Early Christians: Hey guys, we should reject this obvious forgery from our cannon. Modern scholars: Yeah, those documents are obvious forgeries. Modern skeptics: Guys, look at all these books in early Christianity that were rejected.
What’s funny is that if they *were* included they’d have plenty to say about how can’t you trust the Bible at all because there are plenty of forgeries.
Marcion: Hey guys, we should reject these obvious forged Pauline letters from our cannon. Modern Scholars: Yeah, those letters are pretty sus and probably forgeries. Modern Christians: It is the very word of God and cannot be questioned ever!
Yooo I'm an Ethiopian Orthodox! Didn't expect you to mention our church. Been following you for a while now and got to say that I find your contents very informative. Keep it up.
@@lauratempestini5719 They are one of the apostolic Churches. Basically very similar beliefs to Catholics or Greek Orthodox relative to Evangelicals. Probably the closest protestant sect would be Traditional Anglican, except Ethiopian Orthodox actually have succession from an apostle like Catholics and other Orthodox groups.
He is telling the truth. The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books. Can christians answer why those books rejected from canon?
@@missouritravelers have you actually read the whole Gospel of Mary?? No, because no one has. What we have is a few chapters pieced together from 3 separate fragments with lots of words missing. It is clearly not from a Christiian author, not written by Mary, much later than the 4 canonical gospels and fulled with Gnostic nonsense about other gods and an evil Creator god, reincarnation and other stuff nowhere found in the real Bible. Read it freely if you like.
@@missouritravelers No, ignorant one, the Gospel of Mary is incomplete. The Gospel of Mary is a gnostic work of fiction from the 2nd century AD NOT writtten by Mary Magdalene and never mentioned as in early Christian writings as evena potential book of scripture. Canon is a human thing. The Canon the church normally recognizes was done at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD Not to remove books from those considered scriptural but rather to establish that the Heretic Marcion was wrong in rejecting most of the books of the Bible (All of the Old Testament and much of the new) because they blew up his new theory on Jesus the good god of the new Testament saving us from Jehovah the bad god of the old testament. Quit getting your church history from a a bad modern writer of action fiction. At least go to Wikipedia or maybe a real book.. No one but a few polytheistic Gnostics took any of these books seriously at the time between 30Ad and Nicea.
The fact that evidence is necessary to make people believe stuff is not sad. Unless you provide evidence countering his claim, there's no reason to believe that he is not right.
Hi Inspiringphilosophy, I just wanted to say thanks for the videos you produce. (Not talking about this one in particular but it's good too.) They actually helped me come back to the Christian Faith. Mostly helped me reconcile the trinity as being biblical and the Ressurection as actually being the most logical answer to make about what happened to Jesus, thank you. Your work means a lot to many people I assume. I just wanted to let you know it helped me. God bless you and your ministry.
What you are trying to say is basically you left Christianity because the God head concept is extremely demanding with all the mental torment and the mental gymnastics that you have to go thru against your reasoning and your logic and you are no back grappling with the perplexing trinity doctrine. Go to monotheism it’s your only salvation. God is one and all prophets and messengers are his ambassadors and not his sons.
@@RayRa No you're putting words into my mouth my friend. It's not that the trinity was hard for me it was mostly I never looked into it deep enough to understand it I guess. But obviously I'm not going to write out all my reasonings for leaving and rejoining the faith for an appreciation comment. Anyway I don't wish to cause an argument. But Maybe instead of telling me to join your idea of "monotheism" show me that I'm wrong. (Sorry if that comes of as rude but it's late where I am so not in the best mind to debate lol)
He is telling the truth. The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books. Can christian answer why those books rejected from canon?
@@Firestriker098 Don't engage the keyboard jihaadis. They love to just assert that the Trinity is incoherent and then invite you to Islam, while of course not mentioning anything sus about Islamic doctrines.
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus is fictional… So Josephus, etc wrote romances and not history? So even modern atheist scholars like Bart Erman have it all wrong?
Hey Michael, you should consider having Jonathan Pageau on your channel. He's an Orthodox Christian and has a youtube channel where he delves into patterns of being and Christian philosophy. Thanks.
I'm adding a lot of new changes to my channel. I decided to use it partly to promote other ministries and featuring edifying videos from other content creators. Soon I'll be uploading videos (currently in the works now) mainly dealing with biblical research, archeology and apologetics. I have two major documentaries "Was There An Exodus?" and "Was Yeshua the Jewish Messiah?". I've been conducting very extensive research into the Dead Sea scrolls and the world of Second Temple Judaism as the backdrop of the New Testament. I've dedicated myself to applying a Hebrew approach to biblical studies in order to uncover deeper meanings. I pray that these sort of things may be edifying in these last days, there's a lot of really cool stuff that the Lord has shown me and I think it could bring an increase of understanding and passion for the Word. I've already decided on the presentation for the new intro: ua-cam.com/video/aLOVgBZRlSc/v-deo.html
Who have the authority to change if it is the true word of GOD? That means man wrote the whole bible . فَوَيۡلٞ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيهِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنٗا قَلِيلٗاۖ فَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ ﴾ [ البقرة: 79] ﴿ ترجمة: فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا ﴾ Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby..
Lol, you’ve gone through a lot, huh? And it’s funny that he talked about the Gospel of Truth (technically the Gospel of Valentinus). I’ve read it myself and it wasn’t as “heretical” as a good majority of other gnostic texts. The only problem I can find with it (other than being composed by Valentinus) is the overemphasis of gnosis/knowledge. Btw, could you make a video about books that almost made it to the Bible, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of the Hebrews?
The Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't exist anymore in extant form, does it? I mean there's still stuff to say about it but it's hard to address its canonicity without knowing what was in it. I'd like to hear more about the Shepard of Hermas and the Letters of Clement, which were also in early canon lists (though the Mutorian list explicitely rejects the Shepard).
@@missouritravelers There is no complete or even near complete copy of the Gospel of Mary, just a few chapters with many missing words from 3 separate fragments. It is weird, polytheistic, NOT what the DaVinci Code talks about at all.
@@professorhaystacks6606 from what I’ve heard, the Gospel of the Hebrews is an expansion of Matthew, which allegedly included the woman caught in adultery story, along with the fact that the crucifixion part being taking from John’s Gospel. And there’s a few sprinkling of quotations which sounded gnostic. So the Gospel of the Hebrews is a love child of Matthew and John and then raised by gnostics. Edit: I forgot to mention that the reconstruction of the Hebrew gospel is possible
@@clayton4349 The reason I'd like a video or something about that is that while I've heard some of that before, I'm not sure where all that's coming from. I could research it myself, that would just take awhile.
@@professorhaystacks6606 here’s a video about the gospel of the Hebrews ua-cam.com/video/5uA9gMePFYE/v-deo.html While I don’t agree with everything he taught, it seems that he got enough infos about this lost gospel to possibly reconstruction. A very interesting apocryphal gospel.
I have owned most of those for decades as Finnish translations, published by a notable publishing company and translated by theology professors of the University of Helsinki, and no one has ever killed me even once for owning them. Not even once!
He is telling the truth. The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books.
I've got most of those myself. Freely and openly bought in bookshops in the US and Australia where they are freely and openly sold. Where did this lunatic get the idea that there is any penalty for having them? He could make a much better case for The Shepherd of Hermas. When I was in my late teens I came up with what I called "the productive use of doubt". Faced with an unsettling question (like "how do we know the right books made it into the canon"), INVESTIGATE. So I read all the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books I could find in English -- which is quite a lot -- and read them. Yup. The ones we have in the Bible fit together. The others are OBVIOUSLY different. It's a bit like comparing Tacitus] with "Carry On Up the Tiber".
