developed the Protestant Bible Canon in the early 1500s especially influencing the publication of the 1611 King James Bible
Athanasius was not a Roman Catholic. He was the Bishop of Alexandria and a successor of Saint Mark some centuries before the bishop of Rome broke away from the one church.
Even though I have no problem with the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism), I am answering as a follower of Christ. I think that is way more important than following Calvin who I’m fairly certain would also agree. But in terms of Sola Scriptura…2 Tim 3:16-17, Prov 30:5-6, John 17:17, Ps 19, Ps 1, even in Genesis as Eve was deceived, the devil put doubt in Eves ears about Gods Word being sufficient. It’s all over Scripture, and as you read it you really do understand why. Which is why a good Bible preaching/teaching church is so important. Jesus said that “if you love me you will obey my commandments” and in the great commission He says the same, make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to obey me. It’s always been about His Word and in terms of salvation, church, really the Christian life, Scripture is sufficient. Hope that helps!
I've been a believer for 31 years, I've only in the last decade found out that the original King James 1611 bible has the Apocrypha, also the Ethiopian Bible has the Apocrypha and the book of Enoch. Don't listen to the fearmongers, read Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher and you'll get a deeper understanding of Genesis to Exodus. Enoch gives us a more accurate description of God's cosmology and not the lying scientists.
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
The KJV contained the apocryphal books until 1885, 25 years before my grandfather was born. 1885. Twenty years after the Civil War. Huckleberry Finn was published that year. AT&T Telephone was incorporated the same year. The Statue Of Liberty arrives in the US. Ulysses S. Grant dies. To claim that they were removed due to theological concerns dating back to antiquity is nonsense. Martin Luther himself declared them "while not equal to scripture, good to read". They were removed to cut printing costs.
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
The "Apocrypha" books were in the Septuagint, the Old Testament translation that the Apostles (and likely Jesus) used and quoted from word for word in the New Testament writings. Some of these books were also found in the Dead Sea scrolls. So no, these were not "added by the Catholics later on" - that's incorrect. Also there are many Old Testament books (Esther, Ecclesiastes, etc) that are never quoted or mentioned in the New Testament.
Esther and Ecclesiastes may have not been quoted but the verses have been read on special Jewish holidays (Esther is read during Purim, and Ecclesiasiastes or Qohelet is read during Sukkot). In addition, the Apocrypha books were placed last, after the Book of Revelation instead of being placed along with the writings of the Old Testament. And also, Roman Catholic Council Of Trent is the one that declared these Apocryphal bookss as Canon.
@@reymartampus4411 the Church used those books long before Trent. Those 7 books were removed by Protestants. They were used by the ancient Church which is why Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syriac Christians, have them in their canons.
@@kamii6359 Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches could not even agree upon which of these apocryphal books are recognized as Canon. For sure the additional books in the Eastern Orthodox Tewahedo are not even recognized by the RCC and they also recognize themselves as ORTHODOX. Given that, Not even the Early Church Fathers would agree in including the Apocrypha as part of Scripture especially since it's not included in the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.
@@kamii6359 Jesus says in Luke 24:44 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. This passage shows us clearly that Jesus' Old Testament canon included only the books in our Protestant canon. He refers to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms", which corresponds to the traditional Jewish canon that contains the same books as our Old Testament canon, albeit in a different order. The Law refers to Genesis-Deuteronomy. The Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah-Malachi minus Daniel and Lamentations. The Writings are everything else in our Old Testament; sometimes first-century Jews called this section "the Psalms" because Psalms is the largest and most famous book in the Writings.” In other words, the Apocrypha was not viewed as scripture even by Jews and it was never affirmed as scripture by Jesus
@@reymartampus4411 the early Church father's couldn't agree about the NT canon either so thats not a great argument. Some parts of the Church recognized 1 Clement, the Didache, and other books as canon while rejecting canonical books like the Apocalypse, Hebrews, and others. More of the early Church agreed with having the deuterocanon included in the canon than not including it. But thankfully Christ gave us a Church that he said will always be guided by the Spirit of Truth. In fact the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth so it makes sense that the Church would be the instrument God used to reveal the canon. And the Church did so at the Councils of Rome/Hippo/Carthage then later Florence and Trent.
This speaker is profoundly incorrect. Martin Luther took the 7 books out of the Catholic Bible. He even tried to get rid of the Book of James He called this book a book of straw as it did not agree with his faith alone doctrine.
The complete Luther BIble edition included the deuterocanonical books in the Apocrypha section between the OT & NT, and the NT books of Hebrews, James, & Jude were relocated to the end of the NT before Revelation
@@DivinaeMisericordiae77 The one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, not the Protestants. But, your response is not responsive to the historical point about how Luther rearranged the subject books. BTW, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church have more books than the Roman Catholic Church?
My guy, if the Jews had a closed canon the Sadducees would have accepted the resurrection explained from the book of Daniel. The only books that were authoritative to them was the Pentateuch/Torah. That is why Christ quoted Exodus to them about the resurrection.
The argument that canon is accepted "because it is accepted" does not only "seem" circular; it IS circular by all rules of logic. So exactly WHO determined which books would finally form the canon? Man. Church men. (and nowadays women!). Important here: NEVER or nowhere does the Father or Jesus ever mandate the 66 books. Moreover, Jesus never even instructed Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to author biographies of what happened during their earthly time together. The gospels are therefore "unsolicited" by Jesus and the Father. And to top off the argument: Not even one OT prophet ever prophesies on the coming or formation of the NT! So it's clear that MAN has decided on the final content of Scripture. So the decision on the final content of Scripture lies OUTSIDE of Scripture - it lies with man. (Yes, I realize SOME of it lies inside of Scripture, but DEFINITELY not all!). And then (church/theological) man has the audacity to proclaim this final compilation as "The Word of God" and that from then on, EVERYTHING the church does, should be in accordance with this scripture (on whence final content, MAN has decided). So are we busy with bibliolatry - the misuse and misapplication of the Bible?
If you think 66 books is correct then please answer the following… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
if a preacher told you in 2024 that the letters of Paul were not divinely inspired by God and should be erased from the Bible, most would call him crazy and not a real Christian (and rightfully so)... Now let's go back 400 years ago with the beginning of protestantism... Why is it okay in the 1600s to take from the bible and not 2024? Is everyone who lived for 1600 years between Christ and (*insert your protestant denomination) going to hell for believing in a false bible, a false church, and a false interpretation of said bible you've already taken books out of???
Well.. Peter was an apostle given authority by God as made evident in the spiritual gifts (which ceased when the last apostle died). Peter stated that Paul’s writing were scripture. So if someone disagreed that Paul was an apostle, another Apostle confirmed that he was an apostle and called his writings scripture.. you won’t find an apostle giving credence to the gnostic gospels. And we already know God is infallible so there will not be blatant contradictions with what is consistent and attested to as scripture. Lastly, there is a manuscript tradition.. what books do we know were most widely circulated since the first century based on the sheer volume of manuscripts shared throughout the churches? The Canon was closed pre 70AD in the sense that all inspired scripture had been produced.
The Jewish Tanakh is based on the Masoretic Text translated only 1000 years ago. The Septuagint was translated a few centuries before the Incarnation and includes the Deuterocanon.
This is what the Lord through His Spirit has slowly revealed to me since I became a Christian in 1972, I'm now 73. To say there are 4 gospels is the same as saying there are 4 Jesuses. Please understand, there is One Gospel and one only. Listen to Eph 4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." To that I would add without fear of contradiction before God that there is only one gospel and in it is the power of God for the salvation of man. The question then is, what comprises the written gospel of God. The answer is, the entire New Testament of the Bible except the Book of Revelation is the written gospel of Jesus Christ - 26 books - Matthew to Jude. The Book of Revelation was never written by an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. No apostle would ever write such nonsense. It simply speaks with a different voice to the rest of the New Testament and it is therefore of a different spirit and must be disallowed. The apostles never taught the Book of Revelation to the early church. By the way you point out the importance of witnesses! The Book of Revelation has no witnesses. You simply cannot learn these things through scholarship and study; only by the Holy Spirit. The church needs to discern all this before the Lord's return. God bless all.
