I'm realy enjoying these theological snippets. I'm the kind of person who would also watch you talk about this for 3 hours, but that's a little less practical. Thanks for doing what you're doing. Love, Matt's Mom
I have been searching and searching for your channel off and on for months!!! 😂 i finally found it! Sorry, just had to share that. You explain things in a way that my family and I understand. Thank you for sharing everything!
The Bible was assembled at a council of the Catholic bishops of the world at Hippo in North Africa in the year 393 a.d. Yes they did take a vote or votes. Other councils of Catholic bishops confirmed the Coumcil of Hippo. That's how got the Bible. Prior to that time different local churches in different locales had different books they read from at Mass, but the list of books ("canon") varied from place to place. Some churches read Tobit, James, and Revelation; some not. Some read Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter of Clement; some not. The Council of Hippo decided once and for all time which books would go into the Bible. Don't believe me? Google "Synod of Hippo" and see what it says. Whenever you open your Bible you should say "thank you, Catholic Church" because that's where it came from.
Noooo I say "Thank You Lord for creating scripture thru man, for revealing it to the believers who assemble it, and for the church (including the Catholic Church in a major way) being able to preserve it."
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh The RCC does not have the authority to add scripture to back its doctrine. This verse (John6v4) was not recorded in any early manuscripts. Can your RCC explain how Jews can be in Galilee when they have to be in Jerusalem for the preparation of the Passover? It seems they had a long way to walk and could never make it in time. But instead, they sail to Capernaum, and a few days pass. Would Yeshua and these many Jews disobey and miss the Passover?
@@colinhartung8952 But the Church DOES have the authority to add things to the Bible! At the Council of Hippo in 393 the Church added 27 Christian writings to the Septuagint Old Testament, and that's how we have the Bible today. Both testaments do have contradictions in them. Matthew has a genealogy of Jesus and Kuke a completely different genealogy. Mark says Jesus died at noon and John says three o'clock. The four accounts of Jesus's resurrection are different, especially in regards to how many people went down to the grave. St. Paul's account of his miraculous conversion is different from the account in Acts. At one point in Genesis it says Noah took two of every kind of animal but at another point it says he took five of some animals. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and morals, just like the pope, but the Bible has all kinds of timeline, historical, and scientific errors and contradictions. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith but even there there are a lot of apparent contradictions. Ephesians 2:8-9 hints we don't need works for salvation but Matthew 25:31-46:and James 2:24-26 says we do. Some passages seem to say that Jesus is just a man but other passages say that He is God Incarnate. Luke 16:16 seems to be a direct contradiction to the following verse, verse 17. But thank God we have the teaching authority of the Catholic Church to explain all this. See 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16.
The organic process that Matt describes for selecting the books of the bible is exactly what the Catholics mean by truth in Tradition (with a capital "T" as opposed to changeable, human tradition with a small "t".) It is the same tradition which allowed the early church to clearly define the Trinity, which doesn't come out clearly using the Bible alone. Heck, the divinity of Jesus had to be defined by an ecumenical council, because staunch believers using the Bible Alone didn't get THAT straight!
They had to make up the trinity because it's the only way around calling Jesus God when the god of the old testament said he ALONE is god. That alone makes the collection of books that make up the Bible an incoherent story.
@@williamavitt8264 In the garden, Jesus prayed to himself to ask himself for himself to take the cup away from himself. He then said that it wasnt his own will but rather his own will that will be done. If Jesus was one with God as the nonsensical trinity suggests, thats what the story at Gethsemane would mean. If either Jesus or God was all-powerful or all-knowing as is told and suggested many other places throughout many other books, Jesus, or anyone for that matter, wouldn't need to go through anything at all to absolve sins and Jesus would both know this and should be involved in this process as more than a simple participant. The concept is ridiculous and many of the original church understood that the gospels don't make sense if Jesus was God and with God since the beginning and thus rejected that concept.
The canon was approved at the Council of Rome in 382. The council produced a list of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. So the Apocrypha was officially canon long before Trent. The council's list of NT works is probably from Athanasius of Alexandria. He gave the same list in a letter written in 367.
Peter, "In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin". I suppose most Catholics will ignore this "council" because they hold to the belief that this was not a "church council" composed of Catholics....nevertheless; it was during this pe
Codex Sinaiticus can be thought of as the Bible at the time of Nicaea. It includes a couple of books that were later dropped, namely Shepherd of Hermas and Didache.
@@kauffner but you recognize (I hope) that in the vulgate itself the Apocrypha wasn’t considered canonical. Even scholars like Gary Michuta note that Jerome without a doubt rejected the Deutercanon as scripture
Another extremely important criteria the Council Fathers used to determine which books would be included in the canon was whether they were being used in the Liturgy.
I really like this series. This is really helpful stuff. Its crazy how much we assume about pretty much everything. But also crazy how awesome it is to learn when you put in the effort. Thanks dude!
Actually, it was voted on in several councils in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome on particular. This was solidified at an ecumenical council in the 1400s.
Matt love your videos. Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos. After seeing a couple of your videos, I've noticed that many of our protestant brothers and sisters intentionally or unintentionally refer to catholic church as the "early church". Is it wrong to state that the Catholic Church was the early church and that it compiled an official list of the books that constitute the bible today? Besides the Councils, here are some quotes to ponder: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." ---Martin Luther; “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”---Ignatius of Antioch
Thanks Matt. This video helped me and he Wife at church to know exactly what our pastor was talking about when he mentioned Martin Luther. Thanks mate. We are enjoying the way you present and talk about the bible, your faith and God. Cheers mate.
Hi Matt, thanks for this series! This is all stuff I know but to have it presented so well and so accessibly is fantastic. My kids and I have been watching your channel for ages since Destin mentioned it on Smarter Every Day and I also listen to your podcast when I can. It is refreshing to have two men of faith speak like real guys who don't have all the answers but trust that God does. It's also great to have a person who isn't afraid of science or history or philisophical thought talking about the Bible. Also, your manatee is awesome. Thanks for demonstrating that you can be a student of the Bible and of history without being a pretentious twat.
Hey Matt. Very interesting video. Thanks for taking the time to put this video on RU-vid. I have to admit that I’m extremely thrilled when I hear Christians refer to the Apostolic Fathers like Saint Ignatius. It is true that, “if you take all of these letters written back and forth by the Christian geniuses of the early Church, you can reassemble almost the entire New Testament just from their quotations.” (3:34) However, I sometimes wonder why many people refuse to accept the wisdom of the Apostolic Fathers, many of whom learned the faith directly from the Apostles, when much of their writing is in support of concepts like Baptismal Regeneration, Confession, the Intercession of Saints, Apostolic Succession, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I’ve always felt that there was a treasure trove of information to learn about Christ and his Church from these “Christian geniuses.”