@@lucas3690 Simply because Christians at that time didn't run around with each person holding a copy of the bible. manuscripts were very hard to come by. By the 3rd century these small groups of people claiming to be Christians began to pop up in Egypt and surrounding area's, they claimed to hold secret knowledge that only they can uncover, they were recently converted pagans and tried to merge paganism with Christianity, so they began to write their own books in hopes of attracting new believers in this "hidden knowledge" religion. This sect was known as the Gnostics. However, the people who were in charge of the actual Christian church were the disciples of the ACTUAL apostles that knew Christ, they knew what their faith actually entailed, and to put an end to those forgeries, they composed a canon of books that were accepted by the church since the death of the disciples of Jesus. If you're still skeptical though, I would recommend you read the new testament, as well as those gnostic texts, you will see a clear difference in writing styles and what is being taught in those books. There is a huge difference and inconsistencies that it's obviously written by different groups of people with completely different set of belief's.
@@lucas3690 Because there weren't that many copies of each in circulation meaning that there would need to be a mass coordinated effort to actually get the books where scholars could read them, and of course a scholar's personal bias would come into play with stuff like this which if even in our time is some of the strongest bias to exist. Even then though most people didn't take the gnostic stuff seriously, while canon might not have been decided until later it is clear that Gnosticism was never as prevalent as actual Christianity.
There's also the gospel of Mary Magdalena which portrays Jesus as her husband and they have children.. gospel of Thomas where Jesus is a homo sexual.. gospel of Barabas which says Jesus never died but this is a 5th century forgery. Gospel of the cross which is my favorite, Jesus comes out of the tomb and is about 300 ft tall and the cross walks out with him and the cross starts talking.. yeah I'm thankful the church used common sense 🤣
IP, dear Michael, having an aneurysm over a "Tiktoc (Dingdong) scholar" is not worth it! Love your content for defending the faith & enlightening this poster. God bless, sm
The books of Enoch were read alongside the Tanakh. We know from the dead sea acrolls it was a Text that splinters and sects read. We know the first Christians, before the first Codex, before Paul's letters, were Greek Jews, as we've found the Book of Enoch alongside New Testament in fragments.
*I LuV that you addressed this!!* It's disheartening that people feel free to abandon all logic AND study, just for that internet clout..he's playing to an audience that will NEVER look any of this up, NOR will they want to with their confirmation bias..as long as someone speaks against something that a person agrees with, they will NEVER question or push back..you have to really thank technology for providing worldwide ignorance at the speed of light..but honestly, what can you do? 🤷 The only thing you can do is exactly this..address it and do your best to spread the knowledge *=)* I'm glad I found your channel a couple of months ago *=)* God bless you and yours 💜 And God bless *ALL* my Brother's and Sister's out there reading this 💜
Which biblical canon is the biblical canon? As I see it, the Protestants were disobedient to the Householder (Mat13) when they removed the "Apocryphal" books from bibles in the 1700s. They thought they spotted tares. _Sir, didst not thou sow wheat in thy field, they said, from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, NAY; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together... The Geneva, the KJV, and other Protestant bibles all included the received books of the Eastern Orthodox Church, from which church the King James' translators & other 16th-17th cent scholars also got their Greek NT manuscripts. "But don't ya know that 2 Macabees teaches xyz fill-in-the-blank unbiblical doctrine!!" Therefore we should toss Wisdom of Solomon out? Read that book's 2nd chapter. You'll almost think you're reading Matthew 27 or Mark 15. Sorry for long comment. I have no idea what you even meant by your suggestion ... but this topic irks me. For the record, if someone accused me of being Protestant... I wouldn't argue with the accusation. But they really messed up big big time in their removing all the quote-unquote Apocryphal writings. ~ Gather ye together all the fragments that remain that nothing be lost. John6:12 There's a principle there.
Early christians had no problem with the septuaginta. Even the apostles used it. 10 books got removed from protestants to fit their dogma. Martin luther even wanted to remove the epistle of james
@mysotiras 012 yeah jews xD the people who didnt recoqnize jesus as the messiah. If the septuaginta was a bad source the apostle hadnt used it. Also with the discover of the dead sea scrolls the evidences show clearly that the septuaginta is authentic and perfectly fine. And btw who give you the authority to modify the bible as you please anyway?
@@NotChinmayi are you a jew or a christian? Iam a christian and i orientate myself on jesus and his apostles. Did the apostles used the septuagint? Yes. Did the early church (the same church who made the bible in the first place) took the books of the septuagint out? No. Is it written in the bible that we should not add or remove any word within the bible?yes. Did the protestants modified the bible? Yes. Did they had the authority to do it? Definetly no. If some medieval jews who made the masoretic text (and btw reject jesus and still waiting for their messiah) are a better source then the apostles and jesus (first used the LXX as i said)then so be it
its worse than that He did not just want to remove it, he did remove it by demoting it to be "NT Apocrypha" along with Jude, Hebrews and revelation. look up "Luther bible New Testaments Table of Contents" and you will see a page with the books of the NT labelled 1 to 23 then a larger space followed by these four books without numbers, this is what he did for his OT apocrypha, he listed the books 1 to 22 then a space followed by the un-numbered apocrypha.
What the freak- I was just now in the middle of rewatching this very video on TikTok when you uploaded it just now. Please explain this IP, are you stalking me?
"Here's a list of books you could be lynched for owning. Unless you're one of millions of pastors, apologists, or thinking laymen who have them on your bookshelf."
It’s interesting to see that books were decided based on their theological teachings, so theology came first and then the books were scrutinized based on their conformity to the apostolic message
"If I or an angel from heaven comes to you with a gospel other than the one I have preached, let them be eternally condemned; or, at the very least, not used to teach every disciple as authoritative scripture for thousands of years."
Also, books can be valued by Christians without being canon, for example a second-century philosophy text called the Enchiridion of Epictetus has been prized by Christians from its date of publication up to the current day.
Hmm. So the canon was formed according to the faith handed down from the apostles to the Church, not vice versa. I was already quite convinced in Catholicism, this is one more little reason :)
There really isn't any informed, classical Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant that has issue with the formation of the Canon (unsurprisingly really when all three claim, rightly or wrongly, to be some continuation of the one united early church that formed it)
@@Mic1904Hmm, it isn't exactly evidence against Protestantism. It just makes Catholicism a likely option (though I'll admit it doesn't make Protestantism less probable).
The list of Athanasius does not include Esther, so no major Christian group accepts that list as the canon. Fortunately, Athanasius seems to be listing what the Jews of his time believed and not what he himself believed was the canon. Based on his writings, Athanasius considered the 73 books of the Catholic canon to be his canon. Gary Michuta has done a lot of good work on this.
I thought he would talk about the Deuterocanon, but no just gnostic gnonsense. I would disagree with your claim that everyone accepted the canon of St. Athanasius (I presume letter 39), as no one today accepts that list, most protestants gravitate towards it as it does not include 6 of the DC books. However it counts Catholic Baruch as scripture. My favourite joke about the DC books is that despite Athanasius not including them, he does quote them, even St. Jerome and Martin Luther used Sirach and wisdom after proclaiming them as apocryphal.
Not entirely correct... 1) saint athanasius canon list is not identical as the protestant bible today since he excludes esther from his list 2) Athanasius also included the deuterocanonical book, Baruch in either Jeremiah or Lamentations, as was sometimes done 3) the first canon list that includes all books in the protestant bible are found in the council of rome. This is the same canon as Catholics use today. 4) the catholic canon (73 books) is held by the majority of christians since they are the largest branch of Christianity
Tbh, i thank I read a little of the Gnostic stuff and the apocalypse of Peter or whatever back in college and just thought it was fucking weird (excuse the language but tbh some of what I read kinda makes me glad it wasn’t included because some of it was weirder than I thought it would be. Other parts were just, “Ehat the hell is it taking about.) Granted I’m sure there are plenty who would say the same things about the canon books, but at least I can make some sense of those.