Ron, you sound like the great reformer Martin Luther when he said the book of James cannot be scripture because it teaches works righteousness. He spoke against it and chose to ignore it for a time. He later reconciled it was indeed scripture and understood it was speaking of works as fruit of salvation not as a condition to be saved. I recently learned something that might interest you as it did for me. I knew Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna was a disciple of the Apostle John so he had firsthand knowledge from the source. I didn’t know Irenaeus knew Polycarp personally. Irenaeus’s writings date from 130-200 AD. In his book five “against heresies” he says “John was seen no long time since but ALMOST IN OUR DAY towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” He also said John never told the meaning of who the beast of Revelation was to anyone Irenaus knew. This would seem to be a very early witness to prove John wrote Revelation. You said no apostle would ever write such nonsense but what about Daniel’s strange prophetic descriptions in his book? Symbolic language is present in the OT and the NT. The historian Tertullian (AD 160-220) wrote John was banished to the Isle of Patmos by Nero after he “suffered the cauldron of boiling oil.” It was on Patmos it’s understood he wrote Revelation. Historian Clement of Alexandria said John left Patmos after “The Tyrant” (probably Nero) died then returned to live and die in Ephesus like Irenaeus said toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Sorry for the length of this but it seemed to be relevant to your post. Peace 🙏✝️
@@Savedbygrace22 Hi Mary, it's good to see you are thinking about scripture. For the record, I'm no Martin Luther but I understand your point about him first rejecting then accepting the book of James. Yes, James is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He simply made the point that if we claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but nothing in our life changes, then our faith is dead - nonexistent. Because faith always produces works of one kind or another. A born-again Christian always has things change in his or her life, even if it's a few small things. Works always follow genuine faith - 100% of the time. It's just that works alone don't make us acceptable to God, only faith does. But you don't have faith without works following behind. About the Book of Revelation, it is not me who disallows it but it is the gospel of God that disallows it. The entire foundation of the book is found in the opening verse. It contains 3 desolation-causing theological lies. If you accept those 3 lies you will accept the 403 verses that follow. We can see these as lies because we know (or should know) what the gospel says. Lie number 1 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ is about things that must shortly come to pass. This is not true because we should know that the revelation of Jesus Christ is about Jesus' death for our sins, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven. It's finished work. Lie number 2 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ was sent from God and Jesus via an angel. We should know this is a lie because we know the revelation of Jesus Christ came to us from Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh. No genuine, Spirit-filled Christian can or would argue against this or say that it came from an angel. Lie number 3 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ was sent to one man called John. We know this to is a lie because we know that Jesus Christ first taught 12 disciples and preached to Israel. It then spread to many Jewish believers and finally it was preached to the gentile nations until now the whole world is aware of it. Here's what the current church is missing: the revelation of Jesus Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel is the revelation. This is what the church has to see and come to eventually. If a prophetic piece of writing or preaching is based on false concepts or lies then the whole of whatever follows will be falsehoods and lies. Our foundation has to be the gospel of Jesus Christ or we're going to fail. Just consider Gal 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." I will just say the Book of Revelation is a different gospel and it came from an angel. It is an abomination that makes desolate standing where it ought not, in the holy place. Our Holy Place as Christians is the gospel of Jesus Christ. God bless and stay safe.
@@ronmortimer252 just a couple quick thought on your comment and the "lies" you claim to be in revelation... the "revelation" is the REVEALING of Christ, the REVEALING of the foretold and prophesied Messiah. the revelation of God, to man, THROUGH Christ! where you claim that an "angel" did not reveal the "revelation" and that its a lie.... the word "angel" is translated not as youre thinking. in this it can mean, --angel,"MESSENGER" so you may want to reconsider this idea. secondly, where you claim the lie is "about things that must shortly come to pass" .. think about it, are people still, even today receiving the "Revelation of Christ Jesus"? why yes...in fact they ARE. mans idea of time is NOT Gods idea of time. the Word says, " a day is as a thousand years". you saying that the revelation to John is a lie... t, have YOU not received the revelation of Christ also? God bless
@@Savedbygrace22 Well stated. Daniel and Revelation go hand and hand. Daniel is the one of the sole reasons for my faith in Jesus. The prophecies are absolutely mental.
Way to much to say here. I pray Protestants and any seekers of truth think hard about what Dr Nichols is saying and weighs it against what Orthodox and Catholics have to say. First of all the comment about Deuterocanonical books being added later...that is just flat out false. He knows it's false. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was the widely used translation of the OT during the early Church. Fact. No one disputes this on either Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox sides. The Masoretic text came later than the LXX. The Masoretic text was a Jewish collection of OT books which purposely removed books that were too obviously Messianic (Tobit, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon to name a few). Fact. My question is why do you have to manipulate facts just to try to prove you're correct? Also, with regards to the Church making a decision about "establishing" the canon. That again is just a fact of history that somehow he's intentionally dismissing or maybe he feels a strong zeal to protect (even at the expense of the Truth) his so called high view of Scripture. Also, he assumes that the Church couldn't have done both; that "recognizing" and "establishing" are somehow mutually exclusive. False, they're not. Why assume this if he's not trying by overcompensation to protect his view? Eastern Orthodox, specifically, don't deny that there were books that were recognized as inspired by God very early. They didn't "gain" inspiration merely because the Church said so. But this recognition however was NOT UNANIMOUS which is why several councils were needed. There wasn't agreement. Some books were rejected and some were accepted. This is where the authority of the Church came in to establish once and for all the complete biblical canon so that the Church could continue in "one mind" in unity (Acts 4:32, Romans 15:6, , 2 Cor 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8) on this very important issue. The Church both "recognized" and "established" the canon which wasn't finalized until the 6th or 7th century. In other words there were letters being passed around that some Church leaders and certainly many laymen did not think were authoritative. This is because the reading of those books were woven into the liturgy (the early Christian "worship service" to use an evangelical term) and some books weren't read in liturgical services. The question of whether they recognized a book as authoritative was based on authorship (which often depended on oral tradition, i.e., Matthew) as well as the question of whether the book reflected correct theology (little 'o' orthodox). Think about that one for a second. One criterion for recognizing and establishing a books as truly inspired was asking whether its contents contained teaching that was support what Christians had ALREADY BELIEVED to be correct. So this final collection of books wasn't accepted unanimously until the 6th or 7th century. Now if you somehow don't believe Christ came to establish a Church, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) and that that Church remained true to Christ as His Body (think about that!), then one has to ask whether you're even a part of the Church or if you've joined a renegade off shoot from the 16th century.
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
This video is good for explaining that the books in the Bible are true, but it's very bad for the dispute between the Catholic and Protestant canons. First, the video cited Melito's canon as the settled 39 books of the Old Testament canon, and assumes it to be the same as the Protestant canon. The thing is, it's not: Melito excludes Esther, Nehemiah, and Lamentations from the Protestant canon, and includes Wisdom which is today only found in the Catholic and Orthodox canons. It consists of 37 books, not 39. I can forgive Nehemiah and Lamentations, as early translations of Ezra included Nehemiah, and early translations of Jeremiah included Lamentations, but there's no getting around the fact that Wisdom is included, and Esther is excluded. To be the most charitable, I'll say that this video is neglectful of the research of a 30 second Google search that shows the table of contents of Melito's canon, but that's still a pretty harsh mark against it. Second, it appeals to the 367 letter from Athanasius to recognize the New Testament, but neglects to show that Athanasius also included and Old Testament canon in the letter - and the canon that he includes for the Old Testament is not the same as anyone's modern-day Bible: it excludes Esther as explicitly noncanon, includes Baruch, and orders the books differently. It's noteworthy that although he excludes Wisdom, Sirach, and Judith intentionally as noncanon, he refers to them in other letters as Holy Scripture, which arguably makes his canon lists not necessarily useful for following. Either way, these inconvenient facts are left out of the video, hopefully unintentionally. I understand going to other sources besides church councils to find early canons, considering that most church councils notable in this regard specifically establish the modern-day Catholic canon, but these sources are not quite proving the point this video was intending to prove. One of the most disappointing things about this video was that at the beginning, it promised an explanation as to why the Protestant canon is shorter than the Catholic canon, but never fulfilled that promise. As someone who is researching where the disagreement in canon came from, this wasn't very helpful; rather, it seemed to give sources contrary to the claim made rather than supporting it.
Brother you were Spiritually Regenerated or Born Again with CHRIST during the Physical Resurrection of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Many are trying to find out evidence for our Salvation in our Flesh. We were Justified, Quickened, Sanctified and seated together with CHRIST Spiritually. We're only given the Understanding or Repentance of the Theology in right time by GOD. GOD Grants Repentance to HIS Elect.
Hawayu Ligonier Ministries *& I Say Thanks 2 Pst. Stephen Nicols 4 This Powerful, Blessful, Deep Sermon on "Why Sixty-Six Books ? The Development of The Cannon!" Where I Have Learnt New Words Like "NARAKH" Where I Say That Even Our Great LORD Jesus Christ Quoted The Books of The Bible & The Scriptures 4 This Powerful Book of Law Must Not Depart From Our Mouths 4 We Must Meditate on It Day & Nyt 4 Faith Comes By Hearing & By Hearing By The Word of God 4 The LORD Gave The Word 4 Great Were Those Who Accompanied It Written In Joshua 1:8, Romans 10:17 & Psalms 68:11 4 I Have Been Blessed So Very, Very Much By Pst. Stephen Nicols* & God Bless Yu Pst. Stephen Nicols & Ligonier Ministries So Very Much.🙏🙏🕊️🕊️
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
@@HearGodsWord whos the you is a great question. since no one with any authority did it, and barely anyone knows when it was done. Have you never wondered why older Protestant Bibles contain the "apocrypha" but newer ones do not? A decision made in America by bible publishers in the 1830s is why half of Christendom no longer even knows what these books are. But yet we should now take Church history lessons from these same people...how about no.
@@HearGodsWord who ever said we need to have Hebrew-only Scriptures? Since Paul and the other writers quote these in Greek it seems a bit of a manmade tradition to contradict them.
@R H Evans it was there before the Protestants. The debate was whether they were inspired, not whether they should be kept. Of course even that debate was simply supplanting one authority with another.
