On October 14, 2008, Greg and Paul tackled every question thrown at them at our Free For All Q&A. If you enjoyed this video, you can watch the session in its entirety at: whchurch.org/sermons-media/oth...
No no no no no. Enoch proclaims Enoch as the savior. 🤣 Also, I have had friends that dabbled in actual Gnostic Christianity and Enoch is right there with Thomas as far as required reading.
But he rejected the books, and his followers officially removed it because of his claims and private interpretation..so he was the reason why we have now protestant bible after more than thousands years canoned by the catholic church.. as Jesus said to his disciples that He will be with us till the end of time..why did God allow these books be included for thousand years and just removed by the protestants those books canoned if it is not really inspired.. That is real ignorance of the bible..those people who removed those books were not guided by the holy spirit that made Christians be divided into thousands of sects due to private interpretations. Holy Spirit is our helper and spirit of truth, of course God wanted us to align into one doctrine only and not different doctrines, means the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion...That is a real logic.
@@christiankimmel1705 So the infallible Bible had these “contradictory” books for over 1000 years in its 73-book canon and no one bothered to correct it? Lol, good joke protestant
I appreciate the speakers' spirit in this discussion, but there are a number of misconceptions and inaccuracies that they perpetuate. The most important one is that the OT apocrypha/deuterocanon was not always treated as secondary in terms of its authority. Namely, the early church up until the time of Jerome treated these books just like the rest of the OT canon. In terms of NT quotations and allusions to the deuterocanon (and other apocryphal works), there are several. Moreover, there are books that remain in the OT canon that are not directly quoted (some not even alluded to) in the NT. So the principle of NT quotation has little to do with the true reason for the apocrypha's relegation to second-class status and later removal. Jerome was the first one to begin prioritizing (anachronistically) the canon and text of the Jews during his day. Luther further took issue with material in the apocrypha as it was problematic for his theology. Western Christendom has largely continued these trends. Anyways, this is just a RU-vid comment, so I encourage those who are curious to do further researched of their own.
Jerome later recognized the deuterocanon as scripture. And it continued to be quoted by church fathers and affirmed as scripture by councils before and during the lifetime of Jerome (such as Rome and, apparently Nicaea) after Jerome (such as Florence) until it was made dogmatic at Trent.
@@burmiester1 I just read it and WHAT IN THE WORLD.....HOLY COW.....BLATANT,OBVIOUS,RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. Good catch burmiester1. Do you believe the Israelites of the day considered it Canon at the maximum or had read it at the least?
Around 100 AD, Jewish scholars removed several books from the OT describing the books as apocrypha -- hidden authors or unknown authors. The removal only applied to the Hebrew OT, the Greek OT never removed it, and that's the Catholic OT -- Septuagint. However, we know from NT scripture, that Jesus Christ quoted extensively from OT scripture. The Gospel of John stated that if we were to account all the things Jesus Christ said and did , not enough books in the world could fill them. Therefore, it's highly likely Jesus Christ quoted from those removed books, given they were removed after the ascension.
Jesus who is God and who knows the future would have at least allowed His quote on those removed books to be recorded, to aviod confusion in the future but He didnt. Therefore these books are false. He never mentioned them because they were never true. God is not the author of confusion but of peace.
@@IshanGamess I believe the apostles quoted or made mentioned of them (they reference them in their letters). The extra books found in the Catholic Bible were removed by Christians because they contradict the word of God. Therefore they were not inspired by God.
@@joeydaniel3053 yeah but Jesus himself didn’t quote from any of them is the point. Just because “individuals” “think” they contradict doesn’t mean they do. Understand that the deuterocanon was actually in the OT all the way up to 90 AD before the Jews removed it (Rabbinic Jews btw, same guys who didn’t believe Jesus was the messiah) so I just see through the bs and call them out because those books actually contained a lot of quotes that even the current OT books quote at times and were in Church canon in spite of the Jews removing it (from the Greeks)
Friar Papius So if God wanted the Bible as our final authority, why would he allow 7 books to “accidentally” get in for 1,100 years? In the process causing confusion for millions of Christians and the countless monks who copied down the text for all that time. Face it man: it doesn’t make any sense!!!
Melito put forth the account of the books in the 2 century... Which is what is in the Protestant Bible today although there are some valuable information in some of the other books like the history of the Jews when the Greeks was around in Israel. But you really have to be careful with outside books, first and foremost get grounded in the ones we know to be valid is a good thing to do. Then you can better discern other text outside the Bible for validity.
How did Pope Damasus have his life on the line? Didn't he preside over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of sacred scripture?
Why would we go by what the jews leave out of their torah, when they threw out Jesus? They embraced the star of their god remphan, and spit on Christ, and his memory.
Jesus quoted from 2 Esdras 1:30 in Matthew 23:37. Your statement that Jesus never quoted from "them" is false and as a teacher who comes under a stricter judgement, you should set the record straight. Also, if you accept the Canon of the early Church that they paid for with their lives, the Protestant Canon is missing some books.
@kenjeson 65 you can look in the Geneva Bible or RV1895. Here is the quote from RV1895. "I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my presence." II Esdras 1:30 RV1895 bible.com/bible/1922/2es.1.30.RV1895
Unfortunately, Jesus did not quote from 2 Esdras. It is well known by scholars who study that book that it was written long after Matthew 23:37. The opposite is actually the facts. 2 Esdras quoted Matthew 23:37. This is from the Eerdman's Commentary on 2 Esdras. "Actually, close examination shows that 2 Esdras is a composite work, resulting from a juxtaposition of three different writings that come from different times. 2 Esdras 3-14 (sometimes referred to as 4 Ezra) is a Jewish work that stems from the end of the first century AD. Chs. 1-2 of 2 Esdras (sometimes called 5 Ezra) in their current form are of Christian origin and come from perhaps the mid-second century AD. And 2 Esdras 15-16 (or 6 Ezra) are Christian, originating in the third century AD. This more specific terminology of 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra, and 6 Ezra will be used below. " John J. Schmitt, “2 Esdras,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 876.