What you’ve read is a gnostic version of the apocalypse of Peter. There’s several kinds of apocalypse of Peter, and the one you read is a Coptic/gnostic version. I can give you link for the “orthodox” apocalypse of Peter.
Wow atleast 3 of those are new to me.... sigh... I remember I tried reading the gospel of Mary before I knew any better. Glad it didn't really stick... thanks for this....
Nothing distinguishes books in the canon from other Christian books What makes gospel of Mary less reliable source of information than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
@@daduzadude1547 So do the canonical gospels It was written too late by people who did not witness the life of Jesus And there is many christian books written in in the first century, but despite this, it rejected from canon without real reason
@@christianityexposed9462 Canonical Gospels were not written too late dude. The earliest non-canonical 'gospel' is the Gospel of Thomas, which quotes 16 books of the New Testament including the Synoptics, and is dated by most scholars (even atheists) to around 150 CE. There were surely many Christian texts being written in the first century -- but that does not automatically mean they are to be included in the canon. Compare this with the canonical Gospels. All Synoptics were written when eyewitnesses were alive (before 85 CE), and gJohn was written when disciple John was alive (before 100 CE). There are both internal and external evidences for the authenticity and reliability of the canonical Gospels.
IP keeps saying “never included”. But the real question is Why were certain texts not included ?? And next question, who made the decisions to include and exclude ?? In case some of you haven’t figured that out yet… you can bet on the proposition that the texts that were selected had to meet certain criteria as far as what message was being conveyed. Only the texts that placed the early church is bright lights met any criteria.
By that logic, they should've had included the gnostics texts, because it depicted Jesus more clearly as a divine person than the canonical writings. And the other writings that were mentioned sometimes originated in very late centuries - especially the Gospel of the Twelve being extremely late. Like 19th Century late.
I laughed how you really debunked people who make assumptions when they do not really care about history and the canonical authority. Keep up your work 👍!
The scriptures were decided as they were writen. The Church didn't make the scriptures. The dissagreements about some Books is because of relaying information which in some cases got lost in trafic. And the Books before the arrival of Jésus as a man were already dedided. The apocalypse of Peter was a lyrurgical text. So was Wisdom. Check the Muratorian Fragment.
If this were true the early church fathers would have all agreed on the canon but not only did they not agree on the canon but they were adding to the would-be Christian canon through the 4th century. Another tell is you can ask yourself, if there was an agreed upon canon what was the purpose of the councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage late in the 4th century?
@@srich7503 Its simple. Well complicated, but has an explanation. For the BC books, there was a dissagreement over some ecclesiastical and liturgical books because they had been mistaken for scriptures. And the AD books, twofold, because they werent all writen Before churches were planted abroad and so the relaying of the information on some of the new books, and also, enemies were making forgeries.
@@isaacleillhikar4566 you do agree that the NT books were written by the end of the 1st century, correct? So you have 3 centuries (of new churches) to account for in your paradigm sir and i noticed you did not answer the question about the 3 councils. Why is that?
@@isaacleillhikar4566 i understand and what did the councils do? who were these councils? You said "they were decided as they were written" yet where is this proof in the early church if there is "some confusion" and when/how was this confusion cleared up? These questions must be answered without ambiguity, since there were living, breathing men at these councils that were historical events in history.
A part of me is disappointed the guy didn’t include the Book of Solomon of non canon books Before anyone asks, reads a lot like Greco-Romanized fanfiction than actual Biblical text.
to InspiringPhilosophy, although the primary language of the first book of Enoch seams to be Aramaic, it is believed that hebrew book did existed in the past, evidence of this is that fragments of first of Enoch appeared in the Qumran cache of books.
Point is that there are dozens of books that 1st and 2nd century Jews and/or Christians (to include church fathers) would have considered scripture that never made it to what today we call canon.
Hi! I really learn a lot from your Chanel. But could you please make a video about the word (god/God). The etymology. What's the meaning? The definition? What is the meaning when it is used For God the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit, and satan as god, and us also as god. Please! 🙏🏻 Be blessed!
Have you *read* them? Tobit, in particular. Judith is all about a woman killing the enemy general by beguiling him and driving a tent-peg into his head. Very edifying. Tobit is about driving away a demon by burning the liver of a fish, and starts with Tobit's father going blind because he got a bird dropping in his eye. The books weren't rejected as heretical or corrupt, just not accepted 'as inspired. Perhaps the best of them is Sirach. 3:30 "almsgiving atones for sins." I guess we don't need Jesus, then.
@@richardokeefe7410 My issue is that to the best of my knowledge it was the protestants that rejected them, so why did the Catholics later basically concede by making those books a separate Deuterocannon? Also, removing books from Cannon does have negative effects of people treating them like heretical or corrupt books instead of treating them like Christian extra-biblical books. The Shepherd of Hermas is probably the first book that this happened to. It is still considered an edifying book till tomorrow by the Church but in practice is treated like a heretical book in that no one reads it or use it.
@@ikengaspirit3063 the catholic church did not make them a separate "Deuterocanon" the name was developed to describe the fact that Protestants rejected these books, kinda like how the term protocanon has been used to describe the OT. the problem for Prots is that every church father accepted at least one of the DC, even St. Jerome. there is no section in catholic bibles for the DC, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees are grouped with the historical books, Wisdom and Sirach are with the Writings, and Baruch is grouped with the prophets. The Protestants reject the DC because the Jews in the middle ages did not accept them, and 2nd Maccabees includes prayers for the Dead. Every objectionable thing in the DC is found in the OT and NT Jesus Christ in Matthew 6 commands almsgiving (Charity) Judith's actions fit well with Joshua and Judges, in fact they are more justifiable as the general killed her husband. Tobit has a Angel of God commanding Tobias to catch a fish, and use its guts to drive the demon away, where the Angel binds the demon. we read of God commanding people do do similar things in Genesis and Deuteronomy. Just read the first few chapters of the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon) especially the part about the righteous man (it's on bible gateway btw) There were numerous ancient local councils that received papal approval that confirmed the full canon as scripture, Rome 382, Carthage 393, Carthage 397, Hippo 419 as well as a papal document the letter of Pope St. Innocent I (AD 405), no other ancient council approved the full NT besides these. If we fast forward to the Protestant Reformation, we have Luther removing the 7 DC books as well as 4 NT books (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelations) and John Calvin only removed 6 DC books, and proclaimed Baruch to be a Prophet.
wait so im a christian and slightly educated but if we dont know who wrote the gospels why we we know if some of the gospels were not written by the people we didnt know in the first place??
So as you said at the end they decided what books to be canonical because the agenda was to get them to get closer to the faith,so really a person could read any text found in NG hammadhi and use it to find God,because as you said this is basically what they did,the forming of the Bible was back with finding some agenda?
I think asserting that the early church developed the canon through reasoning and reasoning alone is a bit much. This was a period rife with political strife whether it be in the context of the Roman Empire, or simply between different sects and subdivisions of the Christian faith.
While there was political strife, no evidence exists that opinion on the cannon was any significant part of that. To be fair I do think the selection of the cannon was a bit of a paper is due what's our best answer style debate. While not a decision on cannon, Constantine did ask for a bunch of bible copies so the council of Nicea had to select what was included in those bibles. What the chose is mostly the current orthodox cannon and was basically all the stuff that there wasn't any real disagreement on.
