Five Myths About The Bible (And How We Got it.)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- There's a lot of strange stuff out there about the Bible. So I interviewed Bible scholar and historian Wesley Huff to give some clarity on this topic.
Timestamps:
03:59- Myth #1: The Bible was put together at the Council of Nicaea, where books were taken out.
09:39- Myth #2: The Bible has changed over time, especially with books being taken out, texts changing, and the Catholic Church having a different “Bible” than we do.
32:23- Myth #3: The Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible.
45:50- Myth #4: The King James Bible is the Best and Most Accurate Bible.
56:51- Myth #5: The Book of Enoch Belongs in the Bible.
👀WATCH👀:
●Which Bible translation is "best?": • Why are There So Many ...
●Is the KJV superior?: • Is Every Bible "Demoni...
●Cultish Interview about the Book of Enoch: • Cultish: The Book of E...
👇Info for Wes👇:
●Website: www.wesleyhuff.com/
●Instagram: / wesley_huff
●UA-cam: / @weshuff
●First Episode of "Can I Trust the Bible?": • Can I Trust the Bible?...
●Apologetics Canada: apologeticscanada.com/
📚RESOURCES📚:
www.amazon.com/shop/melissado...
🤗DONATE🤗:
If you are led, consider donating:
paypal.me/MelissaDougherty77
📲FOLLOW📲:
Facebook: / newagetochristianity
Instagram: @melissaldougherty
Twitter: / meldougherty77
My Website: www.melissadougherty.co/
💡SEMINARY💡:
Looking for a solid theological education? Look at Southern Evangelical Seminary: ses.edu/melissa/
The more versions of the Bible I read, and the more I explore Scripture, the more certain I am that God can - and does - preserve his Word. I offer the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves for we walk about as underlings."
What do you know of the New testament?
Nailed it Tim
It baffles me that thirty years after I first heard these fallacious arguments, people are still spouting the same nonsense and thinking that they are disproving the authenticity of Scripture. Next, some "smart" guy is going to discover the "secret hidden " gospel of Barnabas, I guess.
Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas or the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are two different books.
@Doris1888 I was using a random allusion to a writing that no one believes is legitimate but seems to get people who know nothing about Biblicall History excited when they first discover it. And while one is superior to the other as a document, neither is accepted as Canon, but I am not going to dialogue about that here. Blessings.
@@Just_a_Reflection Well the Epistle of Barnabas which was probably written late into the first century didn't make it into the Bible but was referred to often by the early church so it's history might be considered legitimate historically but not inspired. However, the Gospel of Barnabas was written about the 15th or 16th century and basically discredits Christianity in favor of the Muslim religion. Hardly a gospel about Jesus Christ.
@Doris1888 You are exactly right. Clement of Alexandria reportedly accepted the Epistle, and it is important because it gives a view of how early Jewish Christians segued from Rabbinical Judaism to Christianity, though it was later investigated and found to not be sound and not inspired, primarily due to it's Gnostic undertones, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. The Gospel of Barnabas is Gnostic garbage written in the Middle Ages with absolutely no real value. My point is that I was making an offhand allusion, which wasn't central to my offhand comment.
@@Just_a_Reflection Gotcha!👍
I am so excited to see Wesley Huff as your guest! Thank you. His knowledge has always impressed me. I learn so much each time. :)
I am never disappointed with your content and interviews. This was fascinating and will be watching at least one more time.
Love your content, Melissa! Thanks for this! Always great content to share with my people!
Melissa, this was soooooo good, thank you. I actually will watch it more than once as there is so much info to absorb!!!
Great respectful way of explaining the KJV! I was a KJV only person until around 2010ish I taught myself Greek to prove the pastor wrong fortunately I learned it's good and other translations are not for the most part wrong! The study turned me to ESV
😂😂
That's strange as I learned Hebrew and Greek, and my professors edited the ESV.
After 28 years and several translations later, it only confirmed of how accurate the King James is.
@@michelleadams5609 you're absolutely full of it😂
Me too. I use the ESV.
Thanks for this Melissa and Wesley. This video is super helpful and informative. I'm enjoying watching.
The lds people frequently contend that The Trinity and the Bible both came out of the Counsel of Nicea. I appreciate this clarification . Blessings.
Thank you addressing those myths/points, which I’m sure to hear one mentioned everyday.
This is so good and so useful! Thanks Melissa and Wes!
Thank you so much for having good volume and audio quality.