1. Where are these in the bible? Baptismal Regeneration, Confession, the Intercession of Saints, Apostolic Succession, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 2. This point is good. It is true that “if you take all of these letters written back and forth by the Christian geniuses of the early Church, you can reassemble almost the entire New Testament just from their quotations.”
@@daddada2984 they didn't say it was in the Bible, they said it was the Holy Tradition passeed on by the fathers who put the Bible together. Remeber there was no complete bible that all Christians read for over 00 years after the Resurrection. Nobody in the early church could have been protestant because they didn't have the 'bible" to believe in, at least not under one cover for the whole church. They did have Yeshu however, the True Word of God-John 1:1-and they had the Traditon (passed on wisdom and practices) of the Holy Apostles and their earliest disciples. It is just as funny to imagine early Christians carrying their bibles to church as protestants do today as to imagine them carrying rosaries to Eucharist. Neither existed for the whole church though their forms (prayer beads and readings of the "memoirs of the apostles" or the Gospels-did. Everything the church taught was not written especially because most cultures were largely illiterate and passed on the teachings through practice and word of mouth, the bible came later and did not invalidate Tradition. God Bless!
@@RedRiverMan you are wrong... you mean apostles dont know how write... Read the bible bro... As scholar discovered... around 41 AD & upto 98 AD they are writing & teaching the gospel. Hope in God's words (romans 15:4) Col 4:16.. they already have letters, teaching form each other... its not just wisdom & practice.. its letter (letter) and oral (preaching) What is preached is written. Gal. 1:6-9 There is no traditional for early Christians.. its all teaching by the Jesus via apostles.... no more no less... So RCC traditional is mere man made.. and its against Christ teaching.. as apostles teaches after them more anti-christ will come.. Acts 20:28-29 1 john 2:18-19 (Mat 15:8-9) worship in vain because of merely human rules. Other speak not from God's word. (John 7:18) By the way, im a former catholic, raised & serve inside the church.. RCC is full of false teachings & traditional of mere men. Dont be fanatic of organization or mere human. May you seek the truth & God be with you..
Further to my previous response, 6 months ago. The Catholic Church at different councils, decided constantly on the same Canon, composed of 73 books. THE FIRST: (Cited 6 months ago) ▪︎Council of Rome Pope Damasus Year: 382 AD Final Document: "Decree of Damasus". Said Canon is still the same for all Catholics today. God bless your fine apostolate.
Did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible🧐 Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their “Sacred Tradition,” so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church, that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they imply that their church, not the Protestant churches, has the “authority” to decide what scripture really is. There is a problem here, though. Let me illustrate. If Jesus were to write a sentence on papyrus, it would automatically be inspired. Would the Catholic church then approve of it and declare it true, or would it recognize it as true? If the RCC declared it to be true by its authority, then it is setting itself above the words of Christ. On the other hand, if it recognizes Jesus’ words as authoritative, then it is doing just that, recognizing what is already authoritative. The Christian church recognizes God’s word as inspired and true. It does not declare it to be inspired and true lest it claims its own authority to decide the truth of God’s word. Tradition So, back to the issue of “sacred tradition.” The Catholic Church’s argument implies that its tradition is superior to Scripture. Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture. But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible. Heb. 7:7 says, “But without any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater.” The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture: 1 Cor. 4:6, “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God - to not go beyond the written Word (1 Cor. 4:6). Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God’s Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not. First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution, and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution. Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome, did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter. Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ. Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles. Fifth, the Scripture says, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of the ecclesiastical declaration. Conclusion The Christian church, as an earthly organization, recognized the Word of God (John 10:27). It didn’t give us the Word of God. Also, it was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament. The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles - not the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament. The Jews did. How can the Roman Catholic Church claim it gave us the Bible when it did not give us the Old Testament? Finally, when the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God by claiming that through its authority we received the word of God.
So many Protestants who studied history wound up becoming exceptional Catholics: Peter Kreeft, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Tim Staples, and Alex Jones, just to name a few. There's an entire show (The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi) dedicated to interviewing influential Protestants who found their way to the Catholic Faith.
And many have turned to Orthodoxy as well (They have a show too)...and many Catholics have become protestants. And many of all three groups have become atheists, agnostics, ect, ect, ect.
@@georgechristiansen6785 study church history I think is what she meant.. I get your points but not what she was talking about.. Poorly cathacis catholics do become protestan and many de solution Cristians became atheist
@@georgechristiansen6785 was born into Protestantism, but since studying Christian history, there’s no denying that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus. That’s why there a famous saying that to go deep in history is to cease being Protestant. For the most part most Orthodox & Protestant Christian are t obsessed with pointing out how all the other Orthodox & Protestant churches are wrong, but they’re are Christians from all those churches who are obsessed with convincing everyone that the Catholic Church is wrong. I think it’s important to ask why that is the case. I think it’s clearly because when we have sinned, our pride makes us criticize in order to excuse our wrongdoing. it’s the same thing you see from married people who have an affair & then divorce to run off with their new person; they become obsessed with justifying their affair by saying things like: “he didn’t spend any time with me or fulfill me emotionally” or “she just let herself go after having kids, & she’s not the beautiful girl I married”. It’s the exact same thing with non-Catholics going after the Catholic Church, especially when most of the criticisms are easily proven to be lies if you ask an educated Catholic or just look it up in Tge Catechism of the Catholic Church. i’ve noticed that the Protestants who can’t let go of their Catholic bigotry are often the ones who end up in the Orthodox Church once they start chipping away at all the false doctrines of most of the Protestant Churches. I think there’s so much beauty in the Orthodox Churches & listen to Orthodox channels here on RU-vid along with Protestant & Catholic channels, but at the end of the day God doesn’t want us to have churches exclusive to our country, & that’s the main problem that steers so many seeking Protestants & Orthodox toward the Catholic, aka universal, Church that was founded by Jesus in 33 A.D. The Bible, Matthew 16:18, tells us that Jesus founded the Church on the rock of Peter & that the gates of Hades would not ever prevail against the Church. To say that the Catholic Church isn’t the true Church is to call Jesus a liar or to say that he didn’t know what the future held, & I don’t see how it’s possible to believe that & be a Christian.