Some people believe it was created in response to the canon of Marcion, which was mostly similar but had only one gospel that was different, some even go further out on a limb and argue that this gospel was a basis for the others.
@@a1990sGamer What makes you say that? This isn't my field, but it's always been my understanding that it's consensus scholarship that the proto-orthodox Christians weren't the only group/s with a canon: the adoptionist Christians and the Marcionite Christians also had canon that varied substantially from our own. The proto-orthodox won out (hence why we call them that), and our current canon is the books their leadership could agree on, but they weren't alone. Let we know if I'm missing something, I'm really not up to date on the scholarship in this area.
I was expecting 7 of them to be the Deutercanonicals, which would be a valid discussion particularly with Protestants, but no, he goes with 10 books that pretty much no one has considered Canon, except for Enoch which the Epistle of Jude does incorporate parts of it(ie. Jude 14-15 and 1 Enoch 1:9)
Don't worry, that TikToker has done a video where he did exactly that. He even says it was the Catholic Church that removed them from the Bible. Which is like... uhhh... what?
Goody I have a copy of almost all of these forbidden books All the ones that he mentioned are rather light reading in comparison to some of the other heavier subjects found in other books that I own He is a lightweight I am somewhat tempted to mess with his head but then how challenging would that be
I did really want to own the old and new testament pseudepigrapha, I find it interesting how some texts could of influenced the traditional view of hell. But I keep spending money on text books and hording them like smaug, so Im waiting to save up for a biy
Hey, I’ve seen your video of « is god moral goodness » and I found it super interesting but I have a question that’s been disturbing me for a while, if God himself is love and goodness then why thank him when he does good ? Doing evil would go against his OWN perfect will. So if he’s goodness himself what’s the point of thanking him for good thing ?
An omnipotent God needs nothing. (see 2 Kings 14:23-29; Psalms 50:8-15; Acts 17:25-26) What we do in relation to worship, supplication and thanksgiving addresses our own needs. Within the reciprocal nature of love, strictly speaking, a father needs nothing from his child. But the child honours his father in recognition of the satisfaction of his own needs by the father. God however desires for us to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is His communication of love for His creation.
while the books named in the video were never canonized into the bible ... the fact is that roman catholics, eastern orthodox, and protestants do have different books in their bibles. so some had to be removed. or added.
@mysotiras 012 yes, quite. repeating what i said in a more roundabout way does not refute what i said. roman catholics, greek orthodox, protestants, all use different versions of the bible, and jews do as well, because they do not use all that the others do.
@mysotiras 012 false. facts. first, the jews don't recognize the new testament. period. second, the protestant bible has 66 books. period. third, the roman catholic bible has 73 books. period. forth, greek orthodox bible has 81 books. period. fifth, even in the protestant bibles you have different translations and therefore meanings. all i need is one example to prove my point. matthew 24:36 New International Version “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. New Living Translation “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. English Standard Version “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. ( all of them say even jesus does not know the hour ) vs. King James Bible But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. New King James Version “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. Aramaic Bible in Plain English But about that day and about that hour no one knows, not even the Angels of Heaven, but The Father alone. Literal Standard Version And concerning that day and the hour no one has known-not even the messengers of the heavens-except My Father only; ( all of them omit that even jesus does not know the hour ) those are two completely different meanings. period. news flash ... the "bible" is composed of different books. period. when you have different numbers of books ... you have different bibles. period. when you have translations that say different words, changing sentences and meanings. you have different bibles. period. not only that ... we know the bible is missing books (scripture).... because the bible itself tells us that. numbers 21:14, joshua 10:13, 1 kings 11:14, 1 chronicles 29:29, 2 chronicles 9:29, 2 chronicles 12:15, 2 chronicles 20:37, 2 chronicles 33:19, 1 corinthians 5:9, ephesians 3:3, colossians 4:16, jude 1:14. all tell us of 15 books of scripture that are lost and not included in the bible. so, yes .... different bibles are used by each "branch" of christianity. many bible have translations that say different things. and many scriptures are missing from the bible. period. full stop.
Early Christians: Hey guys, we should reject this obvious forgery from our cannon.
Modern scholars: Yeah, those documents are obvious forgeries.
Modern skeptics: Guys, look at all these books in early Christianity that were rejected.
Modern muslims : Allahu akbar... Proof that Bible was corrupted
What’s funny is that if they *were* included they’d have plenty to say about how can’t you trust the Bible at all because there are plenty of forgeries.
@@louiseama00 Exactly!
Marcion: Hey guys, we should reject these obvious forged Pauline letters from our cannon.
Modern Scholars: Yeah, those letters are pretty sus and probably forgeries.
Modern Christians: It is the very word of God and cannot be questioned ever!
@@RuneIscariot Any evidence for that?
"The pope's secret force of ninjas" - Inspiring Philosophy
lol i liked that too God Christ Jesus loves you
That one made me laugh
It's mainly funny to me because that's probably something that some people believe exist.
Absolute golden reference
@@X13N0b0dy they did exist in the medieval period. Although, i wouldn't call them, "ninjas" per se.
Yooo I'm an Ethiopian Orthodox! Didn't expect you to mention our church. Been following you for a while now and got to say that I find your contents very informative. Keep it up.
So do group of the popes ninjas lynch you for opening up the forbidden scripture in Ethiopia?
Thank you
Please explain what Orthodox Ethiopian believes and your sources!!!!!
@mysotiras 012 Are they ? What does that mean ?
@@lauratempestini5719 They are one of the apostolic Churches. Basically very similar beliefs to Catholics or Greek Orthodox relative to Evangelicals. Probably the closest protestant sect would be Traditional Anglican, except Ethiopian Orthodox actually have succession from an apostle like Catholics and other Orthodox groups.
You can’t remove a book from the biblical canon, if they never were in the canon to begin with.
He is telling the truth.
The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books.
Can christians answer why those books rejected from canon?
@@missouritravelers it was never apart of the Canon to be begin with
@@missouritravelers have you actually read the whole Gospel of Mary?? No, because no one has. What we have is a few chapters pieced together from 3 separate fragments with lots of words missing. It is clearly not from a Christiian author, not written by Mary, much later than the 4 canonical gospels and fulled with Gnostic nonsense about other gods and an evil Creator god, reincarnation and other stuff nowhere found in the real Bible. Read it freely if you like.
@@missouritravelers How on earth did you come to that conclusion. Dude are you even listening to yourself
@@missouritravelers No, ignorant one, the Gospel of Mary is incomplete. The Gospel of Mary is a gnostic work of fiction from the 2nd century AD NOT writtten by Mary Magdalene and never mentioned as in early Christian writings as evena potential book of scripture. Canon is a human thing. The Canon the church normally recognizes was done at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD Not to remove books from those considered scriptural but rather to establish that the Heretic Marcion was wrong in rejecting most of the books of the Bible (All of the Old Testament and much of the new) because they blew up his new theory on Jesus the good god of the new Testament saving us from Jehovah the bad god of the old testament. Quit getting your church history from a a bad modern writer of action fiction. At least go to Wikipedia or maybe a real book.. No one but a few polytheistic Gnostics took any of these books seriously at the time between 30Ad and Nicea.
Imagine IP reacting to someone who thinks that the Davinci Code is based on actual history. I have a feeling that it's going to happen.
i dont think IP needs to respond to rubbish like that.
Pretty sure the guy in this video he is reacting to is just that
The DaVinci code is a movie where almost every second requires a comprehensive debunk
@@stephendavies1585 he doesn't need to, but it is entertaining lol
Lol. When I was young, I probably would have been one of those people who thought it was actual history. So glad God didn't leave me in my ignorance.