Great video!! Let’s do this again real soon 🤓
keep em coming Melissa! I want your long form content! If you could, also give us your full talks! Ive seen your youtube shorts and the speech clip is phenomenal and I want more. Please keep giving us long stuff - whether its conversations/podcasts or just you going on a long speech. 30 minutes to 3 hours is fantastic and keep doing this great stuff!
The longer, the better!
Apocalypse Apocrypha has a boat load of information on this.
@@andrewbrossman9902 Who Im interested in is Melissa. She clearly has been given Wisdom and an articulate mouth from God. Her view is what I want more of rather than information.
@@circle4962 Nothing against Mellisa. I like her channel. I was mentioning that you want to know more about the deutercannon, there is a UA-cam channel called the apocalypse apocrypha. The New Testament cannon is closed. The Old Testament cannon, not really.
@@andrewbrossman9902 What did I say about the deutercannon or scriptural cannon? I didn't speak about it. Yet you come to me telling me to check out someone I never gave interest for. My focus has been on Melissa, not the content. My focus is on a person, not ideas.
Go away and stop being a fool. Come back when Wisdom is on your lips. You do not listen to advice as is clear when you come to me and tell me what to do. You do not care to understand my words, you only care to air your opinion.
I've been reading the Church Fathers and how the early Church functioned. I can see how the claim that "the Catholic Church is reading these things into the past" can work. But honestly though, something that seems clear to me is that back then there was apostolic succession. The bishops had authority. Rome had kind of a primacy going on. And the Church was this united church where the bishops were constantly looking after and defending it against heresies. The councils were made to fight them and define important things about the faith. It seems to me that there was an authority going on in the Church...
There was government in the 1st century church, but there is NEVER a such thing in the Bible as apostolic succession. Idc what the "church fathers" had to say about it. The Bible shows how the early church functioned, and IT is the only reliable source for what the 1st century church believed and practiced.
In the 3rd-century Church Fathers, have you noticed the influx of platonic influence & how how platonism began to influence their theology?
One church had a tendency to take people they didn't like and tie them to a bundle of sticks and fire them..... Probably safe to say they also burned a lot of paper too. So if a lot of church writings seem to support the church that liked burning things and people, there might be a reason why.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Hello! Yeah, I've seen how some were extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy ideas of that time. However, I would like to hear more of your reasoning.
....it didn't take long for Rome to be a problem to the rest of the church. Bishop Stephen in the mid second century was promoting a non-trinitaraian position, and Rome started trying to assert itself as the chief church above all the other Bishops. It would take centuries but it was the last for power that convinced the church in the East to severe ties with the church in Rome.
This is a fascinating discussion. Fantastic video!
This was very interesting ❤ thank you for this
Wonderful, absolutely engaging discussion through and through! May the Lord bless us with wisdom and understanding and increase our love for His Word
Thank you for this video. I didn't even know some of these things. God bless you ❤
Great interview! May God bless both of your ministries!!
Great interview. Very informative!
Love this topic - thanks for having Wes on again!
I love what you do. Thank you. Great show.
Thanks! Wes Huff is great!!!
One of the best interviews on scripture! Loved it, although I'll need to watch it again and take notes ;p thanks!
Excellent content!
Loved this!
We often quote psalm 23, yet even there the archaic language fails people. I shall not want is not clear, because want currently me and desire or crave-it doesn’t mean need. If you said “I shall not be in want,” or even better, “I shall not be in need” or “I shall not be lacking.” We can easily see the shift in the use of the word, but as is the text doesn’t clearly transmit the meaning it intended. Similar to how people misunderstand Shakespeare when he wrote “Romeo, Romeo-wherefore art thou Romeo?” They think she’s saying where are you, where in reality she is saying “Why did you have to be Romeo?” Wherefore is for why, not in what place.
I want to eat!.....Oh no! I forgot, I'm not supposed to want! Now I'm a sinner.....well, I guess I was already a sinner....now I'm a bigger sinner!!!!
Seriously though, you pointed out a perfect example for why we need to update Bible translations. Another one I have heard is people reading "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and taking that to mean we shouldn't try to save up enough stuff to last until we are dead....... which is not what that means. Even Tyndale's translation that's 500 years old states this in a more understandable way. Clearly each day has sufficient trouble in itself so we need to stay focused on today and not be worrying about all the stuff that hasn't happened yet.