@@HearGodsWord the Tanakh as we know it today is the Jewish Bible that was the result of the Pharisee camp of Jerusalem defining for themselves (either at Jamnia or simply by oral tradition) how to continue to worship God after the destruction of the Temple, after Christianity had moved out to Antioch, Rome, Anatolia, etc. They determined not to use the Christian OT septuagint in Greek, instead limiting their canon to solely Hebrew books. But no Christian denomination had made the decision to prefer this canon because of its Hebrew origin over that of the Septuagint until post-Luther. Since you brought up the Tanakh and Apocrypha I assumed you intended to stand on Hebrew origin as a mark for defining inspired Scriptures of the OT. I wouldnt stand there however, especially given that the book of Sirach has been discovered in its Hebrew original a few years ago. But also because there is not really a good Christian reason to assert that the Apocrypha are uninspired, simply because they were not part of the post-Temple era Jewish canon because they were not in Hebrew originally, which is a stance that simply follows the anti-Christian Pharisaic tradition that evolved into today’s Orthodox Judaism. Are we Orthodox Jews fir Jesus, or Christians who root themselves in the consistent tradition of the Church?
@@HearGodsWord im saying quite the opposite. I am not adding a thing. I simply know the history of Scripture and stand upon it, affirming that Protestants are the ones who subtracted books without authority to do so, and then tried to argue for a reason why, by using arguments that fail when you know your history.
The most hilarious part about the story of how and why the Bible came together is how incredibly absent God is from the entire process. Christians want us to believe this God when it came to writing the Bible: 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ God when it came to putting the Bible together: 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗 But trust us bros, it’s totally Gods word and these are definitely the books he wanted 😅😅😅😅
The greek scribes employed by the Flavian emperor cherry picked what would please Constantine. The story is actually based on the Romans conquest of the middle east. The early christians fell for a Roman trick.
@@marshallapplewhite47 Martin Luther took out books from the Bible he didn’t like and called them Apocrypha - and he changed a few Bible verses in the New Testament epistles too to fit his own personal belief of faith only not works for salvation (this wasn’t a teaching from Christ but from Luther) - historical fact The German Bible that Luther published circulated worldwide and got translated into English- many Protestants from ministers to laypersons to theologians got duped by Luther’s Bible (erroneously thinking it’s the word of God when truthfully factually it’s the word of Luther)
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
I came to the conclusion years ago that Catholicism is man's version of Christianity. The more I learn about it over years though, the more I see it as having many similar qualities of a cult.
GOD THAT. VERY KNOW ALL. WITH BAD COUNTRIES SUPORT TO UKRAENA. THEY JUST WANT MONEY FROM UKRAENA. IF UKRAENA WIN. - BUT GOD WILL NOT GIVE WIN TO UKRAENA. BECAUSE UKRAENA WRONG. ( UKRAENA DI BUAT TUMBAL OLEH NEGARA NEGARA YANG SUPORT KEPADA UKRAENA ) - AND GOD WILL NOT GIVE HELP TO WRONG. - I AND RUSSIA WILL ALWAYS WIN NEXT WIN. BECAUSE GOD VERY LIKES TO TRUE. I JONI JONI
If commenters would listen to Dr. Nichols' whole series on this subject you would have a lot of your questions answered. He is a church historian and has a wealth of information to share. Other good sources are Dr. Robert Godfrey, Voddie Baucham, RC Sproul.
Codex Amiatinus has 72 books. Add Baruch, and we have the 73 books of the Gutenberg Bible. Then Luther shunts 7 books into his “Apocrypha”. Then the 7 books are deleted in the 1820s to save money. Then Protestants announce that the Bible always had 66 books, and 7 books were added by the Council of Trent.
The Didache is worth a read. It condemns abortion, and advises saying the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.
How dare you suggest that Christians be allowed to research The Early Church Fathers! LOL You know that history for some didn't start until King Henry wanted his divorce.
I think they should study Martin Luther who on his deathbed said...
"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church." --Martin Luther, Letter to Pope Leo
@@YankeeWoodcraft Luther didn't write that in his deathbed nor was it written to Pope Leo. This is a sermon by him. Here's more of that quotation so you don't go around quote-mining:
"In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the *true and the false Church.* The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals *the Jews excelled the apostles* and the papacy excels us by far.
_Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them._
In view of these prerogatives, they make their perverse boast against us and censure and curse us as obstinate and recreant apostates and enemies of the Church. It is unpleasant to suffer such reproach, and for this reason the devil easily terrifies the hearts of some of the ignorant and overwhelms men with the thought: Alas! the Church has pronounced the ban and it really possesses the office; this is certainly a thing not to be made light of, for Christ says in Mt 18, 18: "What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." Therefore whom the Church excommunicates is undoubtedly also condemned by God. Most assuredly they do not excommunicate in the name of the devil, nor of the pope, but in the name of God the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the authority of Christ etc., embellishing the ceremony with appropriate and high-sounding and solemn words.
It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches: One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations: The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, *though it may occupy* the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment.
The reason for the difference in the two Churches is contained in Christ's saying: "Because they have not known the Father nor me;" that is, the false Church regards itself as superior to the teachings of Christ, when a knowledge of Christ is the very basis of distinction between the true and false Church. It is not enough merely to have the name and the office of the Church since these could be unlawfully assumed and abused; the second commandment and the second petition of the Lord's Prayer indicate that the name of God is often abused, not hallowed but blasphemed and dishonored. Hence, we must not be too ready to endorse the declaration: I say or do this in the name of God or of Christ, and at the command and by the authority of the Church." - Martin Luther, Sunday After Christ's Ascension John 15:26-16:4
@@awake3083 Yeah, there it is again. He states clearly that The Catholic Church is the authority. He's attacking the Pope, not The Church.
I can do this all day. You can pull where he criticizes The Church that ordained him and I can post where he defends The Church that ordained him.
No matter how you slice it, he said what he said. He went down recognizing the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
He even continued to defend the perpetual virginity of The Virgin Mary and praying to her (something his followers abandoned).
"The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . .
Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word!
For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church..." (Sermons on John 14-16, 1538)
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.
And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ." (Sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption)
That's the problem with Luther; He was both anti-Catholic while remaining a Catholic. He spoke against it and defended it's most Catholic/non-Protestant beliefs.
Think about it...
If he REALLY believed that The Church was corrupt and not authoritative, why would he even be addressing it?
Or writing to it's leader?
Or talking about it?
If it had no authority, then it's nothing to talk about, but obviously, in his heart, he felt it was something that needed to be attacked. He himself gave it authority (not to mention the centuries of Church Fathers before him throughout Christian history for those allowed to study "before" the 16th Century. 😉)
@@YankeeWoodcraft There is no reason to go back and forth with you. I'm merely pointing out your lie in saying he wrote this in his deathbed to the Pope. Why lie in the first place? To "own" the Protestants? You're kind of vindicating Luther when he quotes John 16:3 in response to his opposition. Why bear false witness to a heretic if he was so wrong? If you read the entire citation of his sermon _without quote mining_ you'll realize the section that you copied from (The Cause of This Hatred and Persecution) is speaking directly about the Catholic Church and why it is a false church. Here's an excerpt: "That they do not know this Christ is true without a doubt. Their own confession and deeds prove it. It is plainly evident in what high esteem they hold themselves as being the people of God, who possess the Law, and the promise, the priesthood and worship of God (even as our people possess the Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament and the name of Christ); yet *they are blind and without the true knowledge of God and of Christ, and consequently have become hardened, opposing God and his Son with their acts of ban and murder, under the very appearance and with the boast of thereby serving God.* But Christ strengthens and comforts his own people that they may not fear harsh judgment, nor be intimidated by jealous authority from preaching and confession, but may say to their adversaries as the apostles answered the chief-priests and the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 5, 29: "We must obey God rather than men."
He goes on to write, "In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the *true and the false Church.* The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. *The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not.* Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals the *Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far."*
He surely did recognize the authority of the *Roman* Catholic Church, but in the same breath he condemns them for drifting away from the apostolic faith and added false doctrine. Luther didn't seek to create his own sect, but to cleanse the Church of any heretical accreations.
"He even continued to defend the perpetual virginity of The Virgin Mary and praying to her (something his followers abandoned)."
I would say all magisterial reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary as well as her being "Mother of God" AKA "Theotokos" and some would even accept some forms of veneration (not praying), but they all rejected the ideas of consecrating yourself to Mary (or any of the Saints), having heretical prayers, or focusing so much on the Saints that you undermine Christ. Both the Anglicans and many Lutherans view saint intercession as true Christian doctrine but it becomes risky when you purposely seek them out for help when you should be seeking Christ alone as he is the only mediator between God and man.
The quotes that you gave are all wrong by the way. Where did Luther say "we ourselves find it difficult to refute it"? Please give accurate sources and not lies since it seems you enjoy bearing false witness.
"If he REALLY believed that The Church was corrupt and not authoritative, why would he even be addressing it?"
This just doesn't make sense nor is it mutually exclusive. Are the Eastern Orthodox part of the Catholic Church? No? Then why does Rome continually try and bring them back into communion if Rome didn't view something wrong with them? X sees Y as being deficient, so X engages in dialogue with Y to bring them into communion and agree. It's the same thing with Luther and the reformers. They viewed the Roman Church as corrupt and heretical, so they wanted to engage in ecumenical dialogue to bring the Church back. Obviously, he viewed the Roman Church to have a sort of authority bestowed upon them from Christ but that doesn't mean this authority can be abused and misused as we can clearly see throughout history.
"If it had no authority, then it's nothing to talk about, but obviously, in his heart, he felt it was something that needed to be attacked."
The only things that were attacked were the perceived false doctrines that Rome had accumulated without reform. No actual protestant would attack the Roman Church as a whole as they'd see it as an institution of Christ inasmuch as they faithfully preach the Word and administer the sacraments in accordance to Christ and His name. But, due to Rome's excommunication of Luther and his followers for their evangelical preaching they've essentially anathemized themselves for exercising their office against other Christians.