"Removed" implies they were part of the canon at some point, which is why IP said "they were never canon". At least that's how I took this video.
That would be correct. Most were heretical works of fiction written by Gnostics that wildly changed the message Jesus brought.
Yeah seems to be what he's saying
I got an ad of someone shooting a gun after the video ended, and I completely thought you placed that in for the comedy 💀
😂
“Did you guys know the early church fathers kept books out of the Bible that never should have been there in the first place? Pretty crazy right”
The fact that some people will actually believe him is sad
The fact that evidence is necessary to make people believe stuff is not sad. Unless you provide evidence countering his claim, there's no reason to believe that he is not right.
@@armaangarg2217 IP already provided evidence
@@mishanyabot oh so I gather by him you meant the person who made the TikTok and not IP himself. Smh.
@@armaangarg2217 we had a bit of misunderstanding)
@@armaangarg2217 Countering who's claim exactly?
Hi Inspiringphilosophy, I just wanted to say thanks for the videos you produce. (Not talking about this one in particular but it's good too.) They actually helped me come back to the Christian Faith. Mostly helped me reconcile the trinity as being biblical and the Ressurection as actually being the most logical answer to make about what happened to Jesus, thank you. Your work means a lot to many people I assume. I just wanted to let you know it helped me. God bless you and your ministry.
What you are trying to say is basically you left Christianity because the God head concept is extremely demanding with all the mental torment and the mental gymnastics that you have to go thru against your reasoning and your logic and you are no back grappling with the perplexing trinity doctrine.
Go to monotheism it’s your only salvation.
God is one and all prophets and messengers are his ambassadors and not his sons.
@@RayRa No you're putting words into my mouth my friend. It's not that the trinity was hard for me it was mostly I never looked into it deep enough to understand it I guess. But obviously I'm not going to write out all my reasonings for leaving and rejoining the faith for an appreciation comment. Anyway I don't wish to cause an argument. But Maybe instead of telling me to join your idea of "monotheism" show me that I'm wrong. (Sorry if that comes of as rude but it's late where I am so not in the best mind to debate lol)
He is telling the truth.
The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books.
Can christian answer why those books rejected from canon?
@@Firestriker098 Don't engage the keyboard jihaadis. They love to just assert that the Trinity is incoherent and then invite you to Islam, while of course not mentioning anything sus about Islamic doctrines.
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus is fictional…
So Josephus, etc wrote romances and not history?
So even modern atheist scholars like Bart Erman have it all wrong?
Hey Michael, you should consider having Jonathan Pageau on your channel. He's an Orthodox Christian and has a youtube channel where he delves into patterns of being and Christian philosophy. Thanks.
I'm definitely going to check that out.
I'm adding a lot of new changes to my channel. I decided to use it partly to promote other ministries and featuring edifying videos from other content creators. Soon I'll be uploading videos (currently in the works now) mainly dealing with biblical research, archeology and apologetics. I have two major documentaries "Was There An Exodus?" and "Was Yeshua the Jewish Messiah?". I've been conducting very extensive research into the Dead Sea scrolls and the world of Second Temple Judaism as the backdrop of the New Testament. I've dedicated myself to applying a Hebrew approach to biblical studies in order to uncover deeper meanings. I pray that these sort of things may be edifying in these last days, there's a lot of really cool stuff that the Lord has shown me and I think it could bring an increase of understanding and passion for the Word. I've already decided on the presentation for the new intro: ua-cam.com/video/aLOVgBZRlSc/v-deo.html
These videos are comedy gold 😂
“Secret church squad”
Found you hehe👀😂
As a member of the pope's secret ninja army, I can assure you Mr. Philosophy, that your dossier has been shredded.
"No secret church squad has pulled up on me"
Not yet-The popes ninja.
shhhh. We don't talk about that
The cringe is too strong it's mind blowing
Who have the authority to change if it is the true word of GOD?
That means man wrote the whole bible .
فَوَيۡلٞ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيهِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنٗا قَلِيلٗاۖ فَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ ﴾
[ البقرة: 79]
﴿ ترجمة: فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا ﴾
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby..
Lol, you’ve gone through a lot, huh?
And it’s funny that he talked about the Gospel of Truth (technically the Gospel of Valentinus). I’ve read it myself and it wasn’t as “heretical” as a good majority of other gnostic texts. The only problem I can find with it (other than being composed by Valentinus) is the overemphasis of gnosis/knowledge.
Btw, could you make a video about books that almost made it to the Bible, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of the Hebrews?
The Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't exist anymore in extant form, does it? I mean there's still stuff to say about it but it's hard to address its canonicity without knowing what was in it. I'd like to hear more about the Shepard of Hermas and the Letters of Clement, which were also in early canon lists (though the Mutorian list explicitely rejects the Shepard).
@@missouritravelers There is no complete or even near complete copy of the Gospel of Mary, just a few chapters with many missing words from 3 separate fragments. It is weird, polytheistic, NOT what the DaVinci Code talks about at all.
@@professorhaystacks6606 from what I’ve heard, the Gospel of the Hebrews is an expansion of Matthew, which allegedly included the woman caught in adultery story, along with the fact that the crucifixion part being taking from John’s Gospel. And there’s a few sprinkling of quotations which sounded gnostic. So the Gospel of the Hebrews is a love child of Matthew and John and then raised by gnostics.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the reconstruction of the Hebrew gospel is possible
@@clayton4349 The reason I'd like a video or something about that is that while I've heard some of that before, I'm not sure where all that's coming from. I could research it myself, that would just take awhile.
@@professorhaystacks6606 here’s a video about the gospel of the Hebrews ua-cam.com/video/5uA9gMePFYE/v-deo.html
While I don’t agree with everything he taught, it seems that he got enough infos about this lost gospel to possibly reconstruction. A very interesting apocryphal gospel.
He forgot the parables book of Harry Potter.
I have owned most of those for decades as Finnish translations, published by a notable publishing company and translated by theology professors of the University of Helsinki, and no one has ever killed me even once for owning them. Not even once!
The pope' s secret ninjas got me! 🤣
He is telling the truth.
The church ordered the burning of all these books, and a decision was issued by the emperor to kill everyone who had a copy of these books.
Jesus Christ the true sovereign king loves you all, may your ways follow Jesus' teachings obediently 😊
This guy covers everything! Love it. Keep up the great work
You should consider a series talking about who wrote each book of the Bible and when
Yes. Commenting so this gets more attention.
Tik tokker should do the Quran next. Talk about which surahs got removed from early Quranic manuscripts
Lol
He's not that stupid
Oh I just love this channel! I’m inspired! Keep up the good work. Blessings in Christ!
I've got most of those myself. Freely and openly bought in bookshops in the US and Australia where they are freely and openly sold. Where did this lunatic get the idea that there is any penalty for having them? He could make a much better case for The Shepherd of Hermas. When I was in my late teens I came up with what I called "the productive use of doubt". Faced with an unsettling question (like "how do we know the right books made it into the canon"), INVESTIGATE. So I read all the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books I could find in English -- which is quite a lot -- and read them. Yup. The ones we have in the Bible fit together. The others are OBVIOUSLY different. It's a bit like comparing Tacitus] with "Carry On Up the Tiber".
If it was so obvious why did it take several centuries for a canon to be agreed upon?
@@lucas3690 Simply because Christians at that time didn't run around with each person holding a copy of the bible. manuscripts were very hard to come by. By the 3rd century these small groups of people claiming to be Christians began to pop up in Egypt and surrounding area's, they claimed to hold secret knowledge that only they can uncover, they were recently converted pagans and tried to merge paganism with Christianity, so they began to write their own books in hopes of attracting new believers in this "hidden knowledge" religion. This sect was known as the Gnostics. However, the people who were in charge of the actual Christian church were the disciples of the ACTUAL apostles that knew Christ, they knew what their faith actually entailed, and to put an end to those forgeries, they composed a canon of books that were accepted by the church since the death of the disciples of Jesus.