I absolutely love The Journey Home show. I recommend it to anyone who’s interested in religion even if they’re atheist. I’ve learned about Protestant denominations that I’d never heard of or more about ones that I was already familiar with. It’s also just a great history of many different types of American families, immigrant families, etc. so it’s an all around interesting show.
Respectfully, I think you need to revisit this one. This "organic process theory," which was a part of the story but not the whole, doesn't answer the question of why Protestant Bibles do not contain the deuterocanonicals yet Catholic Bibles do or why the Ethiopian and Orthodox churches have more books than Catholics do. Someone could also ask the question if there could be other books that are Canon which just never made it in. In reading Paul's letters, there seem to be other letters he refers to that are not in the Bible, for example. So who decided the Canon? Who decides it's closed? We can't even look to the Jewish origins of the faith for this, given that the various sects of Judaism and God believers had different canons. I can't remember which one it was, but one group only accepted what we know of today as the first five books. Someone has to have the authority to say "this is Canon." That decision isn't made in a vacuum, like you said, but someone has to be able to clearly define it. Otherwise, each man can decide for himself that those original points about agreement and "everywhere and always" and is the book old enough don't even matter, and that decision would have weight and authority just as much as that organic process. There are christians today who only believe Paul's letters are Canon . Some believe only the words of Christ are Canon. Who has the authority to tell them they are wrong? I've enjoyed your videos! Thanks for making them. It's not easy being a RU-vidr putting yourself out there I'm sure. I pray my critique is a sound and good one. May God bless you!
Precisely the reason why the notion of Sola Scriptura is false. The Scriptures organic growth came from the apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition) and was never meant to be the sole basis for the Christian faith. Those same early Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit nurtured and built up the Christian communities while discerning the cannon of scripture. The totality of the faith comes to us by means of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. This is as plain as the noise on your face. If Luther would have said scripture first and faith first there would be no argument, but when he put those "Sola's" he went off the rails, and caused havoc.
Oh, and the most important thing. God made the canon, his Holy Spirit, not men. Do we believe those who tried to sell indulgences to people? The same who promised salvation if you went to war in the name of the papacy? The same that thought it was ok to sell relics? The same ones who ordered the killing of those who profess their faith in Jesus and not the pope? Even a kid should be able to see how fake that church is.
Se trata de la evidencia interna y la externa en concordancia con la interpretación sistemática, esto fue lo que hizo q la iglesia RECONOCIERA como Escritura, no o que la iglesia aprobara los libros como escritura
These comments make me think I watched a different video than half of the commenters. Matt, thank you for making these videos. It's a shame that we the universal Church can't focus on Christ and the things we have in common.
The real shame, Brian Wagner, is that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox don't listen to the Holy Spirit, Who is trying to lead them back into the Catholic Church. "Every grace God gives a non-Catholic, He gives for the purpose of bringing them into the Catholic Church.
I know its been 6 years, but do you still have the source material for this show? I’ve been trying to find Saint Ignatius’s list of early church doctrine with no luck. The assembly of the Bible has become of great interest to me, and I want to be able to defend its history.
Jup, one of the many reasons why there are so many branches of christianity, probably second only to the ambiguity in Jesus relationship with god (and his divine and human nature)
Chalk Chalkson No, the reasons there are many branches is the Protestant reform. Before that it wAs just Catholics and orthodox, literally for 1500 yrs.
Bocay505 Waldenses and others existed during that time. Stop spreading lies. Also the original church was not catholic and you’ll see if you actually do history, pagan kings began to mix Christianity with paganism creating what we now call Catholicism. That’s why you guys started the Sunday worship thing that still leads so many of Gods people away. Also 2 or 3 belivers is enough to be called a church. The church is not an organization or building never was, it was always the believers. Do you not know that you are the church?
@@jeremiahduran7238 Please show records of where these "other Christians' were and were not considered heretical to all the rest of the Church? Is it really possible that the whole Apostolic Church East and West, in Africa and Europe and Western Asia agreed on most of the same stuff and wrote tons about it, built milllions of churches and passed on for 15,000 and yet they were the minority in heresy? Where are the bishops and writings and temples of these other believers today and more importantly where do they still worship? This cannot include the innovations of western Europeans in the 1500's cause they were all Catholics who created new traditions. Where did a majority of Christians after the early Palestinian days considering saturday the day of worship? Ignatius of Antioch, a syrian father, called the Christians "Catholic" just 107 years after Christ's resurrection. Could the whole church have already gone astray so completely just a century after its founding? True we always believed it was the sabbath-this is still taught by the Catholics and Orthodox catechism but our day for gathered worship is the resurrection day, when Yeshua got up on Sunday. The early church fathers from Origen and Tertullian and other African fathers and even some western ones all claimed Sunday to distinguish us from the Jews and recognise the new covenant in Yeshua. Saturday is still sacred because God doesn't break His covenants but we celebrate Eucharist for all on Sunday when Yeshua came back for us. God bless!
Pope Damasus 1 gathered 27 books and made it the New Testament ,calling it the Word Of God in the year 382. He ordered his secretary St.Geronimo to translate the Bible into Latin.
Luther Knox The Counter Reformer he did not make the canon. The canon was already established. The muratonian fragment contained a complete list of all the books in the New Testament at 150 a.d. athanasius just ratified that which was already recognized as scripture by the early church. To say there was no canon until the 4th century is to be blatantly ignorant of church history. This does damage to the scriptures inspired and demonstrates how contemporary cultures fascination with diversity has reshaped the empirical understanding of early Christianity.
"We" as in Catholics? What??? The first Christians were Messianic Jews turned followers of Christ. The Catholic "denomination" didn't come about for another 25 to 50 years after Christ's resurrection.
Why did I convert to the Catholic Church?? Lots of reasons, #1 being everything we believe and teach is THE truth, but also because, as a Protestant, I began to really, REALLY think where did the Bible come from? “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
I love how you're able to make sense when it comes to Christianity and the bible. I feel I'm actually 'learning about' Christianity, rather than just being taught it. I did have a big comment typed out regarding my spiritual history and personal discovery of a belief structure... but it's not relevant. I think we all (should) go through that - questioning God in some way. I think that makes for better people, Christian or not. But, I just wanted to say, Matt, that your videos speak to me. As an agnostic, you're making God and Jesus and Christianity make sense. I don't agree with all the conclusions, but I can accept the concept. It's like maths; the answer may be wrong (as far as I'm concerned), but the working is good. Thanks for these videos. Keep at it - you're doing a good thing.