New teachings are being found in the KJV after 413 years because people read it with their 2024 brain and 2024 English, which makes a magical English soup that creates new stuff never before seen!!! So exciting....
Shall not want would mean I won’t want, not a shouldn’t want. In other words, not that we are wrong to desire things, but that our needs will be met. But yes, I was intentionally trying to point out the need to update the language-because people reading archaic language often misconstrue the meaning.
This was so informative!
"At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar."
~ 1 Chr 26:18, Authorized Version
"As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself."
~ modern translations
I'm sure the KJV onlyists already knew what parbar meant, because they always know everything and they are always right about everything too..... Let me know if you hear one of them admit they were wrong about something. It will be a first and should make news headlines.
Great vid, thanks.
Look at you, providing links to the other videos mentioned.
You are pretty awesome!
Thank you!
So, so interesting! Thank you both!
Great video
Melissa, thank you for this information, This was so interesting and eye opening
Before Paul was an apostle and had a conversion he was a scripture scholar 🎉❤ definitely love some facts though❤❤❤
My favorite Canadian on UA-cam! Next have him debunk the myth that American peanut butter tastes different than Canadian peanut butter.
😊
Thank you, very helpful.
Good content
Thanks Melissa for this.
If Jesus and the Apostles adopted the Jewish/Protestant canon, then *why do we find so many of citations from the early Church quoting the Deuterocanon explicitly as Scripture or using to confirm doctrine?*
Here's a sampling:
Epistle of Barnabas (ch 6) - Wis 2:12
Clement of Rome - Wis 12:12
Shepherd of Hermas - 2 Mac 7:28
Athenagoras - Baruch 3:36
Irenaeus - Wis 6:18-19; Baruch generally and specifically 3:39-4:1
Tertullian - Wis 1:6, 2:12; Maccabees generally
Clement of Alexandria - Sir 21:7, 20, 23:19, 39:26-27; Wis 3:1-6, 6:17-19, 16:26; Tob 4:15
Hippolytus - Baruch 3:36; Wisdom as a whole; 2 Mac 2:6ff; Tobit; Daniel/Susanna
Cyprian - Wisdom at least 3 times; Sirach at least 4 times; Tob 4:5-11, 12:8-9, 12-15; 2 Mac 6:30
Origen - Wisdom at least 9 times; Sirach at least 13 times; 2 Mac 7 and then generally once as "Scripture history"; Susanna (book of Daniel) as part of "divine catalog"; Judith (9:2); Tobit; "they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion" -De Principiis (Book II)
( The whole Deuterocanon apparently! )
Athanasius - Wisdom at least 8 times; Sir 15:9; Judith 8:16; Bar 3:12; Tob 12:7
Source: mostly Michuta's The Case for the Deuterocanon with over 100 pages of such citations/quotations
Fantastic interview from fellow Canadian! ❤
Enoch 1 is most likely the first comic book ever written. Ironically, Stan Lee stole a lot of material from the scriptures: The Creator, The Watchers, "With great power, comes great responsibility (to whom much is given, much is required)". I agree that reading Enoch is a good idea because it is referenced by Peter and Jude, but that's about it. Great interview, Little Sister!
How can it be comic when there are verses in scripture that reference the book of Enoch and quote from it just like how they also reference the books they decided to take away without proper permission or authority because none of them prayed for guidance from the Holy spirit who inspired the letters and also non of them asked God for confirmation they went based on their own understanding for the sake of peace and destroying the truth in the process
@@adeclipse_sa to suggest that scripture quotes from the book of enoch is to assume that the book of enoch is older than those books in scripture, which is a massive assumption. sure, its written as though it is older and the character is older, but as stated in this interview the oldest compiled book of enoch is from the 15th century.
there are also things stated in enoch which are directly against scripture, so theres that
@@junk3996 , it is not scripture. Most scholars think that the first sections of 1 Enoch were written 3 centuries before Jesus ' birth. Scrolls of Enoch were found at Qumra (Dead Sea Scrolls), which are thought to be from 2 centuries BC.
@@adeclipse_sa my point is, that it is like a fantastic work of fiction like a graphic novel we would see in the realm of comic book literature today. I'm not sure to whom you are referring, when you mention books being taken out?
Enoch 🙄
Thank you so much for this video! Especially the part about Enoch as well as the very helpful explanation about "there was no more sea" in Revelation. Like his Australian friend, I too hope it doesn't mean what a literal reading means. 😊 Definitely subscribing to his channel also!
