How did we get the Bible?

[@jackjones3657]

It's truly min boggling to think God descended from heaven to suffer, die and resurrect all while ensuring these events are recorded from their very beginnings so that we too after rebelling from nearly the very start can also reside in heaven and experience eternal peace. That is love.

[@paulholloway8840]

Read the bible...God didn't come down, He fathered a Human son and Jesus suffered, died and God raised Him from the dead. Don't listen to people READ THE BIBLE!

[@nevertrumper3692]

Why do you believe those things actually happened?

[@kimmiehyun-gv8ng]

Never Trumper because there's evidence and scriptures 🙄

[@MercenaryGio]

@@paulholloway8840 Jesus was God in the flesh. John 14:9 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"

[@paulholloway8840]

@@MercenaryGio www.interfaith.org/community/threads/11508/ Jesus is not the Father, you have been deceived

[@sarchrisa]

Thank you. This is the best explanation I’ve found. Going to share with my 13 y/o daughter : already having her faith scorned and undermined by grade 8 social studies teacher. Prayers appreciated. God Bless ❤

[@rickintexas1584]

Great explanation. The more I learn about the Bible the more I love the Bible.

[@tylerfrancis_]

The more I learn about the Bible the more concerned I am that humans and their “free will” and “ego” have interfered with the word of God.

[@ralphowen3367]

This was helpful, but when he says the 27 N.T. books were recognized as Canon by about 380, he does not say that Constantine commissioned a Bible for the empire that w in language was trying to satisfy both the Arians and the trinitarians at the same time, so that it was a compromised version. This is why I cannot attribute to the Roman Catholic Church the bringing together of the entire Bible under their supervision. Were the true scriptures extant or had they been destroyed by Emperor Diocletian and perhaps others? But of course God at sometime recreated the original autographs or multiple those that had not been destroyed. I have heard that the true scriptures were in the custody later of the Byzantine Church until the time of Wycliffe, Tyndall, Luther, and the series of English bibles.

[@Tanknuggets217]

Likewise! You should search of the council oc Nicaea (325AD)

[@joshlarcelet2977]

@@Tanknuggets217 You should learn that the bible is made my false prophets and nothing you know is true.

[@truthseeker5489]

At 09:40, he pauses to point out that the early Christian community was extremely careful and extremely interested in ensuring that they only gave reverence and final authority to writings that were apostolic and inspired. He specifically mentions the councils of Hippo and Carthage, discerning the canon. He fails to mention that these two councils discerned both the Old and New Testament canons for Christians. Interestingly, he accepts the New Testament canon from these councils but rejects their Old Testament canon. If their decision about the Old Testament is wrong, how could he trust their New Testament canon? Instead, he accepts the rabbinic Old Testament canon. Why on earth would he accept a canon derived from people that rejected Jesus over a canon derived from people that accepted Jesus?

[@thecatechumen]

Exactly my thoughts. Just came down to the comment section to see if anyone else caught onto this

[@angramp3430]

This one of the most thorough explanations I've ever come across. Thank you.

[@christopherlampman5579]

Think about this question for too long and you become a Catholic.

[@chellyd8759]

It was. I wish I would be able to remember it all lol

[@aaronwood8012]

@10:30 - I believe he is referring to “evidence that demands a verdict” Also- it’s interesting to note that the Ethiopian church developed independently of the Roman church and the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox influence and they have a slightly different cannon

[@paulmualdeave5063]

These same councils also picked which Old Testament books are to be canon. They are the same books that are in the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible was affirmed multiple times in other councils between the 397 Council of Carthage to 1546 Trent, which made the list the church had been using for over a thousand years dogma. This was in response to Martin Luther removing four New Testament books and the Apocrypha from his German tradition. The original KJV had the Apocrypha in 1611 and then removed it in its second version in 1885. You left all this out.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@musings2022 The fruit is pretty good. I see no evil every other religion also has to face. Nice try though.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

@musings2022 What church are you in that is not full of sinners? The Bible says it’s church leaders will never sin? What church are you in with no leaders who are sinners? I find it sad that you would say this and not tell me the name of your sin free religion. Whatever it is, google it and the sin you are accusing my church if. Maybe you’ll be lucky and not get any results.

[@YankeeWoodcraft]

@musings2022 The Bible is the fruit of the Catholic Church.

[@YankeeWoodcraft]

@@paulmualdeave5063 I could've dropped on Musings2202 that Protestant Pastors are on record molesting children at a rate of 14:1 according to their victims and the insurance settlements, but that's "whataboutism" and we don't need to knock down the next religion to reveal what the Catholic Church is;; "Thee" Church.