If you're still skeptical though, I would recommend you read the new testament, as well as those gnostic texts, you will see a clear difference in writing styles and what is being taught in those books. There is a huge difference and inconsistencies that it's obviously written by different groups of people with completely different set of belief's.
@@lucas3690 Because there weren't that many copies of each in circulation meaning that there would need to be a mass coordinated effort to actually get the books where scholars could read them, and of course a scholar's personal bias would come into play with stuff like this which if even in our time is some of the strongest bias to exist. Even then though most people didn't take the gnostic stuff seriously, while canon might not have been decided until later it is clear that Gnosticism was never as prevalent as actual Christianity.
There's also the gospel of Mary Magdalena which portrays Jesus as her husband and they have children.. gospel of Thomas where Jesus is a homo sexual.. gospel of Barabas which says Jesus never died but this is a 5th century forgery. Gospel of the cross which is my favorite, Jesus comes out of the tomb and is about 300 ft tall and the cross walks out with him and the cross starts talking.. yeah I'm thankful the church used common sense 🤣
where did thomas said that Jesus is gay
As I understand it, the science of analyzing whether a document is what it claims to be, is highly involved and advanced.
IP, dear Michael, having an aneurysm over a "Tiktoc (Dingdong) scholar" is not worth it! Love your content for defending the faith & enlightening this poster. God bless, sm
I was waiting for the beer sip to show up.
The books of Enoch were read alongside the Tanakh. We know from the dead sea acrolls it was a Text that splinters and sects read. We know the first Christians, before the first Codex, before Paul's letters, were Greek Jews, as we've found the Book of Enoch alongside New Testament in fragments.
*I LuV that you addressed this!!* It's disheartening that people feel free to abandon all logic AND study, just for that internet clout..he's playing to an audience that will NEVER look any of this up, NOR will they want to with their confirmation bias..as long as someone speaks against something that a person agrees with, they will NEVER question or push back..you have to really thank technology for providing worldwide ignorance at the speed of light..but honestly, what can you do? 🤷 The only thing you can do is exactly this..address it and do your best to spread the knowledge *=)* I'm glad I found your channel a couple of months ago *=)* God bless you and yours 💜 And God bless *ALL* my Brother's and Sister's out there reading this 💜
Man you really should do a full length video of why the biblical canon is the biblical canon
Questions like this lead me to coming into communion with the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the Apostolic Catholic Church.
Which biblical canon is the biblical canon?
As I see it, the Protestants were disobedient to the Householder (Mat13) when they removed the "Apocryphal" books from bibles in the 1700s. They thought they spotted tares.
_Sir, didst not thou sow wheat in thy field, they said, from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, NAY; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together...
The Geneva, the KJV, and other Protestant bibles all included the received books of the Eastern Orthodox Church, from which church the King James' translators & other 16th-17th cent scholars also got their Greek NT manuscripts.
"But don't ya know that 2 Macabees teaches xyz fill-in-the-blank unbiblical doctrine!!"
Therefore we should toss Wisdom of Solomon out? Read that book's 2nd chapter. You'll almost think you're reading Matthew 27 or Mark 15.
Sorry for long comment. I have no idea what you even meant by your suggestion ... but this topic irks me.
For the record, if someone accused me of being Protestant... I wouldn't argue with the accusation. But they really messed up big big time in their removing all the quote-unquote Apocryphal writings.
~
Gather ye together all the fragments that remain that nothing be lost.
John6:12
There's a principle there.
Early christians had no problem with the septuaginta. Even the apostles used it. 10 books got removed from protestants to fit their dogma. Martin luther even wanted to remove the epistle of james
@mysotiras 012 yeah jews xD the people who didnt recoqnize jesus as the messiah. If the septuaginta was a bad source the apostle hadnt used it. Also with the discover of the dead sea scrolls the evidences show clearly that the septuaginta is authentic and perfectly fine. And btw who give you the authority to modify the bible as you please anyway?
@@Sendo664 bro the books of septuagint is in the old testament so if its not in the tanakh it's rejected. All old testament books are in the tanakh.
@@Sendo664 Tanakh and NT are different things.
@@NotChinmayi are you a jew or a christian? Iam a christian and i orientate myself on jesus and his apostles. Did the apostles used the septuagint? Yes. Did the early church (the same church who made the bible in the first place) took the books of the septuagint out? No. Is it written in the bible that we should not add or remove any word within the bible?yes. Did the protestants modified the bible? Yes. Did they had the authority to do it? Definetly no.
If some medieval jews who made the masoretic text (and btw reject jesus and still waiting for their messiah) are a better source then the apostles and jesus (first used the LXX as i said)then so be it
its worse than that He did not just want to remove it, he did remove it by demoting it to be "NT Apocrypha" along with Jude, Hebrews and revelation. look up "Luther bible New Testaments Table of Contents" and you will see a page with the books of the NT labelled 1 to 23 then a larger space followed by these four books without numbers, this is what he did for his OT apocrypha, he listed the books 1 to 22 then a space followed by the un-numbered apocrypha.
When I read the title and heard the first sentence I thought: „Oh no, I think I pissed Michael off…“
With every video you release, I keep feeling like they get more and more catholic in theme 😎
What the freak- I was just now in the middle of rewatching this very video on TikTok when you uploaded it just now. Please explain this IP, are you stalking me?
"Here's a list of books you could be lynched for owning. Unless you're one of millions of pastors, apologists, or thinking laymen who have them on your bookshelf."
Should've also mentioned that some of these texts like the gospel of Mary was a forgery.
I was waiting for him to say the book of Mormon 🤣
It’s interesting to see that books were decided based on their theological teachings, so theology came first and then the books were scrutinized based on their conformity to the apostolic message
"If I or an angel from heaven comes to you with a gospel other than the one I have preached, let them be eternally condemned; or, at the very least, not used to teach every disciple as authoritative scripture for thousands of years."
@The FBI as long as you have a direct connection with the disciples, like it’s you’re Ignatius or Antioch or Clement of Rome.
Also, books can be valued by Christians without being canon, for example a second-century philosophy text called the Enchiridion of Epictetus has been prized by Christians from its date of publication up to the current day.
You should read ignatius of Antioch’s works, he was a disciple of some of the apostles and was the third bishop of Antioch
New Agers and Gnostics are coming back again
Hmm. So the canon was formed according to the faith handed down from the apostles to the Church, not vice versa. I was already quite convinced in Catholicism, this is one
more little reason :)
There really isn't any informed, classical Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant that has issue with the formation of the Canon (unsurprisingly really when all three claim, rightly or wrongly, to be some continuation of the one united early church that formed it)
If this is new information to you, and you see it as evidence against protestantism, I fear you have a distorted view of what protestants believe...
@@Mic1904Hmm, it isn't exactly evidence against Protestantism. It just makes Catholicism a likely option (though I'll admit it doesn't make Protestantism less probable).
The list of Athanasius does not include Esther, so no major Christian group accepts that list as the canon. Fortunately, Athanasius seems to be listing what the Jews of his time believed and not what he himself believed was the canon. Based on his writings, Athanasius considered the 73 books of the Catholic canon to be his canon. Gary Michuta has done a lot of good work on this.
A single new bible can be made by collecting all apocryphal and canonical gospels. new book new religion
I own the 54 apocrypha and a book with some gnostic stuff and I ain't dead
I thought he would talk about the Deuterocanon, but no just gnostic gnonsense.