Chris Pinto released a documentary called "Tares Among the Wheat." The documentary calls into question the validity of the Codex Sinaticus quite compellingly, in my humble opinion. Could you do an episode w/ this same gentleman regarding the argument(s)/claims Chris Pinto makes in the documentary?
Do some research on "Byzantine Priority", by Robinson. It is a discussion of the texts used by Greek speaking peoples since the time of the Apostles. Paul went to Athens to spread the Gospel.
So I'm not the only one that doesn't trust Tichendorf ? 🤨
Great video, thank you
Thank you all for this.
Melissa, I was happy your stance is positive and open-minded toward allowing oneself to read non-canonized, apochryphal books which had failed to make the big bad soccer team cut of canon (thanks for patience with my sense of humour). This is cool and makes me look forward to your future videos, peer-reviewed articles, debates, dissertation(s), and books written after today and especially when you get your next degree as Apologist! Godspeed!
What do you mean non canonized books? Those books were indeed part of the bibles canon. They only stopped being that when the reformation happens. Those books are still canonical even if protestantism rejects them. The majority of Christians in the world accept the deuterocanon.
Another really good resource dealing with this is Dr. Heiser's interviews with Rick Brannan on TheNakedBiblePodcast episodes 99 and 104. Also episodes 130 and 242 have good conversations concerning Textual Criticism. 😊😊
Very interesting video, thank you! Amen.
God bless you, you bless us with the information you bring.
I'm very happy that you pursue Godly knowledge! Just be careful with allowing "college cleverness"getting in the way of God's truth
Yes, see this happening quite a bit..." This person has this degree or that"...means nothing if the word isn't shared correctly.
I loved this video! Looking forward to doing a deep dive!
Gregory I, who lived from 540 - March 12, 604, was the first monk to become pope. He was known as Saint Gregory the Great, and was the 64th Bishop of Rome, from September 3, 590 until his death in 604.
Enoch is an important topic right now. i see it everywhere, people wanting to revere this 'book' because it justifies and seemingly confirms their beliefs in "nephilim", what they are and what the person wants them to be and represent. its a very dangerous and deceiving text which steers your mind throughout unscriptural topics and concepts.
peoples understanding about what nephilim are will drastically altar how they understand the relationships between humans and created angelic beings. and if i could post a link here i would post one to a comprehensive article absolutely debuking the idea that nephilim are some type of demonic-human demi-god hybrid being that existed before the flood.
another thing about enoch, where it says "and he was no more". Wesley says "so theres an indication that he was taken up to heaven". he rightly points out it doesn't explicitly say that, and this is important. Enoch surely died, just like all men who are descendant from Adam, because the bible DOES explicitly say that. Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:22.
lets also put a stop to the myth that Enoch and Elijah didn't die. they did.
The Septuagint includes these books and Greek speaking Jews had these books. To say that Jews did not use these books is not accurate.
Good video, but a little confused at 1:13:45. Something about the Messiah??? Help me out please...
I watched my pastor make a minor error because ye Olde Englifh doesn't mean what you think it means. I've weighed the cost and benefits of mentioning somethibg and it seems the cost outweighs the benefits, but it still happened, the KJV causing a misunderstanding due to being outdated.
As an Orthodox Christian ☦️ I have never heard that the Bible was given to us at the Council of Nicea
I have never heard of it either, as a Protestant.
@@andrewbrossman9902 if you do some research you should hear the Catholic Counter arguments to what this man is saying.
@@dman7668 I have a little bit.
As Christians we remain human, and pride can result in resistance to change. We do not like being wrong, or being duped. Loyalty, also can play a role in denial.
This is so good and really encouraging!
I’m in Alberta, Canada and the Alberta chapter of Apologetics Canada went way off the rails into Nationalism and Legalism so I stopped following. I used to attend their Be Ready apologetics conference so it was really disappointing and I no longer support them. I’m happy to see sound theology coming from Apologetics Canada!
I've always found KJV-only beliefs to be interesting because they have always seemed so bizarre to me. Like, why would anyone think that? My theory is that it comes down to a conspiratorial mistrust of institutions and just being part of a tightly-knit group. I would hypothesize that people who hold strongly to KJV-only beliefs also hold to other fringe beliefs.
Personally, I think that the KJV is good for literature and history, but really not ideal for personal use. I think a lot of people struggle with understanding the Bible and even dislike reading it because they are trying to use the KJV.