Just discovered Matt Whitman and TMBH. He's terrific. Based on just a few views, I get the feeling he's both open minded, curious and honestly seeking the truth. Better yet, he has a gift and passion to share it. Although I think his research on this topic had to be pretty superficial; his conclusion doesn't match what the weight of history clearly shows. There very much was debate on what to include. There were many other spurious books that many were advocating to be considered canonical. It was the Council of Rome, Catholic Bishops (yes men, but led by the Holy Spirit) that declared the what books were to be considered inspired by God. This was later reaffirmed by the council of Hippo. The real question is when will Matt become Catholic!
Read "Where we got the Bible" by Henry Graham. The Catholic Church, the Church created by Jesus and the one with Authority, gave the Bible to the World. Which came first, the Bible, or the Church ? Even the Bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, 1 Tim 3:15, It is the Final Authority: Matt 18:15-17. Jesus created 1 Church in Matt 16:18-19, and Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom as the Church's leader, followed by his successors. At the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damasus I and the other Bishops decided the 27 books of the N.T. It was reaffirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397. Nobody questioned it for 1100 years, when Luther Came along.
False. Church Fathers for almost 1,000 years spoke reservations about the deutercanonicals, Luther was not the first. Ironically, just to be contrary, the Catholic Church made them official canon soon after at the council of Trent.
That’s funny. I kind of imagined all the “Bible believing Christians” nervously glancing around the room for the entire video. Why? Because he basically laid out that there was NO apostolic authority, NO Savior, NO divine revelation, involved in the what books made the cut, or what didn’t. Instead it was a bunch of random people establishing one thing or another by "traditions" ultimately gaining support under the authority of a pagan king trying to centralize power under his rule by “becoming Christian” conveniently, and by asking a bunch of guys to decide which books would be included to gain legitimacy in the people’s eyes so he could unify and rule them. Previous studies I have seen on this state that before they did their super corrupt selection process to ensure constrained political power, there were literally over 600+ books held as SCRIPTURE by one group of devout and sincere Christians or another. Constrained nicean creeds and other efforts to craft a book of acceptable scripture by no means makes it Gods only word to his people. And of the Catholics Bible, Protestants threw several additional books out yet again. Funny how Christians being involved seems to mean less and less scripture as if they are trying to keep God in a small box of canon that makes it easier for them to control the message. Or in other words it’s easier to put words in Gods mouth than to actually let him speak. The Bible as it remains itself refers to tons of books of scripture that either didn’t make the cut or have been lost. Jesus also refers to prophets and events and scriptures that are now missing. The New Testament itself says that it barely contains a tiny portion of what Jesus actually said. Did Jesus waste his time saying things that didn’t matter? I don’t think so. I think everything he said mattered. But we really gotta stop pretending that the Bible is some sacrosanct compilation by God when the historical record proves otherwise. Yes the books in the Bible contain the word of God and for their preservation we will all be eternally grateful. But we cannot pretend that it is complete in any way shape or form. 3 And because my words shall hiss forth-many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. 13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. 14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.
@@myeyepie Mormon apologists don’t do heavy research and rely on what their leaders say. Also you don’t win a point by using rhetoric. Everyone can see how you are literally twisting history.
Heh. To be fair, there were witnesses, they just came around later... But, yeah, Matt's description sounded on par with the writings of Matt and Trey about a little ol' place called SP Colorado 🤪
I really like this type of "nuts and bolts" explainations of how these things came to be for us today, along with the How did we get so many types of church buildings and where did the Bible come from. Keep it up buddy! you are part of my daily devotion routines and I share it with everyone I know!!
Love your vids Matt. 2 Peter 3:15 - 16 we see Peter refering to the earlier epistles of Paul as scripture. This comes before the gospel of John is even penned. Internal confirmation of the scripture being scripture, luvit!
This is great as an entertaining video, but the bottom line is we got the bible from the Catholic Church--because it had the God-given authority to proclaim it infallible. Google "Where we got the bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church" (You can find free PDFs floating around) that are very helpful. Otherwise, any joker (Like Martin Luther, JWs) could toss out books, try to add words, etc. to make the bible support their views. The bible is a book of the Church, not a cookbook for starting your own Church of What's Happening Now.
ElKabong61 he basically said that but without words like tradition or bishop or even Church. It seems like he was saying what happened but avoiding acknowledging that those early Christians were Catholics and the Christians at Nicea were Catholic bishops.
This was the first video I saw of yours (coming over from the Adherent Apologetics bracket) and I thought it was really well done. Looking forward to going through your other stuff!
the Catholic Church decided which books would be included in the Bible. How? Pope Damasus called all bishops to a Council around the year 392 AD in the city of Hippona (if i'm not mistaken) and these catholic bishops got the job done. Of course, orthodox say the Bible is theirs, yes it is also true because in fact both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches are just ONE Church.
Correct. Pope Damasus I was Bishop of Rome, from October 366 to his death in 384. He presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture.
@@robertunderwood1011 The Copts are part of the Oriental Orthodox Churches which split after the Council of Chalcedon. The big thing is that they believe in the heresy of miaphysitism, which is the belief that Christ has one united nature of divine and human, while Chalcedonians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) believe that Christ is one person with two natures (one human and one divine) in a hypostatic union.
8:34 was that a poke that the church of latter day saints? That might actually be an interesting followup: does the Book of Mormon pass these test? Being a generally theologically ill-informed European catholic I have no clue, but it would be quite interesting to hear your take on it.
Chalk Chalkson I don't know this as fact, but I believe Matt is trying not to start comment wars or single out religions. I'm sure you're correct, with Joseph Smith's magic hat that he looked into for the book of Mormon. No witnesses, no proof, just "Trust me! And can I borrow your 12 year old daughter?" (I only know about Mormons from South Park) This whole channel could get hostile if he started taking sides or insulting specific denominations. I admire his humble "this is what I think but we're all just trying to figure it out" approach. Its not offensive to any specific group, or even atheists, and everyone takes his lead and is civil down here in the comments. I've literally never seen atheists and Christians discussing religion so respectfully anywhere else.
@Andy Jones I completely agree. This is why I was so surprised, that I had to ask, if anyone else's mind jumped to this weird place immediately. I find his attitude very noble of him, I don't know which moral philosophy he picked for himself, but his actions coming from that might follow a maxim like "Other people are equally good humans, too", which is IMO the single most important realisation a human can have.