@@mondogonzales5025 you are citing conjecture as fact. Most scholar believe that 4 Ezra/2 Esdras is a composite work. As you read the literature, you have to ask yourself, "are they giving a later date to its writing because of evidence or their belief that it could not be foretelling something that actually came to pass." I am open to revising my view if there is actual evidence for a later date.
@@adamculp9474 No doubt there are scholars who have the pre-supposition you mention. They reject all forms of prophecy. One example is forcing the book of Daniel to the Hellenistic period. However, there are no ancient manuscripts that have the first two chapters of 2 Esdras (including chapter 1:30). Additionally, it was not included in any LXX (Septuagint) manuscripts that I am aware of. It is possible that Jesus quoted it, but that is a conjecture also. The reasonable evidence (literary, manuscript) is that chapters one and two originated after 100 AD. Until there is some ANCIENT testimony to those chapters being included pre-70 AD it is simply conjecture to assume to Jesus quoted from it. The evidence is scant in either direction, but it does lean more towards post 100 AD composition of chapters one and two. Do you have any ancient manuscript evidence showing something contrary? Here is a quote: As to date, while the definitely Jewish portions are earlier, in their present form these chapters may be, approximately, assigned to the second century A.D. Thus, the references to the Gospels would make the very end of the first century A.D. the earliest possible date; but the writer shows some knowledge of the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (e.g. i. 40), which would bring the date down to the early part of the second century A.D.; James has, however, shown conclusively that the writer was acquainted with the Apocalypse of Zephaniah,1 which would bring the date down to a still later time, viz. after the middle of the second century A.D.; so that in its present form this section of our book must be dated after 150 A.D., but there is no sufficient reason for dating it long after this date. W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935), 147.
The guy on the right is sugar coating what Luther thought about the epistle of James. He rejects it because it affirms Jesus message the Law will never be done away with Matt 5 19. Which is antithetical to Paul's antinomian teachings. Martin Luther's most popular statements about the Epistle of James, “I will not have it in my Bible”2 and “[James] mangles the Scriptures and thus contradicts Paul and all of Scripture”
The apostles paid with their lives, which books though? If you remove the books Luther took out, you would have a whole different image of Jesus, there's decade's of early Christians who never heard of the Lake of Fire, because it was only mentioned in 1 book, and that excludes the parable of Lazarus. Tell me that Luther did not have the Holy Spirit.
1-3) All Christians subject themselves to one of four authority traditions under the Son of the Living God: Catholic/Eastern Orthodox, High Protestantism (Anglican/Lutheran, etc.,) American Christianity (Reformed, Non-Denominational, Evangelical), or their own private Opinion. Of all these "churches," only the Catholic Church has the spiritual and historical commission back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Private Opinion is condemned in 2nd Peter, and thus as an Athiest would say, you are a product of your religious environment. 2) The Bible and Infallible Judgement. It is a historical fact the official closed canon of Scripture came in the second half of the 4th Century (Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome.) If you grant Scripture is "the infallible" word of God, you must give the Church Bishops "infallible judgment" by the Holy Spirit that picked the specific books of the canon. You cannot have one without the other. If you reject the 73 book closed canon based upon the argument of Martin Luther, then you are rejecting a closed canon of nearly 1100 years. If you accept any non-Catholic translation such as the King James Version, you still must grand the men who compiled that translation infallible judgment, which directly refutes the Protestant Position. Secondly, what Bible translation do you use, and is it a good translation? An excellent argument for an English translation is the King James Version (but not 1611); however, the Douay Rheims is a better version translated over 41-42 years. Thus what version do you give authority to, and why, and do you grant "infallible" judgment to the translators. If you don't, then your translation is not safe. 3) The 60-second Position of the Church for Salvation is a confession of belief and baptism, then love the Lord Jesus and keep his commandments: (Acts 8: "Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached unto him, Jesus. [36] And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? [37] And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. [39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more." "If you love me, keep my commandments."
This guy with the glasses reminds me of a victim mentality person. Never wanting to reflect his motive for argument. I'd ask him... "Do you argue to defend what you have faith in? Or do you argue because of faith THAT of". We can all have faith in anything. Hell you got people who have faith in a bridge because of what you know about metals and architecture. But how do you know it will support you? How do you know it's been decaying for years or someone sabotaged it? We gotta have faith THAT something is true not in just because guys.
You are totally misinformed. Luther never threw out the Apocrypha. And never said it should be. He even included it in his German translation. He was just operating in the universally accepted tradition that there was a lesser canon and that there were disputed books that the church regarded, but did not use them to establish doctrine.
@Hunter Assassin No, thanks! Muhammad copied the story of "baby Jesus speaking in the cradle and Jesus turning clay into birds" from Arabian Infancy Gospel written by Gnostic believers. Allah or Jibril was Muhammad himself. There's no divine revelation in cave Hirra.
@@s.kasparov457 bro Muhamad was seen by a devil because it was manifested in vision. Anything of manifestation is forbidden and not Godly. God says many times in bible that he comes in dreams or feeling like in your heart. Muslim cult religion. Lol
Can you argue your faith statement with any truth, logic, or reason? Or is it easier to just rape others' women and kill them perhaps? Hunter Assasin seems the right name for somebody who makes such a ridiculous claim.