I would disagree with your claim that everyone accepted the canon of St. Athanasius (I presume letter 39), as no one today accepts that list, most protestants gravitate towards it as it does not include 6 of the DC books. However it counts Catholic Baruch as scripture.
My favourite joke about the DC books is that despite Athanasius not including them, he does quote them, even St. Jerome and Martin Luther used Sirach and wisdom after proclaiming them as apocryphal.
I have a copy of all those books and nobody tried killing me for it.
I freakin’ love you and your humor mike 😂😂😂😂
Ngl I was expecting him to just list the apocrypha
Not entirely correct...
1) saint athanasius canon list is not identical as the protestant bible today since he excludes esther from his list
2) Athanasius also included the deuterocanonical book, Baruch in either Jeremiah or Lamentations, as was sometimes done
3) the first canon list that includes all books in the protestant bible are found in the council of rome. This is the same canon as Catholics use today.
4) the catholic canon (73 books) is held by the majority of christians since they are the largest branch of Christianity
I thought it was going to be on the 73 books of the catholic bible and the Protestants taking the 7 books out
“No secret church squad has pulled up on me!”
Meanwhile the guys in the black van across the street: “Oh no, he’s on to us! ABORT, ABORT!!”
Tbh, i thank I read a little of the Gnostic stuff and the apocalypse of Peter or whatever back in college and just thought it was fucking weird (excuse the language but tbh some of what I read kinda makes me glad it wasn’t included because some of it was weirder than I thought it would be. Other parts were just, “Ehat the hell is it taking about.)
Granted I’m sure there are plenty who would say the same things about the canon books, but at least I can make some sense of those.
What you’ve read is a gnostic version of the apocalypse of Peter. There’s several kinds of apocalypse of Peter, and the one you read is a Coptic/gnostic version. I can give you link for the “orthodox” apocalypse of Peter.
@@clayton4349 I might as well take a look.
Wow atleast 3 of those are new to me.... sigh... I remember I tried reading the gospel of Mary before I knew any better. Glad it didn't really stick... thanks for this....
Nothing distinguishes books in the canon from other Christian books
What makes gospel of Mary less reliable source of information than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
@@christianityexposed9462 it was written way to late?
@@daduzadude1547 So do the canonical gospels It was written too late by people who did not witness the life of Jesus
And there is many christian books written in in the first century, but despite this, it rejected from canon without real reason
@@christianityexposed9462
Canonical Gospels were not written too late dude. The earliest non-canonical 'gospel' is the Gospel of Thomas, which quotes 16 books of the New Testament including the Synoptics, and is dated by most scholars (even atheists) to around 150 CE. There were surely many Christian texts being written in the first century -- but that does not automatically mean they are to be included in the canon.
Compare this with the canonical Gospels. All Synoptics were written when eyewitnesses were alive (before 85 CE), and gJohn was written when disciple John was alive (before 100 CE).
There are both internal and external evidences for the authenticity and reliability of the canonical Gospels.
IP keeps saying “never included”. But the real question is Why were certain texts not included ?? And next question, who made the decisions to include and exclude ??
In case some of you haven’t figured that out yet… you can bet on the proposition that the texts that were selected had to meet certain criteria as far as what message was being conveyed. Only the texts that placed the early church is bright lights met any criteria.
By that logic, they should've had included the gnostics texts, because it depicted Jesus more clearly as a divine person than the canonical writings. And the other writings that were mentioned sometimes originated in very late centuries - especially the Gospel of the Twelve being extremely late. Like 19th Century late.
Loving it 😅 thank you so much!! Very helpful 🙂👍
The entirety of theologians and religious anthropologists that read these texts: guess I'll die
I laughed how you really debunked people who make assumptions when they do not really care about history and the canonical authority. Keep up your work 👍!
Many things are hidden from us.
I love the book of Enoch
The scriptures were decided as they were writen. The Church didn't make the scriptures. The dissagreements about some Books is because of relaying information which in some cases got lost in trafic. And the Books before the arrival of Jésus as a man were already dedided. The apocalypse of Peter was a lyrurgical text. So was Wisdom. Check the Muratorian Fragment.
If this were true the early church fathers would have all agreed on the canon but not only did they not agree on the canon but they were adding to the would-be Christian canon through the 4th century. Another tell is you can ask yourself, if there was an agreed upon canon what was the purpose of the councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage late in the 4th century?
@@srich7503 Its simple. Well complicated, but has an explanation.
For the BC books, there was a dissagreement over some ecclesiastical and liturgical books because they had been mistaken for scriptures. And the AD books, twofold, because they werent all writen Before churches were planted abroad and so the relaying of the information on some of the new books, and also, enemies were making forgeries.
@@isaacleillhikar4566 you do agree that the NT books were written by the end of the 1st century, correct? So you have 3 centuries (of new churches) to account for in your paradigm sir and i noticed you did not answer the question about the 3 councils. Why is that?
@@srich7503 Well why does Peter call Pauls letters 'as the other scripture' ?
And the councils, I said, its because there was some confusion.
@@isaacleillhikar4566 i understand and what did the councils do? who were these councils? You said "they were decided as they were written" yet where is this proof in the early church if there is "some confusion" and when/how was this confusion cleared up? These questions must be answered without ambiguity, since there were living, breathing men at these councils that were historical events in history.
The pope just called me, I am coming for you Michael
Devil is deceiver
Excellent, Excellent, Excellent Video. Thank You! 🙏🙏🙏
A part of me is disappointed the guy didn’t include the Book of Solomon of non canon books
Before anyone asks, reads a lot like Greco-Romanized fanfiction than actual Biblical text.
How about you do a video on some of the nostic texts
Hey which bible do u read the Catholic or Protestant version? @inspiring philosophy. Do u have any videos on which Bible is correct or?
Thanks!
to InspiringPhilosophy, although the primary language of the first book of Enoch seams to be Aramaic, it is believed that hebrew book did existed in the past, evidence of this is that fragments of first of Enoch appeared in the Qumran cache of books.
Why do people say some of them are legitimate while still not considering them canonical?
Point is that there are dozens of books that 1st and 2nd century Jews and/or Christians (to include church fathers) would have considered scripture that never made it to what today we call canon.
I need the facebook laughing emoji for this video!
Thank you again!
Hi! I really learn a lot from your Chanel. But could you please make a video about the word (god/God). The etymology. What's the meaning? The definition? What is the meaning when it is used For God the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit, and satan as god, and us also as god. Please! 🙏🏻 Be blessed!
Is there like a book or video that explains this process of selecting, and why some books were chosen?
there are videos on early church history that talk about the topic ua-cam.com/video/onHIpArMENU/v-deo.html here is one
Religion for breakfast might have something on It
Last time I was this early, Constantine was deciding the canon of scripture...
Wait...
What?
@mysotiras 012 it was a joke... Guess it wasn't clear enough... 😆
Have you made a video about the development of the orthodox canon?
Indianan jones and the gospel of truth
@1:47 LOL. This shows how the guy who IP was responding to is
I have 1846 Bible....it has the apocrypha....am I to be scared for my life now? Lol
I would like a video on why the deuterocannonical books were removed by prots, tho.
Have you *read* them? Tobit, in particular.
Judith is all about a woman killing the enemy general by beguiling him and driving a tent-peg into his head.
Very edifying.
Tobit is about driving away a demon by burning the liver of a fish, and starts with Tobit's father going blind because he got a bird dropping in his eye.
The books weren't rejected as heretical or corrupt, just not accepted 'as inspired.
Perhaps the best of them is Sirach. 3:30 "almsgiving atones for sins." I guess we don't need Jesus, then.