Luther kept the apocrypha in the bible and liturgy bit not as canon just like the chirch fathers did. What a crock of lies.
I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help.
Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that he said he would address the question of where the 7 extra books came from, but then he never did. He said they were “added much later”.
For those interested in the question, they would probably be interested to know that the Council of Carthage in the 390s that he mentioned as recognizing the New Testament, and apparently settling the question there, that same council recognized the 7 deuterocanonical books (also called apocryphal) as being part of the Old Testament.
So if it’s not too late to recognize the New Testament, it’s not too late to recognize the Old Testament. These books were always part of Christian Bibles, and it’s a problem that they aren’t in most Protestant bibles today.
Council of Rome in 382 also recognized the 7 books. And these facts don't even get into all of the early Church fathers that accepted them both explicitly in their lists as well as in their use to affirm doctrine and use them in the public readings of the Church. This issue was a big part of what convinced me to leave protestantism, sola scriptura has no way to account for the canon and, even if we abandon sola scriptura, there's no logically consistent way to get to the 66 books alone apart from appeals comparable to the Mormon appeals to just feeling the Spirit in them and not others. Appeals to the early Church invariably fail because the same fathers they try to cite would reject everything they stand for.
Even the lists they find that sometimes list the 39 book OT are usually just lists of what the Jews were using after the corruption of the Masoretic text at the school of Jamnia by Rabbi Akiva and his followers, not a list of books the Church used. But so many protestants find these kind of lists and just pull them straight out of the context for why the list was made and miss the fact that the father who made the list wasn't actually listing what Christians of the time used, but what Jews of the time were using. And both Jews and Christians recognized that the deuterocanon was accepted by many Jews until the Rabbi Akiva and his school of Jamnia began editing the canon and trying to create a unified post temple Judaism. Although, even those efforts failed since many, many Jews to this day still have larger and smaller canons than the 39 books that Protestants use.
Did the Council of Carthage settle the issue of the Canon in the Catholic Church? When did the Catholic Church officially finalized the Canon?
After the canons of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ratified by the pope, the issue was effectively settled throughout the church, and it would have been very difficult to imagine how at an official level it could have been changed at that point.
Jerome’s downgrading of the status of the books remained well-known in scholarly circles due to it being preserved in the prefaces to the books in Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Bible. For this reason, debate did occur in scholarly circles over the level of authority of the books, but their full authoritative and inspired status were re-affirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (which was pre-reformation) and the Council of Trent (which happened during the reformation).
@@michaeljefferies2444 So you are saying that Jerome's judgement of rejecting the deuterocanonical books as uninspired was a personal judgement? Why did he do that?
@@michaeljefferies2444Jerome ultimately deferred to the Church, unlike another priest….
Thank you!!
Very disappointing discussion on the OT Canon. 1st century writers quoted the Septuagint which included the deutercanonical books. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews includes a reference to the torture of the seven sons in Maccebees.The Letter of Jude quotes the book of Enoch which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian church.
There has never been a whole church (ie, western, eastern, oriental) council listing the OT Canon.
Even though their status has been varied, the deutercanonical books were included in the Authorised Version of 1611( KJV ) and only omitted in the 1800 by US publishers to save printing costs.
Please provide biblical sources that support your claim of apocryphal use in the NT.
As far as i am aware, there are over 300 direct quotes of the Old Testament scriptures in the New Testament, none of which are direct quotes from any of the Apocrypha. At best, in rare cases, you have some similar themes. Do you buy a broken clock just because it is right twice a day?
Jude paraphrases a quote from the Book of Enoch as a means of rhetoric to a people who would have been familiar with the content of the Book of Enoch. This does not mean he considered the entire book to be inspired. In fact, when you do a deep dive into the Book of Enoch, it's a clear case of pseudepigraphy and does not align with the Torah; therefore, it cannot have been inspired.
Regarding the Septuagint, while it included the Apocrypha, this inclusion did not equate to their acceptance as inspired scripture. Not by Jews, Jesus, or the Apostles. Historical records such as those by Melito of Sardis and the Bryennios list, do not include the Apocrypha, reflect a broader historical consensus that these texts were not considered canonical by the early church.
According to the Talmud, the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly and completed in 450 BC, with Ezra as their leader. This body of scripture was translated for Hellenistic Jews, who understood a hierarchy of divine inspiration regarding scripture
It's likely that the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, which was the main copy of the Hebrew scriptures in circulation, caused confusion among early Christians, particularly Gentile converts unfamiliar with Jewish textual traditions. The distinction between what was considered authoritative and what wasn't may have been clear to Jewish Christians but not to Gentiles. The Jews and early church never considered the Apocrypha authoritative, seeing them instead as of some moral and historical value.
@@Daswaggermasta Check out these passages based on the Deuterocanonical books: Matthew 6:19-20 & James 5:3 - Sirach 29:10-11 / Matthew 7:16,20 - Sirach 27:6 / Matthew 16:18 - Wisdom 16:13 / Matthew 27:43 - Wisdom 2:18 / Luke 1:52 - Sirach 10:14 / John 6:35-59 - Sirach 24:21 / John 10:22 - 1 Maccabees 4:59 / Acts 1:7 & 1 Thessalonians 5:1 -
Wisdom 8:8 / Romans 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7 / Ephesians 6:13-17 - Wisdom 5:17-20 / Hebrews 11:5 - Wisdom 4:10 & Sirach 44:16 ? Hebrews 11:35 - 2 Maccabees 7:13-14
Revelation 1:4 - Tobit 12:15 / Revelation 8:3-4 - Tobit 12:12,15
@@Daswaggermasta As Melito's canon omitted Esther and included Wisdom, it doesn't line up with modern protestant bibles, so I ind it odd that you would quote him.
@aussiebloke51 The omission of Esther is debated among scholars; while some think it was accidental, others believe it was intentional.
Regarding the book of wisdom, that's also up for scholarly debate; some say it refers to the Book of Proverbs.
The point is that as early as 170 AD, the church's idea of OT Canon closely resembles that of the Hebrew scriptures I.e what Prots have today
@aussiebloke51 Thanks for these. They are really useful.
Everyone should watch this.....wow!!!
The Church did recognize Athanasius' list of NT canon at the Councils of Rome(called by Pope Damusus in 382AD), Synod of Hippo(393AD), and Carthage(397AD, 419AD). Those same councils did not affirm the Protestant OT canon, in fact those councils included books that Protestants would remove over a thousand years later. He keeps saying the Church recognized the canon, I wonder what Church that is? The Bishops he references; Polycarp, Irenaeus, Athanasius are all Catholic Bishops.
The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible.
The catholic church did not exist until after 312 AD
@@troy5659 how so?
@@bettyyu4112 that's funny because the early Church didn't think so. The pre-Nicene fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,” and NONE of the pre-Nicene Church fathers ever declares the deuterocanonical books to be uninspired or non-canonical.
@@kamii6359
Did not Constantine make Christianity officially the roman religion after 312 AD and then the roman catholic church started and a pope was selected?
well done!
Amazing breakdown 🔥🙏 Thank you Sir
Search for "Responding to Stephen Nichols: Why Sixty-Six Books? The Development of the Canon" and you will be a lot less amazed.
@@39knights 🥱
I've read through several Catholic councils, such as the council of Rome, the council of Trent, Vatican I and II, and I didn't find the word "established" anywhere 🤔 Could I know where you found it?
Timestamp 8:04. Where does Jesus quote from the Proverbs and introduce it by saying “God says”?
To make a charitable statement to anyone who watched this video. This is not a good example of how the Catholic Church or how Protestants got there canon. The OT was not the Protestant 39, J.N.D Kelly (Protestant historian) says,”the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive…It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Church Doctrines, 53).
The early church always had a bigger OT. And had regional councils in 393, 397, and 419 all affirming the Catholic Canon of scripture. Protestants later adopted the Hebrew mesoretic text in the 1500’s.
Changes not biblical Deut 4:2
You conveniently left out how those books were used. There is a long long history of the apocrypha regarded as "ecclesiastical" books and Kelly points this out. The church fathers for the next 500 years bear witness to this tradition.
@@hexahexametermeter so there’s a long history of them using the deuterocanon as scripture in the churches liturgy. Thanks for the extra historical evidence in the Catholic favor!
But the talk never resolved the controversy of 39 vs 44 books in the Old Testament??? For example, how can the Council of Carthage be identified as recognizing the true New Testament Canon, but not be cited as an authority in recognizing the Old Testament canon as including the debated books??? Still seems apparent to me that the Reformation did indeed drop these books that were otherwise long recognized.
Carthage was right in the NT canon but wrong in the books of the OT.
@@encouragementforewe that is THE definition of a fallacy sir. 🤦♂ You cannot make it any more clear than that.
You are right, but the lecture does not stop here. However, it's true the Reformation did not drop the Apocrypha, because the Apocrypha was never part of the Canon. They were in a different category as good for reading and edifying but not "God-breathed".
@@Nolongeraslave yes they were put into a different category - but the source from which they came before did not have the categorized as such.
If you wish to take the approach that those few books were not considered as “God-breathed” then you have the burden of proving how, when, where all the other books, including the 27 books of the NT, and only those 27 books became the “God-breathes” books of the canon. Please provide this for us Miriam because there is much historical evidence left to show otherwise…
@@srich7503 Where did they come from? Which source did they come from?