If Matt started down the route of "heres why everyone else is wrong" then it would change the tone of the message in a bad way. I think he is trying to share the gospel in the most meaningful way possible and I am loving the way he portrays it. Keep it up buddy! you are part of my daily devotion routines and I share it with everyone I know!!
I've recently been studying and speaking with Mormon missionaries and these talks about the validity of the Bible all innately spit in the face of the BOM and the LDS church with out actually pointing to them and saying their name. If you know much at all about Mormon beliefs all these chats should be bringing our lost brothers to your mind.
G Rod send the proof from outside sources and 1st person sources. Not some catholic blog. Because to my knowledge the entire Old Testament was already compiled and chosen before Christ even died. The entire New Testament would’ve been written and finished during the time of the apostles and there are times where they refer to other books as scripture. Meaning the church would’ve known the truth until about 100 years after, once the Romans started to persecute them heavily. Leading them to lose a lot of stuff etc. eventually forcing them to mix with paganism creating the Catholic Church.
Thank you G Rod, finally someone who knows historical FACTS... St Pope Damasus 1 of the Catholic Church commissioned an ecumenical counsel of Catholic Bishops in the year 382 to once and for all determine which books would make up the Canon of the New Testament.... Please brothers and sister dont just take my word for this, do your own honest unbiased research and the truth will set you free. Thank you Holy Mother Catholic Church for this gift.
Am I missing something or how could you completely ignore the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome in these videos? Historical events where distinctive men, who themselves believed they were a part of a worldwide ecclesiastical hierarchy, determined which books were included in the cannon (bible).
By the time those councils tackled the issue the canon was already essentially settled by the process of churches telling their neighbors, "This is what we read in our churches; what do you read?" and swapping documents. There was unanimity on all but seven disputed books before the end of the third century, long before big councils got into the act. In reality the canon was decided from the bottom up and the big councils only affirmed what all the churches had already determined. That's what actually makes the canon catholic: it came "from the whole", from all the churches,not from any council or patriarch.
@@thepilgrimsprogress This is also the exact moment where he makes the claim that it is done democratically and it was voted on which is antithetical to his earlier claim
Question 1: "Who, at this very moment, holds the authority of 'apostolic succession'? Question 2: "How is the authority of 'apostolic succession" transmitted? Question 3: Where does Jesus Christ fit in? Amen
Question 1: The Catholic Church has and always will hold Apostolic succession. Question 2: Through the laying of hands. Every Catholic priest can trace the roots of his ordination from the bishop who ordained him, through 2000 years to St Peter the first Pope. Question 3: Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. Apostolic authority was accorded to His disciples by Him and continues to be transmitted through the ages under Him. The Pope will never be greater than Christ; only He holds supremacy
@@shellieperreault6262 How can Anglicans and Lutherans hold Apostolic succession when they were founded 500 years ago by men as a rebellion against the (at the time 1500 year old) Catholic Church?
As far as Apostolic succession is concerned only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches can claim they have it since they are the only 2 branches that exist from the original ancient church. The next question is which of the 2 have best preserved the teachings of the ancient church regardless of their apostolic succession status. If you look at the teachings of the church fathers & compare them with Vatican II you can judge for yourself whether the ancient teachings are preserved. Personally I think it marks such a departure as to make it completely obvious its not the RC church. Hence we have the current Pope fully embedded in ecumenism to the point of bringing pagan statues of pacha mama into churches. Not quite sure I can find any church fathers that would approve that... in fact it would be seen as unrepentant apostasy.
the one man goes down to his religion basement concept reminds me of how Moses went to a mountain and came back saying these are the laws we will live by :/
Bence Parajdi I was thinking the same thing... BUT don't forget that God had given ALL Israel the chance to hear his law at Mt. Sinai, so he had already spoken the Ten Commandments to them all, but they were afraid and asked Moses to speak to God for them... So even if you think that story is sketchy, it does include a more inclusive option that the people rejected.
Yeah, Moses was that kind of a prophet. And I am sure, that, if the laws themselves were more controversial he himself might face scrutiny. This assessment is btw solely informed by the fact, that the early church had this awesome track record of splitting up, or excommunicating people over every single possible theological debate, not at all by my own views on Moses
Except that God wanted Israel to go up the mountain. In Exodus 19, though, we see that because they were too afraid to go up the mountain, God came down.
These men of the Basement concept(probably in Catholicism) were all MEN! The prophet Moses went up on the mountain ALONE not with other MEN. These Laws or instructions the prophet Moses couldn't of had just come up with himself. There had to be something or some SOURCE that was present.
Great video Matt. There's a bit more nuance to it, though, than the dichotomy you implied between the egalitarian/democratic method and the "authoritarian" method. In truth, even from the beginning, there *were* authorities over local congregations and groups of congregations within cities that could and did exercise authority to say which books should and should not be read during worship. These overseers (episcopos) would then meet together in a conciliar way and exercise that "democratic"/intuition ("It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." a la Acts 15:28) that would eventually become formally binding for the entire Church. Authority had always been exercised locally by individual bishops, but once they were free enough from persecution to have a council representing the the whole world (ecumene), their authority--conciliarly expressed--became binding for the entire Church throughout the world. Your central point is spot on, but the method wasn't an either/or dichotomy; it was a both/and.
Except that the excluded texts were never used as autorotation books/texts by the early church fathers. As a matter of fact, less than 36% of first century Torahs (Septuigents) actually included those. Only the Sadducaical copies include them.
@@jonathanpresson777 nope they were part of the actual Bible aka scripture till morons like Martin Luther and other fathers of reformation rejected them because they backed up many of the beliefs of the Catholic faith that protest claim are unbiblical.
Good stuff, in breaking down the nuts and bolts. Interesting enough from the comments, many people, including me, have not been told about this till late in our years. I believe the world is so rapidly changing and the pressures are so high that parents never have passed these truths to the children. Today we question so many things, even what is real life. And we return back to these truths that have been debated for thousand of years and we either go back to pagan life or we continue this quest for God and revival is on the horizon.
I think that one is one of the things the apostles might be overstating a bit. I mean jewish theology is consistent without Jesus as the son of god, too. So there is at least some ambiguity in there. In general, I would be very careful with looking at prophecies from the outset of confirming or disproving an event that already passed, since your views can too easily tint our assessments.