I would love to get have a good-faith discussion about this.
I agree, KJV is hard to understand. I prefer reading the NIV but can always refer back to the KJV if a passage is controversial etc
Yes, this would a fairly accurate assumption. I come from this background.. KJV-only-ism tends to be linked to conspiracy and mis- trust of institutions.
The KJV was an excellent and elegant, though certainly not perfect, English translation of the Bible at the time it was completed in 1611. Since the English language has continued to change over the last 4 centuries, the form of English used in the KJV is now hopelessly obsolete for the general public, as it is practically a foreign language to speakers of 21st Century English. KJV-onlyists remind me of Reformation-era Roman Catholics who opposed any form of the Bible other than the Latin Vulgate that had been used since Jerome translated it over a millennium before.
@@DamonNomad82 That's funny but it's true.
KJV is still the most accurate and that’s just a fact. It is the closest accurate word for word translation there is. Period. Other translations remove and add things that shouldn’t be there.
Oh by the way Melissa I want to complement you on your interviewing skills. You let your guest do most of the talking and had a clear agenda and stayed on topic and asked only clarifying questions that were in the scope of the interview. Rabbit trails can be fun and interesting but they can keep you from achieving your overall goals. Too many UA-camrs and Podcasters have chaotic interviews and there is way too much cross talk and meandering off topic.
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Also: your focus, Melissa, is commendable. I see your subtle reactions as Wesley speaks. The way your eyes move, the way your head moves, the way your lips move (without speech). These are markers to prove your intentional attention. These markers are evidence of your wisdom and controlled observation. Keep doing this because your laser like focus, your extreme sensitivity to light, is beyond strong. Thanks be to God that Wisdom has been given to you
Hi Melissa, I'm looking to study the Bible in a very serious and disciplined manner but I can't really afford going to school for it and I am wondering if you have tips on any resources where I can start learning apologetics beyond just the basics. I also wanted to learn a biblical language on my own but I'm unsure if I should learn Greek or Hebrew...any tips? You're one of my favorite Bible scholars along with Mike Winger and I just am in love with The Lord and I wanna learn as much as I can...I just wanna be sure I'm learning from the correct sources.
Pastor Chris Rosebrough is fluent in both.
I myself would start with Koine Greek simply for the reason that's the language used for our new covenant that we're currently under. But there's also starting with Hebrew to better see the poetry involved.
There's the interlinear Bible that is in the original language, but has the English equivalent words written above. That has been quite interesting.
Definitely learn Koine Greek! It doesn't take long to read it phonetically and will be rewarding with less time invested into it.
I think if a person listened to every single Mike Winger video he's ever made......that has to be equal or better than a bachelor's of theology degree....
I love theological books, but I have expensive taste and I don't have the budget to buy all the ones I want. That said, building a theology library is worth it!!!
In the box below the video she has RESOURCES which links to her recommended books on Amazon.
This is so interesting. I have studied and written papers on all five of these topics.
A frustration comes with talking to people about them because most have heard something, but are not well studied.
I don't get very deep into converations with those who either have a vague, or no idea, what is in different bibles or how they came about.
Some talks devolve into an exchange of talking points. Infrequently, someone gets really mad if you bring scholarly sources into it.
I won't carry on a discussion where someone wants to duel with bumper sticker slogans.
Pearls before swine.
What is highlighted here is how a "story," can be carried over many generations. We see this in families where a story is put forward from one generation to the next. The story is accepted as true. No reason to question our parent's report, or our pastor's report authenticity.
The story in our family was our grandfather had brain damage from being stuck by a car, an as a result murdered his wife (our grandmother)
However, police investigation documented that the motive for the murder was our grandfather's belief his wife was unfaithful. Evidence revealed there was never an affair.
Humans can be motivated to create favorable narratives or to cover up unfavorable narratives.
Churches can and do this as well.
"But..but....the council of Niceaaaa!!?"
Thanks Melissa, another banger of an interview!
What do we make from the quote from the New Testament The book of Jude?
If you're referring to the mention of Enoch, Jude was speaking of a _future_ personality. He was +not_ referring to the Enoch in Genesis. Check the genealogy. He was not the seventh from Adam. Matter of fact, the "Adam" Jude refers to is not the one from Genesis either. He is talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ(1 Cor. 15:45). "The seventh from Adam" concerns a personality who prophesies about Christ's return in the 7th era of God's Church.