Another one who
1. Skirts around any discussion of the Septuagint and the deutero canonical books and its historical relevance before, during and after Christ
2. Barely mentions historical details/facts regarding Council of Rome & Pope Damasus and the reaffirmation of its declarations at Carthage and Hippo establishing the canon for over a millenia before the reformation
The criteria of acceptance is a true criteria, but it was called Tradition. They appealed to Tradition for what was and was not scripture because the Apostle Paul had commanded them to hold fast to Traditions taught by Jesus and the Apostles. In other words, the early Church saw Tradition as a valid source for establishing doctrine, not scripture alone. This is clearest in how they used Tradition to affirm which books were and were not legitimate. If you accept sola scriptura, this entire argument falls apart with the canon.
90% of the time when Jesus quotes the OT, he's referencing the Septuagint, not the masoretic that the jews after 150AD would canonize that the protestant bible is based on. Which means Jesus knew about the DC and did not reject them. he even references them, as do other NT books. 100% of the Church fathers, who determined the canon, accepted them as canon and reject every doctrine of all forms of protestantism. especially calvinism.
Where is the OT quote *(Christ..to rise from the dead on the third day)? The son of Mary falsely claims in Luke 24:46 that IT IS WRITTEN.
This is great! I just had one question at 15:31. How did Paul quote the Gospels regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11 when it’s widely accepted that 1 Cor was written before the Gospels?
The sayings of Jesus, such as the institution of the lord supper, were circulated and repeated among Jesus’ followers for many years before they were committed to writing. Hope that helps!
Also, Paul had direct revelation from Jesus so He could of told him.
Paul mentioned that in Gal. 1 that everything he taught came by direct revelation from Christ during the 3 years he was tutored by Him in Arabia.
1st Cor. Was written after the Gospels.
@@christinejackson8542 Interesting. Every estimate I’ve seen places 1Cor around 55AD prior to the Gospels
There is no single verse in the Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to the Scripture. We need external authority to decide that. Dr.Nichols try to diminish the role of the Church by using the verb "to recognize", instead of "to establish". But even using the verb "to recognize" we still need to know who is entitled to recognize which books and how many of them belong to Scripture. The first Christians unanimously agree on scriptural status of 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT. The status of Esther and apocryphal books were disputed and so were 7 books of NT (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). While citing statement of Melito, bishop of Sardis, Dr. Nichols did not tell his audience that Melito's list of OT does not include Esther and includes Wisdom. When Luther made his German translation of NT he intentionally placed four books (James, Jude, hebrews and Revelation) as appendix or they are inferior to the other twenty three books.
@@HearGodsWord What I want to point out is you cannot rely on Scripture to define what comprises Scripture.
@@HearGodsWord How do you know that the Holy Spirit say there are only 66 books in the Bible?
@@HearGodsWord Why do you go around? I already answered the question.
@@HearGodsWord In what way your question has something to do with the topic of the video?
@@justfromcatholic and you certianly cant trust the satanic roman catholic church to determine it either buddy.
"We're accepting as canon what is accepted as canon" Sounds circular, but is, in fact....circular.
What is the matter with circular reasoning?
@@NKBC1689 it’s a logical fallacy that’s what’s wrong with it. For example, “ God exists because God exists”. This is not an argument. That is exactly what the guy in the video is doing.
@jakemendoza1765 It's an argument. You may not like it for whatever reason but our reasoning doesn't make a particular argument right or wrong
@@NKBC1689God doesn’t exist because God doesn’t exist. There you go. I just debunked Theism.
@@zeektm1762 You didn't say anything of substance. Christ rose up out of that grave. He is truth incarnate. You would do well to repent and believe instead of the nonsense you just espoused.
Melito of Sardis left Esther out of the OT Canon, it was his opinion and not authoritative. This is why the church councils were essential, to establish the truth, based on the broader church authority and not one or a few persons opinions. And the councils were the continuation of the first council in Acts concerning circumcision. The general rules of a church council as established in Acts include: anecdotal evidence, Scripture, some reasonable arguments, and finally ‘what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and them’ (apostles). This is the foundation for future church councils. The church only had councils in response to heresies, schisms, serious problems that were troubling the broader congregation. The Canon was defined in the 4th century, confirming what had been filtering through previous centuries to the last apostle and included the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha for Protestants). The proof of this is obvious; the Orthodox Church has the same Canon as the Catholic Church, although they split 5-6 centuries later. The canon was already established. Then in 1500’s along comes a few people who question the established Bible, thus the council of Trent is tasked with reaffirming the Bible to reassure the church that they do in deed have the word of God. This is the Bible. I am a Protestant but reject Luther, Calvin, and a few others regarding their attempt to thwart scripture. The fact that my people reject the historical record is convincing me to cross the Tiber. Time will tell.
Michael Kruger's books on canon are a great resource. Nichols has a kind heart, but its a shame he addresses adults as if they were junior highers. Nonetheless, Im grateful for his work.
Everybody's learning style & teaching style is unique to how the Maker created them. I appreciate him taking his time as do so many others.
Most adults have an elementary understanding of theology. This will be over many peoples heads as it is.
Kruger’s book “Canon Revisited” was good. However, I did not like how is straw-manned the Catholic position on the canon of Scripture and used some circular reasoning on how the canon was decided.
The biggest separation between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Scripture is the Old Testament.
Old comment but you would be AMAZED how many ‘high school’ minders Christians are walking around.
The majority of ‘Organized’ church’s (unfortunately) does not teach the history of the Bible.
There is a famine in tha’ for walls.😔
The apostle John canonized in the first century! I am not a protestant I was never in the Roman Church. The bible was and translated into Old Latin in 157 AD.
Where are you getting that??? The earliest Latin Translations I can find mention of are about 350 AD with the Vulgate about 380 AD. Where did the Apostles John set the canon rather than just write the last book in the canon??? You cannot just say startling things with no proof and not expect to be called a liar. Proof please.
🐂💨🇮🇱
Amazing that they have zero authority concerning this matter. What arrogance. Yes you did take them out.
The Protestant canon is ahistorical. Luther was rejecting even James by the end of his life. They were not added, the Church has always seen them to be an necessary part of Sacred Scripture.
Your right in terms of Luther was rejecting James, he didn't though. He didn't know how to reconcile the idea of salvation by Grace through faith without work lest any man should boast and James teaching of faith without works is dead. So he questioned it. He realized later that they're not contradicting statements. Your faith will produce works but the works do not save.
Half truth
@@Jondoe_04 Bro. I genuinely think and believe that what you said is truth. That’s amazing how God can show you things even in a random UA-cam comment I chose to read.
Why 66 books? Because the Apocrypha isn't inspired.
1- Jesus summarised the OT canon as "The Law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44)
2- Nowhere in the NT does it say "As it is written" and then goes on to quote the Apocrypha
3- Church Fathers like Athanasius and Jerome did not view them as inspired
4- Rome only affirmed them as inspired in 1546 as a kneejerk reaction to the Reformation.
Conclusion - The Apocrypha DOES NOT belong in Holy Scripture. The Bible contains only 66 books
Actually the NT does quote or allude to specific passages from the Apocrypha in multiple places.
@@MrColinwith1L is there an "As it is written" and then quotes the Apocrypha? That is how you know the inspiration of the OT.
For example, in 2 Cor 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:8, Paul speaks of a "sorrowful letter". I can't say with certainly but since most do not believe he is referring to 1st Corinthians, there must be a letter that was sent by Paul between 1 and 2 Corinthians. This letter we know of course is not in Holy Scripture. So there is just one example of a non-scriptural letter alluded to in the NT.
@@thomasnorton2679 How can you even know the inspiration of the NT? Only because the Church has consistently held it as such in its continuity of history. The same Church that used the Vulgate throughout this time for over a thousand years before it had to be reaffirmed (not newly proposed; read the actual documents from the council) at Trent. The same Vulgate that is quoted in the NT every time the phrase "as it is written" appears, and a quote from the Apocrypha or the OT follows. You cannot separate the OT from Apocrypha using strictly biblical evidence alone. Only by citing a particular Protestant dogma which arose after 1517 can this argument be logically made, albeit a wrong argument.
@@MrColinwith1L So that's not an answer to my question. Can you give me an example of where the NT says "As it is written" and then quotes the Apocrypha? I understand that many books from the OT are not directly quoted such as Ruth for example, but for the Apocrypha collectively to not be quoted shows that the Apocrypha is not considered inspired.
The Church is not the author of scripture, nor do I have the Church to thank for giving us scripture, I have God to thank for giving us scripture. You will see if anything from Romans 3 that the oracles of scripture were given to the Jews.
You mentioned how a view of the Apocrypha not being divine can only be brought about using post-1517 thinking, well the Apocrypha wasn't considered as scripture by the RCC until 1546. What kept them then? And why don't the Church fathers like Jerome or Athanasius recognise them.
@@thomasnorton2679 ive established why your very question is irrelevant, because it cannot prove anything. It seems you misunderstood the points I've laid out. There is no reason to listen to you or your church about Scripture because you are opposed to the Church God established and the canon of Scripture it has proposed for us. You have no authority and therefore can affirm nothing but that you have a personal opinion.
After wacthing this I was hopeing for some arguments of the disputed texts in the Old Testament. All I seen was an agrument on the New Testament books. We actully agree with Rome on this. I have not seen any good arguments against haveing the Apocrypha as not as scripture. Sadly the Roman Cathliocs look smarter on this subject. In my opinion we need to learn and explain why the doctrine of purgotoary is not in the Apocrypha rather than just ignoring it.