Chalk Chalkson through the genealogy and psalm 22 it states his life and death I know Jesus and though most In Judaism believe him to be false I know him to be true
Chalk Chalkson check out my video on genealogy and remember Jesus is still rejected as the messiah but all evidence points toward him. I looked at it logically as agnostic
Love it! Thanks for summing up the believing viewpoint while not ignoring the councils that "made things 'official'" later on. Will you do some historical videos on other early Church events? I'm very interested in your perspective as an admitted history lover.
Something like Extra Credit's Extra History episode on early church schisms, but again from a believer's perspective? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E1ZZeCDGHJE.html
This is an incredibly well put together series. I sincerely appreciate that you assume nothing and take claims only as far as they can logically go. It is thoroughly helpful.
Can I recommend a high pass filter on your audio? Anytime you set your hands or elbows on the desk, there is a super low rumble. A couple actually had me turning the volume down. Great content though, keep up the good stuff! Looking forward to the next NDQ too!
If the Bible is self-uniting, self-deciding on its One Real Message, we wouldn't have had hundreds of denominations with DIFFERENT takes on specific verses of the Bible. The Bible did not compile by itself. Our intelect would agree to the history that the Church Councils happened and have records. There were no Bible in the early Christian community. The books in the Bible were all separated individual books. The councils of the Catholic Church gathered for the reason of what books need to be included to make up the Bible.
The church is not a mother, is a group of believers, and we couldn't do a thing without God helping us. If you are a catholic, run away from that fake church as fast as possible.
Expecting a good explanation about where we got the Bible from a protestant is like expecting a good enchilada at a Chinese restaurant. But, I love ya Matt! You bring up issues others fear to touch.
I agree but it s not a fearful thing to Catholics and Orthodox Christians. It was the church of the Apostles still alive in the Apostolic (Catholic and Orthodox) Church and Tradition. the traditions of men refer to ideas people have come up with to tach the true Tradition of faith passed on through 2,000 uninterrupted years of Christianity. The Tradition of the Holy Apostles is the church that held together the faithful even before there was a complete bible for the whole world for 300 years after Christ's resurrection. it was the bishops and the church Universal that remains. My question is how can we not embrace Apostolic Christianity if we believe the bible is scripture ordained by God? God bless and may we all one day be one as Our Saviour prayed!
I meant to sy the "traditions" of men fade away as they became more important to some folks than the Tradition of the Apostles. This would include the idea of "sola scriptura" which is not scriptural or Traditional, which I think we agree on as well. Thank you for your comment and lets pray that our church will contiue to grow and to evolve as it did in the councils and practices that brought us the Bible. God Bless!
Simply not true. Read Eusebius' church history, 4th century, and he clearly indicates that the Canon was not settled, he even lists the disputed books. The canon did not get settled until the end of the 4th century. And guess what: it included a 73 book old testament. That was not changed until Martin Luther, over a millenium later. This is reality, look it up.
It’s very simple my brother, Jesús founded a church and that church has the authority to put the books from the Old Testament and New Testament together and that was the bishop of Rome Damasus the 1st in the late 3rd century with Sain Jerome that translated the Bible from Greek to Latin. The only Church that’s is being around for almost 2,000 thousand years is the Catholic Church. If you Google who was the bishop in the year 100 till now pope Francis. I hope this reflexión help other people, if you don’t agree, look for the father of the church and see if they belong to any other call Cristhian church.
Here we go just say what anybody with history knowledge would say the church 400 years ac was Catholic and that's when the Bible was put together weather Protestants want to admit it or not that is a fact at that time there where no Protestants so the Bible is Catholic by the way the name of Pope during that time his name was Saint Damaso First
With respect, I would clarify here that there was no Roman Catholic church at the time. There was only the undivided church. Yes the Bishop of Rome was very much involved, but the Roman Church didnt exiat at the time. There's still 600 years until the Roman church splits off from the Church in 1054, so there's 6 centuries where the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch are in communion. Finally when Rome did things she didnt have the power to do (like altering the creed), the split happened. I hope Catholics will embrace the shared history they have with the Orthodox rather than this myth that the Roman church was the original church. It wasn't.
@@simontemplar3359 I'm sorry for your ignorance but there is no Roman Catholic Church it's only Catholic Church for you ignorants, which try to fixate us into being Roman, with a sick twisted agenda you heretic apostate.
I'd say the part that the early Church didn't have authority. A common Protestant stance is that the church has no authority, and that only the scriptures hold authority. The early Church councils very much believed they had authority to declare what was and was not scripture. It was organic, but also authoritatively declared.
@@ViceAdmiralHoratioNeIson This video was extremely inaccurate. The young man in the video failed to mention the Catholic Councils of Rome (382 a.d.), Hippo (393:a.d.), and Carthage (397 a.d.) where the Catholic bishops of the world did take a vote and decided, with the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit, to include the 73 books that make up the Bible today. No, the canon of the Bible did not come about by a mere process of consensus----contrary to this video a vote WAS taken. Until these councils, different local churches had different books that they revered as scripture. In some places Didache, Letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and the Gospel of Baranabas were revered as scriptural (the Greek Orthodox still do regard 3 and 4 Maccabees as scriptural, but the Russian Orthodox do not). In other places Hebrews, Revelation, James, and the epistles of John and Peter were left out. It took the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books belonged and which ones not. And contrary to the young man in the video----who obviously did very little research before he posted this video----the Catholic Church did not gain its authority in the Middle Ages. It had authority from the very beginning, from when Jesus founded the Church in the first place. See Matthew 16:19.
It actually sounds like, as with most things, it's not an either or situation. It's a bit of both. There was an organic building of the scriptures but as that happened at some point, a group of leaders did come together to affirm the content and limits to what should be considered canon. If not directly voting on what was, but where to decide it was time to ratify and canonize the official bible. It's very rare that any problem has a singular possible solution or any event has an absolute single cause. History doesn't live in a vacuum or a singularity.
Respectfully. The authority you say was lacking at 8:19 , was actually given to the Bishops by the Roman emperor. The First Council of Nicaea was actually a council of Christian bishops that convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea, on orders by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, in AD 325. It was the first effort to establish a consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. I imagine it wasn't without arguments. (Many Smaller Christian groups were erased for their belief as a result if I'm not mistaken). Still, the Emperor wasn't exactly without power or authority at the time, was he? Not saying the bishops did a poor job, but not saying it was perfect either.
I know the feeling. I'd tapped out a small essay in regards to this video but deleted it all before posting. I think what Matt is doing is very thought provoking and in such a way that non-Christians like me can engage and take something from it.