See my point exactly people don’t even know that the Bible directly quotes from the book of Enoch 🤦🏻♀️
@@OkKo-ux2xvNo, the Bible 'does not quote Enoch' Two writers referenced it. As you might any historic document. That doesn't infer any sort of credibility. And consider Paul's address on Mars Hill. He referenced other documents as well ..
@@toolegittoquit_001 Wait! Does that make those poets inspired too??? LOST BIBLICAL POEMS CITED BY PAUL FOUND IN ATHENS DUMPSTER OUTSIDE MARS HILL...... Someone will start a whole new denomination from this and retire a millionaire....
Awesome!
😮😮😮Wonderful insight on Enoch! So much there I didn’t know! Historically, linguistically, and culturally-fabulous! Same conclusions I had personally come to, but my own were much less backed by those fields, and much more surface understanding! I do believe that it’s actually fairly clear, if you’re looking for the truth, that Enoch is not scripture-nor any serious historical document that can be trusted-just by reading it and thinking about it a little bit. However, these points he brings up are fantastic!
Can you please cite your sources so I can read. Thank you!
As far as the Book of Enoch, you should get Dr. Loren Stuckenbruck on. He’s one of the leading experts on it and is a professor at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
I am a relatively new Christian so only read the bible for the first time about 10 month ago. I chose to read the KJV version as I like the old English language. But, the LORD made me switch to a modern version, NKJV for the New Testiment. Up to Mathew I had no problem understanding the text, if anything it made me think more about what I was reading. But when I got to Mathew it simple wouldn't go in, I doubted my understanding. So I reread it in the NKJV and although my understanding was correct {in basic terms of the words used - clearly true understanding is more than readimg the words} it was clear the LORD wanted me to process the text differently to the Old Testament. As a result I have a very clear separation in my mind in terms of the Old and New Restaments. The LORD is so great! By the way, I can know read the New Testiment in the KJV without any problems. The bible truely is the living word of GOD. 🙏
Wait a second 😒 first I want to be clear I’m not saying Enoch is scripture (or isn’t) I’m shocked that he didn’t talk about how much of Enoch was found in the Dead Sea scrolls or that we have scripture DIRECTLY quoting from the book of Enoch!!! I am sorry but I feel like he set up Enoch in a way that if people didn’t know about it then they would be deceived about it, this was disappointing 😞
There were a lot of non-biblical writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as military letters, commentaries, legal texts, poetry, religious texts that the Jews did not consider inspired (such as Enoch), etc.
We know Enoch was not written by Enoch nor was it considered inspired scripture by the Jews. It was written around 300-200BC. While it was quoted in Jude, other non-scriptural sources were also quoted in the NT. For example, Paul quotes from Greek literature and Jesus quotes popular sayings common to his time.
It’s certainly an interesting writing and gives us insight into what some Jews believed. For what it is, I think he handled it fairly.
This information really taught me lots of stuff I did not know.
Yeah, well it taught me lots of propaganda from the reformers. The Church did not merely recognize the Canon as this man tries to assert. If all it was doing was recognizing the canon and he agrees with this supposed "consensus" then why stop there? Why doesn't he accept the consensus of the Councils on apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration and Jesus Christ present in the body and blood of the Mass? The Councils recognized those things too!
Yet you don't see him clamoring about how they merely "recognized" those ideas also, do you? It sounds like someone loves the Councils when he agrees with it.
Also he also doesn't mention that the council that "recognized" the Bibles canon also recognized the deutercanom as well (known as the apocrypha to protestantism).
Wesley, four questions: 1. When the NT books were prayerfully selected as canon ... were spiritual books voted on as not anointed enough with insufficient doctrinal patterns in them, were any of these 'loser' texts burned as part of the decision makers' rejection? 2. Was King James a homosexual? 3. I am writing a novel on tbe life of Christ and am wanting to create my own name for Pontius Pilate's wife. Before I dive-in and zealously name her 'Pontius Portia', I woild like to ask, which segment of his name is his name and which segment is his title? For example, had he never run for office and been elected into his office would his name be Mr. Pontius or Mr. Pilate? If Joe Schmo ran for office to replace him, and won, would he become Pontius Schmo? Would it be Joe Pilate? Schmo Pilate? 4. We have the final canonised product of the NT thanks to Constantine's Protestant/Catholic (¿accuracy of facts?) decision-makers and it is comprised of numerous epistles written by (not too much offense intended) this rookie, this feisty rogue, this under-groomed (hands-on by Jesus) ministerial neophyte named Paul ... and nothing by Bartholomew, Andrew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Matthias, Simon the Zealot. How the Heaven did THAT happen?? Thank you.