@@richardokeefe7410 My issue is that to the best of my knowledge it was the protestants that rejected them, so why did the Catholics later basically concede by making those books a separate Deuterocannon?
Also, removing books from Cannon does have negative effects of people treating them like heretical or corrupt books instead of treating them like Christian extra-biblical books.
The Shepherd of Hermas is probably the first book that this happened to. It is still considered an edifying book till tomorrow by the Church but in practice is treated like a heretical book in that no one reads it or use it.
@@ikengaspirit3063 the catholic church did not make them a separate "Deuterocanon" the name was developed to describe the fact that Protestants rejected these books, kinda like how the term protocanon has been used to describe the OT. the problem for Prots is that every church father accepted at least one of the DC, even St. Jerome.
there is no section in catholic bibles for the DC, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees are grouped with the historical books, Wisdom and Sirach are with the Writings, and Baruch is grouped with the prophets.
The Protestants reject the DC because the Jews in the middle ages did not accept them, and 2nd Maccabees includes prayers for the Dead.
Every objectionable thing in the DC is found in the OT and NT
Jesus Christ in Matthew 6 commands almsgiving (Charity)
Judith's actions fit well with Joshua and Judges, in fact they are more justifiable as the general killed her husband.
Tobit has a Angel of God commanding Tobias to catch a fish, and use its guts to drive the demon away, where the Angel binds the demon. we read of God commanding people do do similar things in Genesis and Deuteronomy.
Just read the first few chapters of the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon) especially the part about the righteous man (it's on bible gateway btw)
There were numerous ancient local councils that received papal approval that confirmed the full canon as scripture, Rome 382, Carthage 393, Carthage 397, Hippo 419 as well as a papal document the letter of Pope St. Innocent I (AD 405), no other ancient council approved the full NT besides these.
If we fast forward to the Protestant Reformation, we have Luther removing the 7 DC books as well as 4 NT books (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelations) and John Calvin only removed 6 DC books, and proclaimed Baruch to be a Prophet.
It'd in Jewish Ethiopian Canon as well
wait so im a christian and slightly educated but if we dont know who wrote the gospels why we we know if some of the gospels were not written by the people we didnt know in the first place??
Thank you for confessing you have prohibited books. Vatican Inquisition Ninjas will be visiting shortly.
So as you said at the end they decided what books to be canonical because the agenda was to get them to get closer to the faith,so really a person could read any text found in NG hammadhi and use it to find God,because as you said this is basically what they did,the forming of the Bible was back with finding some agenda?
I think asserting that the early church developed the canon through reasoning and reasoning alone is a bit much. This was a period rife with political strife whether it be in the context of the Roman Empire, or simply between different sects and subdivisions of the Christian faith.
No. It wasn't. Smh. Really really bad assumption
While there was political strife, no evidence exists that opinion on the cannon was any significant part of that. To be fair I do think the selection of the cannon was a bit of a paper is due what's our best answer style debate. While not a decision on cannon, Constantine did ask for a bunch of bible copies so the council of Nicea had to select what was included in those bibles. What the chose is mostly the current orthodox cannon and was basically all the stuff that there wasn't any real disagreement on.
Some people believe it was created in response to the canon of Marcion, which was mostly similar but had only one gospel that was different, some even go further out on a limb and argue that this gospel was a basis for the others.
@@jaredgilmore3102 Nicea had nothing to do with the canon
@@a1990sGamer What makes you say that? This isn't my field, but it's always been my understanding that it's consensus scholarship that the proto-orthodox Christians weren't the only group/s with a canon: the adoptionist Christians and the Marcionite Christians also had canon that varied substantially from our own. The proto-orthodox won out (hence why we call them that), and our current canon is the books their leadership could agree on, but they weren't alone.
Let we know if I'm missing something, I'm really not up to date on the scholarship in this area.
I was expecting 7 of them to be the Deutercanonicals, which would be a valid discussion particularly with Protestants, but no, he goes with 10 books that pretty much no one has considered Canon, except for Enoch which the Epistle of Jude does incorporate parts of it(ie. Jude 14-15 and 1 Enoch 1:9)
Don't worry, that TikToker has done a video where he did exactly that. He even says it was the Catholic Church that removed them from the Bible. Which is like... uhhh... what?
do u have a video regarding the apocryphal writings!?
That guy is so friggin' smug lol
(IP once he goes to the ER)
EMT: sigh* tiktok again?
Goody
I have a copy of almost all of these forbidden books
All the ones that he mentioned are rather light reading in comparison to some of the other heavier subjects found in other books that I own
He is a lightweight
I am somewhat tempted to mess with his head but then how challenging would that be
LOL GNOSTIC DOCUMENTS.....! LOL bro I feel your pain.
I did really want to own the old and new testament pseudepigrapha, I find it interesting how some texts could of influenced the traditional view of hell.
But I keep spending money on text books and hording them like smaug, so Im waiting to save up for a biy
You can find free copies on-line.
"Hoarding them like Smaug."
I gotta use that one.
Hey, I’ve seen your video of « is god moral goodness » and I found it super interesting but I have a question that’s been disturbing me for a while, if God himself is love and goodness then why thank him when he does good ? Doing evil would go against his OWN perfect will. So if he’s goodness himself what’s the point of thanking him for good thing ?
An omnipotent God needs nothing. (see 2 Kings 14:23-29; Psalms 50:8-15; Acts 17:25-26) What we do in relation to worship, supplication and thanksgiving addresses our own needs. Within the reciprocal nature of love, strictly speaking, a father needs nothing from his child. But the child honours his father in recognition of the satisfaction of his own needs by the father.
God however desires for us to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is His communication of love for His creation.
I think I’m going to tag you in more crazy videos.
You're too funny Mike! 🤗🙏GBU
So is there any real good use for these books besides reminding what not to believe? Do they generally contain good historical data? Anything?
while the books named in the video were never canonized into the bible ... the fact is that roman catholics, eastern orthodox, and protestants do have different books in their bibles.
so some had to be removed.
or added.
@mysotiras 012 yes, quite.
repeating what i said in a more roundabout way does not refute what i said.
roman catholics, greek orthodox, protestants, all use different versions of the bible, and jews do as well, because they do not use all that the others do.
@mysotiras 012
false.
facts.
first, the jews don't recognize the new testament.
period.
second, the protestant bible has 66 books.
period.
third, the roman catholic bible has 73 books.
period.
forth, greek orthodox bible has 81 books.
period.
fifth, even in the protestant bibles you have different translations and therefore meanings.
all i need is one example to prove my point.
matthew 24:36
New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
New Living Translation
“However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.
English Standard Version
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
( all of them say even jesus does not know the hour )
vs.
King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But about that day and about that hour no one knows, not even the Angels of Heaven, but The Father alone.
Literal Standard Version
And concerning that day and the hour no one has known-not even the messengers of the heavens-except My Father only;
( all of them omit that even jesus does not know the hour )
those are two completely different meanings.
period.
news flash ... the "bible" is composed of different books.
period.
when you have different numbers of books ... you have different bibles.
period.
when you have translations that say different words, changing sentences and meanings.
you have different bibles.
period.
not only that ... we know the bible is missing books (scripture).... because the bible itself tells us that.
numbers 21:14, joshua 10:13, 1 kings 11:14, 1 chronicles 29:29, 2 chronicles 9:29, 2 chronicles 12:15,
2 chronicles 20:37, 2 chronicles 33:19, 1 corinthians 5:9, ephesians 3:3, colossians 4:16, jude 1:14.
all tell us of 15 books of scripture that are lost and not included in the bible.
so, yes .... different bibles are used by each "branch" of christianity.
many bible have translations that say different things.
and many scriptures are missing from the bible.
period.
full stop.