A correction needs to be made regarding yhe Nicea Council. It dealt with the heresy of Arius of Alexandria, not with scriptural canon. It was Athanasius of Alexandria who put together a list of documents ge considered canon. He used the 4 criteria you mentioned, and read through all the various writings used by bishops in their dioceses. He finished in AD 367 with the 27 books we now have as the New Testament. He made another list of writings that were not canon, but useful for teaching and meditation. His list was accepted during the Rome Council in AD 382. But that was not final, as that was a council of loxal bishps. Two more councils accepted Athanasius's list before it was accepted by the whole Church. The Council of Hippo in AD 393, and the Council of Carthage in AD 397. A further ratification of Athanasius's list was made at the Council of Trent in 1560,in response to the Protestant Reformation.
I have a question about the Old Testament. It’s my understanding that most Jewish sects disagreed on the canon for a few hundred years (Ethiopian Jews still use a different cannon). How can we be sure of the OT cannon after the time of Jesus if there was still disagreement?
Really interesting video, I always assumed that the books of the Bible where just a bunch of seemingly unrelated and independent letters or stories, until the 1st Council of Nicaea united them and picked and chose what fitted. Now i know otherwise. Anyway, a question: Why did the christians of the time include the Old Testament in what they considered biblical? Because the historical accuracy and connection to the person of Jesus is not so clear with The Old Testament (as far as I know). Is it because The Old Testament contains the prophecy of Jesus, or is it because the christians of the time considered themselves to be jewish? Would love to hear from someone with more knowledge on the subject, because in my view much of the stuff that turns me off christianity can be found in the old testament, and many of the arguments from Atheist like me agains the Abrahamic religions are often really arguments about the contents of the old testament.
Remember that the early Christians were both Jew and Gentile. Additionally, if you study the old testament, you'll start to see not only prophesy of the messiah to come, but also a sort of poetic symmetry between the old and new testaments. You'll notice that passages in the old testament seem to have a similar narrative as portions of the new testament. The old points to the new, and the new points to the old. It all ties together. www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes.cfm
So if I understand you correctly the early christians read the new books and stories about Jesus as something like a series of sequels to the religious book they already considered true? And the fact that these books were so compatible with each other religiously and linguistically, just cemented their beliefs - and because of this The Old Testament was just always there as some form of religious status quo? Hope I understood you correctly, thanks for answering!
I suppose that is one way to look at it. I tend to think that early Christians were really challenging the 'status quo' here, as the leaders of the jewish community were clearly not fans of Jesus or what he was teaching. The teachings however... All consistently pointed back to the old testament. Jews raised with the history and teachings about Moses, Joshua, David, etc would all hear what Jesus was teaching and hear the alignment and agreement with the old testament. The real problem, I think, is that there is a lens that people place on these teachings that can hide purpose and/or truth. In this time, there were folks in the Jewish community that heard about this "kingdom" that Jesus taught about, and heard alignment with the old teachings. There were others that heard "kingdom" and imagined a messiah that would ride in on a horse, kill the oppressors of the Jews, and reign on Earth. The human/world expectation tripped them up and they couldn't hear what Jesus was teaching from a heavenly vantage. While the bible is chock full of teachings that will lead to a good life and challenge the world's "status quo", the important thing is the state of the heart of the folks who were hearing these teachings. If they approached it as "does this fit into my idea of what God should be", they could not understand what Jesus was teaching. If, on the other hand, they approached more as "who is this Jesus guy? Is he who he says he is? who is God exactly, and how does he see me?", they were able to understand. The lens of the assumptions about who God is, and how God can fit into/benefit their lives, tripped up many of the Jewish leaders, and much of the jewish community. Similarly for the gentiles, here is this group of people teaching that God's salvation is available for everyone, not just the tribes of Israel and Judah. If they started with their presumption of what 'religion' was, and what it meant to them, they probably wouldn't be able to hear it, but for those who were rattled by Jesus teaching things like "turn the other cheek" and the 'least will be made great, and the great made least', were able to understand that things aren't exactly as 'most everyone' seemed to think. The bible is much more interesting, and relevant, when you start from a vantage of assumption in its completeness, its accuracy, and divinity. Even the parts that may make us uncomfortable, or not fit into our 'world view.'
Josh Rogers ah, that makes sense! This whole early Christian history stuff is surprisingly interesting to me, and I have to say: thank you so much for the extensive and thought provoking answer! The internet truly is an amazing place sometimes.
Mats, to unpack Josh's answer a little more: while there were certainly people in that time who valued novelty, the orthodox party (let's call it for convenience) along with some other parties valued continuity. The fact that the original Christian leaders (including most importantly Jesus) came from and continued to promote the importance of the Jewish scriptures in a claim of continuity with them, would have been enough by itself to encourage subsequent followers to keep the continuity going. (To give a contemporary non-Christian example, you can see the same thing happening with philosophical movements tracing back to Socrates and claiming continuity along the way. Sometimes Christian philosophers claimed some partial connection to Plato, although they criticized Plato, too -- but it was important, to be taken seriously, that _some_ continuity with Plato should be established in order to find some common ground for working out problems. In another but somewhat similar way, it's hard to overestimate just how influential the Christian philosopher Origen was in his day and afterward for a few centuries! -- if you wanted to be taken seriously as a Christian thinker, it was a good idea to link back in continuity to Origen.) But then beyond that, there can be an ongoing concern about what the continuity means. The OT, as a collection of different genre texts, is more-or-less a family chronicle -- a super-self-critical family chronicle! -- which focuses a lot on divine promises being made to a very extended family. A very extended family who very overtly does not deserve those promises, which is a large part of the point. What are those promises? -- who gave those promises, and why? -- can, and will, the giver of those promises keep those promises? -- how does the rest of the world fit into those promises? -- can people inside the family by birth lose the inheritance of those promises, and can people outside the family by birth inherit those promises, too (or instead)? Then a rabbi comes along (I'm oversimplifying the claims obviously) from within that extended family, who claims to be the answer to those promises being fulfilled to that extended family (even if they don't deserve it) and who claims to be bringing the family inheritance promises to those born outside the family (even if they don't deserve it). Some things happen which convince his (or His) followers that, even though they had misunderstood him a lot, and even though things had seemed to end in catastrophe, the promises were indeed being fulfilled through this rabbi (in what Tolkien once coined a eu-catastrophe) to those already within the family first, and then to those outside who are being brought into the promises so that everyone (translating a common phrase from the canonical Gospels a little more literally than usual) can be enjoying the allotment of the inheritance. Again, I'm obviously generalizing the details a lot -- I'm trying to put the basic conceptual flow in a way that anyone can get a handle on whether theistic or atheistic or whatever. (I write a lot about the picky theistic details elsewhere. {g}) But this _historical_ continuity _of the promises_ is a big factor in why the orthodox group (and some other groups) insisted on keeping continuity with the Jewish scriptures, both historically and (as far as they could, keeping in mind disputes between Christians and non-Christian Jews) ideologically. I expect we'll be seeing TMBH talking about this, too, along the way, including some of the more picky theological details (which are important for various reasons, I agree. I'm just trying to help with one part of the conceptual framework, in understanding the history of the movement so to speak.)