The Apocrypha were written between the 400 urs. AKA the silent period where no prophets were writing at this time. God spoke thru prophets during the OT. And through Jesus in the NT. The Jews rejected any writings after Malachi or in the Hebre bible it is Jeremiah placed as the last prophet. Josephus the Jewish historian wrote Jews have only 22 books tht are Devine. The 12 minor prophets they counted as 1 book. 1 and 2 Sam. Are 1 book. 1 and 2 Kings 1 book, 1 and 2 Chronicles 1 book, Ezra and Nehimiah counted as 1 book, Ruth and Jidges counted as 1 book, Lamentations and jeremiah and Malachi as 1 book.
Purgatory is biblical.
@@christinejackson8542why are rabbinical jews your authority?
@@christopherjohnson9167 Scripture references?
At what point did Jewish scholars within Judaism recoginse the OT canon? Isn't that the important question here?
it was closed in AD 70, which took into consideration and specifically avoided books that explicitly seemed to prophesy Christ such as Wisdom.
Also why are rabbinical Jews the authority for the Christian canon? Why dont we look at what the church fathers and early Christians believed.
A bigger question is also on the NT books, many Protestants act as if all NT were just agreed upon from the beginning. They are NT Disputed books.
Thanks human, I don’t know who you are but I appreciate your expounding on the subject of canonization.
Question: what do you consider the apocryphal books to be and when and where did they come from? My wife is Armenian and she grew up reading them in her Bible and we’re both struggling to understand their origins.
They were forced out by Protestants, they have always been considered a part of Scripture by all other traditions. Your wife grew up right.
The apocrypha is an extra biblical book (meaning it's not cannon) that was written before Christ but after the last book of the old testament. It is viewed by most Catholic as biblical while protestants and all jews don't (I say that because the old testament cannon was adopted by Christians). Helenist jews had the apocrypha in there bible but they were viewed as history not inspired scripture.
canon**
@@jdthnt thank you
@@Jondoe_04strange how rabbinical Jews are the authority prots turn to when defining their canon. Why shouldnt the Hellenized scripture be recognized when all the church fathers and early Christians recognized it as inspired scripture. Protestants cut these books out in the middle ages because they didnt fit their narrative.
Can I treat this discussion as a timeline?
✞🔥Jesus Christ, Delivers Us From The Wrath To Come.🔥✞(1 Thessalonians 1:10)
367 AD - St Athanasius of the Roman Catholic Church declared the NT canon
382 AD - Synod of Rome established the official Roman Catholic Bible Canon with the world’s diocesan bishops and Pope Damasis 1
393 AD - Ecumenical Council of Hippo re affirmed that canon
397 AD - Ecumenical Council of Carthage re affirmed it a third time
405 AD - Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed it a fourth FINAL TIME with the release of The Vulgate by St Jerome
1500s AD - Martin Luther ( a Roman Catholic monk ) formed the Protestant Bible Canon when he himself removed the 7 Old Testament books (thus a total of 66 books in the “Martin Luther” Bible aka all of today’s Protestant bibles )
and he altered a few verses in the NT
Martin Luther and another Catholic priest named Erasmus helped developed the Protestant Bible Canon in the early 1500s especially influencing the publication of the 1611 King James Bible
What verses did he alter in the NT?
Also can i have your source for the dates you mentioned for the Canonization? I would love to read them. Thank you.
Erasmus translated “repent” with “do penance” and he was completely wrong. Also you don’t understand Luther.
You do realise that the King James Version included the Apocrapha, don't you?
Athanasius was not a Roman Catholic. He was the Bishop of Alexandria and a successor of Saint Mark some centuries before the bishop of Rome broke away from the one church.
Just curious, how do Calvinists respond to the Catholic critique that the doctrine of sola scriptura isn’t in scripture?
Even though I have no problem with the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism), I am answering as a follower of Christ. I think that is way more important than following Calvin who I’m fairly certain would also agree. But in terms of Sola Scriptura…2 Tim 3:16-17, Prov 30:5-6, John 17:17, Ps 19, Ps 1, even in Genesis as Eve was deceived, the devil put doubt in Eves ears about Gods Word being sufficient. It’s all over Scripture, and as you read it you really do understand why. Which is why a good Bible preaching/teaching church is so important. Jesus said that “if you love me you will obey my commandments” and in the great commission He says the same, make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to obey me. It’s always been about His Word and in terms of salvation, church, really the Christian life, Scripture is sufficient. Hope that helps!
Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I've been a believer for 31 years, I've only in the last decade found out that the original King James 1611 bible has the Apocrypha, also the Ethiopian Bible has the Apocrypha and the book of Enoch. Don't listen to the fearmongers, read Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher and you'll get a deeper understanding of Genesis to Exodus. Enoch gives us a more accurate description of God's cosmology and not the lying scientists.
Show me the Luther Canon before Luther then we can start talking.
The bible has more than 66 books.
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
The KJV contained the apocryphal books until 1885, 25 years before my grandfather was born. 1885. Twenty years after the Civil War. Huckleberry Finn was published that year. AT&T Telephone was incorporated the same year. The Statue Of Liberty arrives in the US. Ulysses S. Grant dies.
To claim that they were removed due to theological concerns dating back to antiquity is nonsense. Martin Luther himself declared them "while not equal to scripture, good to read". They were removed to cut printing costs.
66 books is an incorrect canon
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
Just like the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31); some hear the truth (Bible), believe and repent while others pay no attention.
The cross is foolishness to unbelievers and a stumbling block. We shouldn't be surprised. Light dissipates darkness instantly. Keep that in mind
The "Apocrypha" books were in the Septuagint, the Old Testament translation that the Apostles (and likely Jesus) used and quoted from word for word in the New Testament writings. Some of these books were also found in the Dead Sea scrolls. So no, these were not "added by the Catholics later on" - that's incorrect.
Also there are many Old Testament books (Esther, Ecclesiastes, etc) that are never quoted or mentioned in the New Testament.
Esther and Ecclesiastes may have not been quoted but the verses have been read on special Jewish holidays (Esther is read during Purim, and Ecclesiasiastes or Qohelet is read during Sukkot).
In addition, the Apocrypha books were placed last, after the Book of Revelation instead of being placed along with the writings of the Old Testament.
And also, Roman Catholic Council
Of Trent is the one that declared these Apocryphal bookss as Canon.
@@reymartampus4411 the Church used those books long before Trent. Those 7 books were removed by Protestants. They were used by the ancient Church which is why Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Syriac Christians, have them in their canons.
@@kamii6359 Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches could not even agree upon which of these apocryphal books are recognized as Canon. For sure the additional books in the Eastern Orthodox Tewahedo are not even recognized by the RCC and they also recognize themselves as ORTHODOX. Given that, Not even the Early Church Fathers would agree in including the Apocrypha as part of Scripture especially since it's not included in the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.
@@kamii6359 Jesus says in Luke 24:44
44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
This passage shows us clearly that Jesus' Old Testament canon included only the books in our Protestant canon. He refers to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms", which corresponds to the traditional Jewish canon that contains the same books as our Old Testament canon, albeit in a different order. The Law refers to Genesis-Deuteronomy. The Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah-Malachi minus Daniel and Lamentations. The Writings are everything else in our Old Testament; sometimes first-century Jews called this section "the Psalms" because Psalms is the largest and most famous book in the Writings.” In other words, the Apocrypha was not viewed as scripture even by Jews and it was never affirmed as scripture by Jesus
@@reymartampus4411 the early Church father's couldn't agree about the NT canon either so thats not a great argument. Some parts of the Church recognized 1 Clement, the Didache, and other books as canon while rejecting canonical books like the Apocalypse, Hebrews, and others.
More of the early Church agreed with having the deuterocanon included in the canon than not including it. But thankfully Christ gave us a Church that he said will always be guided by the Spirit of Truth. In fact the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth so it makes sense that the Church would be the instrument God used to reveal the canon. And the Church did so at the Councils of Rome/Hippo/Carthage then later Florence and Trent.
The vast majority of what he's passing off is false. The church never cannonized a 66 book bible. Martin Luther did!
Wow..I can't wait for YOUR video to come out and enlighten us all!!
@@normgardner4560 Lots of other people already have.
So show us the Church that recognised the Protestant canon prior to Luther.
This speaker is profoundly incorrect. Martin Luther took the 7 books out of the Catholic Bible. He even tried to get rid of the Book of James He called this book a book of straw as it did not agree with his faith alone doctrine.
The complete Luther BIble edition included the deuterocanonical books in the Apocrypha section between the OT & NT, and the NT books of Hebrews, James, & Jude were relocated to the end of the NT before Revelation
@@InfinitelyManic Who put the original Bible together? Catholics or Protestants?
@@DivinaeMisericordiae77 The one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, not the Protestants.
But, your response is not responsive to the historical point about how Luther rearranged the subject books.
BTW, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church have more books than the Roman Catholic Church?
@@InfinitelyManic I have no idea to be honest. Do you know why?
@@DivinaeMisericordiae77 Does the Roman Catholic Church consider Psa 151 & 3 Maccabees Apocryphal?
How do you pronounce this channel name?
Lig -O--near
My guy, if the Jews had a closed canon the Sadducees would have accepted the resurrection explained from the book of Daniel. The only books that were authoritative to them was the Pentateuch/Torah. That is why Christ quoted Exodus to them about the resurrection.