Can you possibly consider inviting/interviewing qualified representatives from Apostolic churches, Orthodox, Church of the east, Coptic church, Church of Rome (Roman Catholic Church), if possible Armenian Church, Ethiopian Church?
There is no rush, it would really be appreciated to hear what the Apostolic churches have to say on the same topic, instead of listening to protestants talking about the Apostolic churches. After all, the Council mentioned was The Church, not just The Church of Rome, representatives from all over came to that Council.
Politely suggesting this approach to this topic.
That would be interesting.
Yes, I would love hearing an apologists rebuttle some of the points he is making here that ought to he rebutted. Especially his point about the Councils merely recognizing scripture. They recognized alot of things but you don't see Protestants accepting them. I feel there is a bit of pick and choose when they agree with the Councils over the Bibles canon. Then ignore other things reached at the Councils consensus like baptismal regeneration.
I'm a devout Roman Catholic. I can't speak for my brethren but personally i have no problem with myth 3. It actually saddens me that christian's have fought over something so insignificant. God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
38:15 "The Bible is not an authoritative list of books; but a list of authoritative books." I think I heard it from Dan Wallace.
It would seem to me that the KJV ONLY crowd became that way because of "tradition" along with how they were raise in the Church. Then when you factor in the radical changes that was wreaking havoc within the Church in the 60's & 70's on & it's no wonder that many started taking a stand against ANY kind of change.
BTW: They were right in many cases to stand against the world but in light of the fact that it's ONLY by the power of The Holy Spirit that we are saved & it's ONLY by the power of the Holy Spirit that we understand Scripture so if people want to get all technical then we should all be trained to read & understand, Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic!
Could you please do a video on nocturnal demon attacks?
There is a lot of interest in this.
So reading the Apocryphal books would be like reading Josephus for reference concerning the social & historical climate.
But be careful...it could also be like reading and believing the book of m ormon, or jw's book etc...inspired by possible fallen ang el.
The apocryphal books were accepted as canon for over a thousand years. That only changes with the protestant reformation. Those books do indeed belong in the Bible.
Great discussion. I understand that the scriptures authority was recognized instead of inferred upon but I would like to hear a discussion of how the very early Christians came to recognize the 66 books. This discussion didn’t answer that. Only that it didn’t happen at the Council of Nicea. I assume this guy probably has talked about it elsewhere.
True, he skirts over the Church recognizing books protestantism later rejects. Over 1,000yrs later. Also, saying the Church recognized the canon is one thing, but to insinuate it did not have any authority to set any canon because all it was doing was "recognizing" books is a problem.
Why? Well, the Church recognized other things mainstream protestantism rejectted. Those same men on that same note "recognized" baptismal regeneration and Christ present in the Eucharist. If the Church is merely recognizing stuff, then why doesn't he accept those recognized things also?
@@dman7668 I take it that you’re probably Catholic. My authority isn’t church fathers but Christ and the apostolic writers.
Mr. Huff is fantastic ❤!
Wish he'd debate Bart Erhman!
Whiois this guy? Excellent teaching.
I didn't find it excellent. I can rebut most of these points he is making, if you like propaganda then it was great, but if you like hearing about the formation of the Bibles canon there are better sources. The Church didn't merely recognize the canon.
The question is how did they do that? Spoiler. Apostolic tradition.
Melissa is an impressive Christian.
First, she thinks, she reasons, she questions, she researches.
Second, obviously truth matters to her more than ideology.
Excellent interview.
Do you want to know more? Please read Codeword Barbelon and watch Tares Among the Wheat
Thanks for debunking the myth that the Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible at the Council of Nicea.
True the Catholic Church defined the canon a bit later in the 4th century.
What I was really hoping to see be addressed were the stories in the Bible that are based on earlier myths such as the flood story and the epic of Gilgamesh dating far before Noah or Moses being the first law giver even though though the code of Hammurabi had already been written or even the fact that there are creation stories that date earlier than the Bible. What about the pantheon of Gods that included Yahweh…..I wish these things could be brought up and talked about more often because these more than anything are what cause me to truly question the authenticity of the Bible. I am really trying to reconcile these things but I just can’t just pretend they don’t exist.