Hannah is also considered to be a prophetess: in her song of thanksgiving (1 Samuel 2:1-10) she is inspired “to discern in her own individual experience the universal laws of the divine economy, and to recognise its significance for the whole course of the Kingdom of God".[6] This song may be compared to the Magnificat, Mary's song of thanksgiving in the New Testament (Luke 1:46-55), but biblical commentator A. F. Kirkpatrick notes that "the Magnificat should be carefully compared with Hannah’s song, of which it is an echo rather than an imitation. therefore Mary i prophetess. Hannah’s Prayer 2 And Hannah prayed and said: “My heart rejoices in the Lord; My [i]horn is exalted in the Lord. [j]I smile at my enemies, Because I rejoice in Your salvation. 2 “No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. 3 “Talk no more so very proudly; Let no arrogance come from your mouth, For the Lord is the God of knowledge; And by Him actions are weighed. 4 “The bows of the mighty men are broken, And those who stumbled are girded with strength. 5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, And the hungry have ceased to hunger. Even the barren has borne seven, And she who has many children has become feeble. 6 “The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up. 7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up. 8 He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He has set the world upon them. 9 He will guard the feet of His saints, But the wicked shall be silent in darkness. “For by strength no man shall prevail. 10 The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces; From heaven He will thunder against them. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth. “He will give strength to His king, And exalt the [k]horn of His anointed.” Marys Prayer: Luke 1:46-55 New King James Version (NKJV) The Song of Mary 46 And Mary said: “My soul [a]magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. 49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy is His name. 50 And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He has put down the mighty from their thrones, And exalted the lowly. 53 He has filled the hungry with good things, And the rich He has sent away empty. 54 He has helped His servant Israel, In remembrance of His mercy, 55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his seed forever.”
Dear friends, the truth is only ONE: The Bible did not fall from heaven! The Bible as we know it today was a hard work done by the Catholic Church! If Protestantism will keep throwing stones at the Church, it may be because it has added the 27 books of the New Testament! An important caveat for our Protestant brothers: The Bible was made by Catholics and FOR Catholics! In the book of John it is written: "Jesus replied," I AM the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, Ye see and do not believe. .. "(John 6: 35-36) and a little later Jesus added:“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, ye shall not have life in you. themselves. "(John 6:53) Jesus Christ continues to feed the world because He is what He said to be: "living bread that came down from heaven" (John 6:58), He is present with His body and blood, soul and divinity in the holy host we receive in each Holy Mass, miracles keep happening to confirm the Words of Jesus in that synagogue in Capernaum, so we don't abandon the Lord like those "disciples" of John 6:66 (Doesn't that number remind you of them?). The Gospel reports that after teaching all this and being abandoned by much of his disciples, Jesus asks those who remained (only Twelve again): "Do you also want to withdraw?" We Catholics in each Eucharist repeat what Peter said that day: “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words for the eternal life. And we believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." PEACE AND GOOD. ( Forgive my English because it is not good yet!)
How could the same Catholics that work hard to see that book come true not do what's written there. They kill Christians in the dark ages driven by power, greed and lust. They even restricted the use of the book by the masses. They did really brutal things. Read 1Tim 4: 1-3 to see how these things were foretold.
@@MountieHoo1105 Right. The Orthodox followed that tradition, and the Catholics broke away from it and created their own when their Pope became a narcissist and decided he wanted to be the most important bishop in the church a thousand years ago. Therefore, the Bible was brought to us by the Orthodox.
@@MountieHoo1105 FIRST bishop, not ONLY bishop. One bishop did not have the prerogative to override 6 others, just because they are "first." It's first among EQUALS, not one over everyone else.
I love your explanation of the Nicea conference (which was not in a secret torture basement). The biggest gripe I hear is more in line with a church leadership that looks like a high and mighty catholic setting were a group of old, rich, white guys (allegory to modern government) met to keep all the stuff that gives power to them and exclude other groups.
The council of Canon. It was all voted on between the canonize high council. And guess what…🤔 it was all in their best interest. Not the best interest of man.
I try to tell my atheist and agnostic friends and family that there isn’t one big arrow that points to God. Rather there are hundreds, if not thousands distinct signs that all point towards Jesus Christ.
Not that it's a contest, but why are Catholics claiming credit for the compilation of the Canon? St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria (and for the record the Alexandrian church used the word Pope before the Roman Bishop ever assumed that title), anyway, St. Athanasius published a list of the books that would become the 27 books of Canon in his Paschal Letter in 367. The Church then was catholic, in the sense of being undivided, but it was not the Catholic Church. The Church had to do this because of bad actors trying to pedal their own thing as being authentic scripture. Consider Marcion of Sinope. His attempt at a Canon was shut down pretty hard and within 150-200 years, what is now the Canon of NT was agreed to at the Synod of Hippo Regius in 393--ish - I forget. My point is that the Bible is the creation of the Bishops of the Undivided Church. Yes Pope Damasus held a local counsel in Rome in 382, but that was part of a larger effort. The Roman Bishop was still considered first among equals and that undertaking was done by the Undivided Church. I am deliberately avoiding the word Orthodox becuase I am Orthodox and I don't think it's right for us to claim credit for the compilation of Canon. Anywho... The best part of these videos, aside of them being funny and informative is that I know you already know this stuff from Seminary training, but you present it in such a humble way as to get other people talking, and that is fantastic! thanks for all you do!
It was Pope St Damasus I, at the concil of Rome of 382, that dectermined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Sorry to say it, but it was the Cathoic church that gave us this beautiful collection of books, and it was a Catholic Pope that declared to the world that the Bible was and is the word of God. Thank you Catholic church for the Bible. And yes God was part of the process through its church, the Catholic church.