At what point are you going recognize The Holy Spirit.
All words were invented.
The argument that canon is accepted "because it is accepted" does not only "seem" circular; it IS circular by all rules of logic.
So exactly WHO determined which books would finally form the canon? Man. Church men. (and nowadays women!). Important here: NEVER or nowhere does the Father or Jesus ever mandate the 66 books. Moreover, Jesus never even instructed Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to author biographies of what happened during their earthly time together. The gospels are therefore "unsolicited" by Jesus and the Father. And to top off the argument: Not even one OT prophet ever prophesies on the coming or formation of the NT!
So it's clear that MAN has decided on the final content of Scripture. So the decision on the final content of Scripture lies OUTSIDE of Scripture - it lies with man. (Yes, I realize SOME of it lies inside of Scripture, but DEFINITELY not all!).
And then (church/theological) man has the audacity to proclaim this final compilation as "The Word of God" and that from then on, EVERYTHING the church does, should be in accordance with this scripture (on whence final content, MAN has decided).
So are we busy with bibliolatry - the misuse and misapplication of the Bible?
If you think 66 books is correct then please answer the following…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
if a preacher told you in 2024 that the letters of Paul were not divinely inspired by God and should be erased from the Bible, most would call him crazy and not a real Christian (and rightfully so)...
Now let's go back 400 years ago with the beginning of protestantism... Why is it okay in the 1600s to take from the bible and not 2024? Is everyone who lived for 1600 years between Christ and (*insert your protestant denomination) going to hell for believing in a false bible, a false church, and a false interpretation of said bible you've already taken books out of???
Well.. Peter was an apostle given authority by God as made evident in the spiritual gifts (which ceased when the last apostle died). Peter stated that Paul’s writing were scripture. So if someone disagreed that Paul was an apostle, another Apostle confirmed that he was an apostle and called his writings scripture.. you won’t find an apostle giving credence to the gnostic gospels. And we already know God is infallible so there will not be blatant contradictions with what is consistent and attested to as scripture. Lastly, there is a manuscript tradition.. what books do we know were most widely circulated since the first century based on the sheer volume of manuscripts shared throughout the churches? The Canon was closed pre 70AD in the sense that all inspired scripture had been produced.
🔥 🙌
You won’t find the apocrypha in a copy of the Jewish Tanahk. The books Jesus endorsed in his ministry did not include those disputed books.
The Jewish Tanakh is based on the Masoretic Text translated only 1000 years ago. The Septuagint was translated a few centuries before the Incarnation and includes the Deuterocanon.
Thanks HUMAN?? His name is right there!!
This is what the Lord through His Spirit has slowly revealed to me since I became a Christian in 1972, I'm now 73. To say there are 4 gospels is the same as saying there are 4 Jesuses. Please understand, there is One Gospel and one only. Listen to Eph 4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." To that I would add without fear of contradiction before God that there is only one gospel and in it is the power of God for the salvation of man. The question then is, what comprises the written gospel of God. The answer is, the entire New Testament of the Bible except the Book of Revelation is the written gospel of Jesus Christ - 26 books - Matthew to Jude. The Book of Revelation was never written by an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. No apostle would ever write such nonsense. It simply speaks with a different voice to the rest of the New Testament and it is therefore of a different spirit and must be disallowed. The apostles never taught the Book of Revelation to the early church. By the way you point out the importance of witnesses! The Book of Revelation has no witnesses. You simply cannot learn these things through scholarship and study; only by the Holy Spirit. The church needs to discern all this before the Lord's return. God bless all.
Ron, you sound like the great reformer Martin Luther when he said the book of James cannot be scripture because it teaches works righteousness. He spoke against it and chose to ignore it for a time. He later reconciled it was indeed scripture and understood it was speaking of works as fruit of salvation not as a condition to be saved.
I recently learned something that might interest you as it did for me. I knew Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna was a disciple of the Apostle John so he had firsthand knowledge from the source. I didn’t know Irenaeus knew Polycarp personally.
Irenaeus’s writings date from 130-200 AD. In his book five “against heresies” he says “John was seen no long time since but ALMOST IN OUR DAY towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” He also said John never told the meaning of who the beast of Revelation was to anyone Irenaus knew.
This would seem to be a very early witness to prove John wrote Revelation.
You said no apostle would ever write such nonsense but what about Daniel’s strange prophetic descriptions in his book? Symbolic language is present in the OT and the NT.
The historian Tertullian (AD 160-220) wrote John was banished to the Isle of Patmos by Nero after he “suffered the cauldron of boiling oil.” It was on Patmos it’s understood he wrote Revelation.
Historian Clement of Alexandria said John left Patmos after “The Tyrant” (probably Nero) died then returned to live and die in Ephesus like Irenaeus said toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Sorry for the length of this but it seemed to be relevant to your post. Peace 🙏✝️
@@Savedbygrace22 Hi Mary, it's good to see you are thinking about scripture. For the record, I'm no Martin Luther but I understand your point about him first rejecting then accepting the book of James. Yes, James is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He simply made the point that if we claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but nothing in our life changes, then our faith is dead - nonexistent. Because faith always produces works of one kind or another. A born-again Christian always has things change in his or her life, even if it's a few small things. Works always follow genuine faith - 100% of the time. It's just that works alone don't make us acceptable to God, only faith does. But you don't have faith without works following behind.
About the Book of Revelation, it is not me who disallows it but it is the gospel of God that disallows it. The entire foundation of the book is found in the opening verse. It contains 3 desolation-causing theological lies. If you accept those 3 lies you will accept the 403 verses that follow. We can see these as lies because we know (or should know) what the gospel says.
Lie number 1 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ is about things that must shortly come to pass. This is not true because we should know that the revelation of Jesus Christ is about Jesus' death for our sins, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven. It's finished work.
Lie number 2 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ was sent from God and Jesus via an angel. We should know this is a lie because we know the revelation of Jesus Christ came to us from Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh. No genuine, Spirit-filled Christian can or would argue against this or say that it came from an angel.
Lie number 3 is that the revelation of Jesus Christ was sent to one man called John. We know this to is a lie because we know that Jesus Christ first taught 12 disciples and preached to Israel. It then spread to many Jewish believers and finally it was preached to the gentile nations until now the whole world is aware of it.
Here's what the current church is missing: the revelation of Jesus Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel is the revelation. This is what the church has to see and come to eventually. If a prophetic piece of writing or preaching is based on false concepts or lies then the whole of whatever follows will be falsehoods and lies. Our foundation has to be the gospel of Jesus Christ or we're going to fail. Just consider Gal 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." I will just say the Book of Revelation is a different gospel and it came from an angel. It is an abomination that makes desolate standing where it ought not, in the holy place. Our Holy Place as Christians is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
God bless and stay safe.
Truly you lack revelation.
@@ronmortimer252 just a couple quick thought on your comment and the "lies" you claim to be in revelation...
the "revelation" is the REVEALING of Christ, the REVEALING of the foretold and prophesied Messiah. the revelation of God, to man, THROUGH Christ!
where you claim that an "angel" did not reveal the "revelation" and that its a lie....
the word "angel" is translated not as youre thinking. in this it can mean, --angel,"MESSENGER"
so you may want to reconsider this idea.
secondly, where you claim the lie is "about things that must shortly come to pass" ..
think about it, are people still, even today receiving the "Revelation of Christ Jesus"?
why yes...in fact they ARE. mans idea of time is NOT Gods idea of time.
the Word says, " a day is as a thousand years".
you saying that the revelation to John is a lie... t, have YOU not received the revelation of Christ also?
God bless
@@Savedbygrace22 Well stated. Daniel and Revelation go hand and hand. Daniel is the one of the sole reasons for my faith in Jesus. The prophecies are absolutely mental.
Way to much to say here. I pray Protestants and any seekers of truth think hard about what Dr Nichols is saying and weighs it against what Orthodox and Catholics have to say.
First of all the comment about Deuterocanonical books being added later...that is just flat out false. He knows it's false. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was the widely used translation of the OT during the early Church. Fact. No one disputes this on either Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox sides. The Masoretic text came later than the LXX. The Masoretic text was a Jewish collection of OT books which purposely removed books that were too obviously Messianic (Tobit, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon to name a few). Fact.
My question is why do you have to manipulate facts just to try to prove you're correct?
Also, with regards to the Church making a decision about "establishing" the canon. That again is just a fact of history that somehow he's intentionally dismissing or maybe he feels a strong zeal to protect (even at the expense of the Truth) his so called high view of Scripture. Also, he assumes that the Church couldn't have done both; that "recognizing" and "establishing" are somehow mutually exclusive. False, they're not. Why assume this if he's not trying by overcompensation to protect his view?
Eastern Orthodox, specifically, don't deny that there were books that were recognized as inspired by God very early. They didn't "gain" inspiration merely because the Church said so. But this recognition however was NOT UNANIMOUS which is why several councils were needed. There wasn't agreement. Some books were rejected and some were accepted. This is where the authority of the Church came in to establish once and for all the complete biblical canon so that the Church could continue in "one mind" in unity (Acts 4:32, Romans 15:6, , 2 Cor 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8) on this very important issue. The Church both "recognized" and "established" the canon which wasn't finalized until the 6th or 7th century. In other words there were letters being passed around that some Church leaders and certainly many laymen did not think were authoritative. This is because the reading of those books were woven into the liturgy (the early Christian "worship service" to use an evangelical term) and some books weren't read in liturgical services.