Speakers of English should not be required to look up English words in a Bible translation when commonly known equivalents are available. A good translation will do its best to use language by which the unbeliever can be convicted.
There is a danger in looking up some KJV words because the dictionaries don't have the correct definition as it was used by the KJV translators in 1611. It's actually worse than that because the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops Bible, and the KJV left a lot of it the same. And some of it goes back to the 1520's Tyndale New Teatament. So in reality, you need to look up how the words were defined in the early to mid 1500's....... And no Websters dictionary (1828 included) is going to have all the correct definitions. You need something like the massive Oxford dictionary (very expensive) and other expensive resources to really figure put how all the words were used..... You can buy a KJV only cheat sheet to learn some of the definitions, but those are not exhaustive and will still be missing words that you don't know you don't know. Like when "study to be quiet" doesn't mean grab a book and figure out how not to make noise.....
It is interesting to note, @@hayfieldhermit9657 , that in 1833 Webster updated the archaic words of the KJV ("Webster's Bible") translation.
Wes Huf has an incredible story and I freaking awesome!
Jesus promises people will believe in Him through His words and the words of the Disciples He was speaking to below. These are the only men I trust (because this is exactly how I came to believe). No English translation is perfect. The KJV is my study base (being raised when schools still taught Old English interpretation), but I take advantage of them all, especially modern English.
John 17:17,20 NRSV
Sanctify them in the truth; *_your word is truth._*
[20] *_"I ask not only on behalf of these,_* but also on behalf of *_those who will believe in me through their word,_*
Our most important relationship is with God, not our church.
Affiliation and affection can never be more important than the truth.
Friends keep on pointing me towards the Gospel of Thomas - any comments?
I just got smarter listening to this man 🤓
No, you just got more misinformed. The Church in this video he claims merely recognized some self authenticating canon. That's just nonsense and not even what happened. He wouldn't have been able to say that without being challenged if he said that to me. The Church didn't just recognize the canon. It choose it.
Very interesting, as always. Some of Wes' reasoning is definitely open to historical and Scriptural challenge. Truth is we can only hypothesize because we weren't there as eye or first person witnesses? To deny this logical fact is to tacitly admit to cultism - unquestionable authority of scholars whose hypotheses are always open to some measure of question, missing or ignoring some fact or possibility? I find it safest to start with and focus on Jesus, working backward and forward from Him, God, as core. Who is God according to the NT? The Spirit of Love. What is the Supreme, single Law that fulfills everything and anything required of us and of anything and everything applicably written pertaining to God? The New, not the Eleventh, the New Commandment to love one another as JESUS THE CHRIST loved and loves us. Whatever is contrary to this singular, Supreme Law, the Constitution of Heaven and as such God Himself is loveless, therefore lawless and Godless. We should just note, not our contemporary perversion of love but True Love, God. To understand this see Romans 1:20, look how nature and the universe works to see True Love: birth and death, catastrophe and providence, harsh and gentle, etc. opposites in perfect balance and our Genesis 1 dominion over the earth should strive to create, promote and maintain such balance? Our world is falling apart because we do the opposite: we are loveless, lawless and Godless whilst "professing to be wise" we have become fools. Our forebears understood these principles much better than we do, their world and lives being much less cosmetic and synthetic.
God bless you! ❤️🙏
For the love of God, can we please properly differentiate the ROMAN catholic church from the ACTUAL original, catholic, apostolic church, the Orthodox? They are VASTLY different, and it would be great if people knew it.
Well, then you will have to also differentiate between ALL the Orthodox churches also, since they too are not all in communion with each other yet were part of the original church. 🤷🏽♂
@@srich7503 Orthodox is Orthodox. Roman Catholic is very, very different.
@@American-Jello yeah, tell it to my Orthodox friends who cannot commune with each other.
@@srich7503 Still not sure what this has to do with differentiating Roman Catholic from Orthodox though. Most people in the west have no idea there's a difference, which was my entire point.
@@American-Jello when “most” people are looking for unity of the one true church and the Orthodox are not in communion with each other it PROVES disunity…people that are looking for the “unity” tend to notice.
John 10:22 The Hanukkah section. AKA The Feast of Dedication.
THE POTESTANT BIBLE HAS 66 BOOKS
AND THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS 73 (INCLUDING
THE DEUTEROCANONICAL). THE ORTHODOX
BIBLE CONTAINS APOCROPHAL BOOKS IN
ADDITION.