The question of whether they recognized a book as authoritative was based on authorship (which often depended on oral tradition, i.e., Matthew) as well as the question of whether the book reflected correct theology (little 'o' orthodox). Think about that one for a second. One criterion for recognizing and establishing a books as truly inspired was asking whether its contents contained teaching that was support what Christians had ALREADY BELIEVED to be correct. So this final collection of books wasn't accepted unanimously until the 6th or 7th century.
Now if you somehow don't believe Christ came to establish a Church, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) and that that Church remained true to Christ as His Body (think about that!), then one has to ask whether you're even a part of the Church or if you've joined a renegade off shoot from the 16th century.
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
There are 67 books.
Consider the book of Adams genealogy
Genesis 5:1
Before you were in Catholic but after you are born again.. How...???
Why 66 books: well that is because it is man made, the catholic bible contain more texts.
This video is good for explaining that the books in the Bible are true, but it's very bad for the dispute between the Catholic and Protestant canons.
First, the video cited Melito's canon as the settled 39 books of the Old Testament canon, and assumes it to be the same as the Protestant canon. The thing is, it's not: Melito excludes Esther, Nehemiah, and Lamentations from the Protestant canon, and includes Wisdom which is today only found in the Catholic and Orthodox canons. It consists of 37 books, not 39. I can forgive Nehemiah and Lamentations, as early translations of Ezra included Nehemiah, and early translations of Jeremiah included Lamentations, but there's no getting around the fact that Wisdom is included, and Esther is excluded. To be the most charitable, I'll say that this video is neglectful of the research of a 30 second Google search that shows the table of contents of Melito's canon, but that's still a pretty harsh mark against it.
Second, it appeals to the 367 letter from Athanasius to recognize the New Testament, but neglects to show that Athanasius also included and Old Testament canon in the letter - and the canon that he includes for the Old Testament is not the same as anyone's modern-day Bible: it excludes Esther as explicitly noncanon, includes Baruch, and orders the books differently. It's noteworthy that although he excludes Wisdom, Sirach, and Judith intentionally as noncanon, he refers to them in other letters as Holy Scripture, which arguably makes his canon lists not necessarily useful for following. Either way, these inconvenient facts are left out of the video, hopefully unintentionally.
I understand going to other sources besides church councils to find early canons, considering that most church councils notable in this regard specifically establish the modern-day Catholic canon, but these sources are not quite proving the point this video was intending to prove. One of the most disappointing things about this video was that at the beginning, it promised an explanation as to why the Protestant canon is shorter than the Catholic canon, but never fulfilled that promise. As someone who is researching where the disagreement in canon came from, this wasn't very helpful; rather, it seemed to give sources contrary to the claim made rather than supporting it.
Only 66 books of bible???
Brother you were Spiritually Regenerated or Born Again with CHRIST during the Physical Resurrection of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Many are trying to find out evidence for our Salvation in our Flesh.
We were Justified, Quickened, Sanctified and seated together with CHRIST Spiritually. We're only given the Understanding or Repentance of the Theology in right time by GOD. GOD Grants Repentance to HIS Elect.
Hawayu Ligonier Ministries *& I Say Thanks 2 Pst. Stephen Nicols 4 This Powerful, Blessful, Deep Sermon on "Why Sixty-Six Books ? The Development of The Cannon!" Where I Have Learnt New Words Like "NARAKH" Where I Say That Even Our Great LORD Jesus Christ Quoted The Books of The Bible & The Scriptures 4 This Powerful Book of Law Must Not Depart From Our Mouths 4 We Must Meditate on It Day & Nyt 4 Faith Comes By Hearing & By Hearing By The Word of God 4 The LORD Gave The Word 4 Great Were Those Who Accompanied It Written In Joshua 1:8, Romans 10:17 & Psalms 68:11 4 I Have Been Blessed So Very, Very Much By Pst. Stephen Nicols* & God Bless Yu Pst. Stephen Nicols & Ligonier Ministries So Very Much.🙏🙏🕊️🕊️
66????? who sad its 66 ??? orginal bible is 73 777 blessings
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
Please provide extended information to defend the Jesus myth theory
It should be 73 books....66 books in the Bible is wrong.....luther bought in number of the beast....66....
You’re missing a digit bud.. solid argument lol
its 66 because you took it upon yourselves to cut out some of the books, on a faulty basis.
@@HearGodsWord whos the you is a great question. since no one with any authority did it, and barely anyone knows when it was done. Have you never wondered why older Protestant Bibles contain the "apocrypha" but newer ones do not? A decision made in America by bible publishers in the 1830s is why half of Christendom no longer even knows what these books are. But yet we should now take Church history lessons from these same people...how about no.
@@HearGodsWord who ever said we need to have Hebrew-only Scriptures? Since Paul and the other writers quote these in Greek it seems a bit of a manmade tradition to contradict them.
@R H Evans it was there before the Protestants. The debate was whether they were inspired, not whether they should be kept. Of course even that debate was simply supplanting one authority with another.
@@HearGodsWord the Tanakh as we know it today is the Jewish Bible that was the result of the Pharisee camp of Jerusalem defining for themselves (either at Jamnia or simply by oral tradition) how to continue to worship God after the destruction of the Temple, after Christianity had moved out to Antioch, Rome, Anatolia, etc. They determined not to use the Christian OT septuagint in Greek, instead limiting their canon to solely Hebrew books. But no Christian denomination had made the decision to prefer this canon because of its Hebrew origin over that of the Septuagint until post-Luther.
Since you brought up the Tanakh and Apocrypha I assumed you intended to stand on Hebrew origin as a mark for defining inspired Scriptures of the OT. I wouldnt stand there however, especially given that the book of Sirach has been discovered in its Hebrew original a few years ago. But also because there is not really a good Christian reason to assert that the Apocrypha are uninspired, simply because they were not part of the post-Temple era Jewish canon because they were not in Hebrew originally, which is a stance that simply follows the anti-Christian Pharisaic tradition that evolved into today’s Orthodox Judaism. Are we Orthodox Jews fir Jesus, or Christians who root themselves in the consistent tradition of the Church?
@@HearGodsWord im saying quite the opposite. I am not adding a thing. I simply know the history of Scripture and stand upon it, affirming that Protestants are the ones who subtracted books without authority to do so, and then tried to argue for a reason why, by using arguments that fail when you know your history.
He is absolutely wrong
Who
Protest....the root word😂
Martin Luther stolen the 7 books...that's why your bible is in complete.
Oye.
66 books because protestants have mistakenly removed the books that refer to purgatory - via Martin Luther
Well we’re made perfect in Christ sooo… why the need for more perfecting?
@@T-Wyler "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom Of Heaven."
Right. There are many folks that claim to be Christian’s.. doesn’t mean they truly are. I don’t follow your point here.
Right I grant that there are folks who claim to be followers of Christ but aren’t at all.. I don’t see the connection you are trying to make here
Pure lies and pure lies.
Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, but no arguements.
So the canon was formed by man. You could of just said that.
There’s not one argument made here for the protestant Canon. Useless video.
The most hilarious part about the story of how and why the Bible came together is how incredibly absent God is from the entire process.
Christians want us to believe this
God when it came to writing the Bible: 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
God when it came to putting the Bible together: 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
But trust us bros, it’s totally Gods word and these are definitely the books he wanted 😅😅😅😅
The greek scribes employed by the Flavian emperor cherry picked what would please Constantine. The story is actually based on the Romans conquest of the middle east. The early christians fell for a Roman trick.
The Flavian Emperors and St. Constantine the Great are over two centuries apart, genius.
Yes you did take those books out of the Bible. The Catholic Church put the Bible together, no matter how you spin it.
Exactly
You would think they would take it more seriously, in that case.
@@marshallapplewhite47 Martin Luther took out books from the Bible he didn’t like and called them Apocrypha - and he changed a few Bible verses in the New Testament epistles too to fit his own personal belief of faith only not works for salvation (this wasn’t a teaching from Christ but from Luther) - historical fact
The German Bible that Luther published circulated worldwide and got translated into English- many Protestants from ministers to laypersons to theologians got duped by Luther’s Bible (erroneously thinking it’s the word of God when truthfully factually it’s the word of Luther)
Agreed, Prot lies, your bible was codified by the CC in 382 & pope Luther removed 7 books, under whose authority Deut 4:2.He also added the word ALONE Rom 3:28
I came to the conclusion years ago that Catholicism is man's version of Christianity. The more I learn about it over years though, the more I see it as having many similar qualities of a cult.
The Word of God was chosen by a group of humans..
The bible is full of contradictions and double standards and also barbarism! Correct me if I’m wrong?
For example?
GOD THAT. VERY KNOW ALL.
WITH BAD COUNTRIES SUPORT TO UKRAENA. THEY JUST WANT MONEY FROM UKRAENA. IF UKRAENA WIN.
- BUT GOD WILL NOT GIVE WIN TO UKRAENA. BECAUSE UKRAENA WRONG. ( UKRAENA DI BUAT TUMBAL OLEH NEGARA NEGARA YANG SUPORT KEPADA UKRAENA )
- AND GOD WILL NOT GIVE HELP TO WRONG.
- I AND RUSSIA WILL ALWAYS WIN NEXT WIN. BECAUSE GOD VERY LIKES TO TRUE.
I JONI JONI