[@paultrosclair1775]

Wrong, wrong, wrong

[@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643]

To sum up, the New Testament was written by the Catholic Church, so the right interpretation belongs to the Catholic Church, the canon of the books was fixed by the Catholic Church. And at the end, the authority of the Bible is given by the Catholic Church. Thanks for the information.

[@paultrosclair1775]

Umm no. Not even close.

[@DPK5201]

Good try

[@kevinpicur7739]

The RCC wrote the Bible???please explain

[@Athagn]

It’s funny how he mentions council of Carthage and the 27 books of the NT. Failed to mention the books that the Protestants threw out were also there at Carthage. Tobit, maccabees, etc.

[@cml2492]

Awesome explanation. Thank God and thank you. Some students were debating about the origin of the Bible in class. Then I just came across this a few days after. God is good.

[@captainmarvel76927]

And this man is not called by God and makes no sense.

[@justinchamberlain3443]

Thank you for the clarity! 3:55 NT Explained 4:19 That promise not being the context of only being for the apostles; Jn14:28 is not just for the apostles-that’s nonsensical. That would mean txt like Jn17 would only be for the apostles; it’s the same conversation which means that can’t be the proper context

[@kellyedington8716]

From the Catholic church, its actually a really easy and straight forward history lesson... ✌️❤️‍🔥✝️

[@DragonPop64]

Exactly, he just kept talking and talking and not answering the question

[@DPK5201]

Easy does not equal true

[@malvokaquila6768]

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Thus sayeth the Lord and Savior, Son of God, Jesus.

[@silenceoftheyams7647]

amen

[@michaelquintana1098]

Lol. Prophet priest and king.

[@sanetiamorris5694]

Jesus never said that heaven and earth will pass away. He was referring to the instructions given to Moses that he came not to change them, but to fulfill them. He said until heaven and earth pass away he does not come to change those laws, which was obviously a figure of speech to indicate that Jesus would never change those laws, Matthew 5:18.

[@michaelquintana1098]

@@sanetiamorris5694 lol. Your making you own interpretation. It's clear in Peter God will destroy and create new heaven and earth..

[@malvokaquila6768]

​@@sanetiamorris5694 Matthew 24:35 Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." He most certainly said it. Now what he means may be subject to interpretation. But there is no doubt that he said it. However I was speaking about how we got the bible. Also there is language about the new heavens and the new earth, so it might also mean that as well.

[@ElKabong61]

8:31 Note: Athanasius was a Catholic bishop--the 45th Catholic bishop (apostolic succession) of Alexandria. Praise God!

[@elenagranda8191]

Thank you for sharing with us this explanation about the biblical canon, the recognized books that form our Bible today, by Dr. Robert Plummer. We have the blessing our younger son is an student of SBTS. God is very good and merciful. On 1994 we live in Cuba our natal country ,my husband came to USA on 1995 and I could arrive on 2001 with our older son. He blessed us with another son who is studying with you because wants to be a Pastor. God is good. He let us to serve Him because His mercy in our life.

[@blaziustheblaze9935]

Thank you for explaining how the canon of Scripture came together. The more I learn about the Bible's history, the more I see God's hand in its preservation.

[@rjltrevisan]

It's amazing the acrobatics that protestants do not to mention the Catholic church and its role since the beginning.

[@samf8887]

I don't think it's gymnastics I think it's just commonly understood that Catholicism was not a doctrinally concrete organization until further down the line

[@tony1685]

@@samf8887 oh Sam, their institution still isn't Christian.

[@Joyyarns]

I don't think there is any denial of the role of the catholic church. The whole issue is simple. The church didn't determine which books are authoritative but confirmed what has already been accepted by the majority of the Christian community. The books of the apostolic fathers and the quotes they used were clear from the beginning. The councils, led by the holy spirit, confirmed not declared. Throughout the early church and before the canon was officially announced, Christians knew what books to use and consider as the word of God. Even Peter recognized Paul's writings as scripture.

[@OrangeMonkey2112]

The Catholic church is pagan and not truly Christian. There were men who wrote some great stuff, but with pagan influences. You can argue that all you want, but your own history proves it's paganism. The Catholic church claims that the Jews are no longer a part of God's plan because they killed Jesus. Your church claims Mary is equal to Jesus and has a portion in giving salvation. Your church pushes a priesthood that IS NOT accurate. Your church claims that Jesus actual body is in a wafer and his real blood is in wine. All this IS against everything the scriptures teach. I'm not judging Catholics because I am not God. Catholics judge themselves by their own actions that go against God's word. I pray your eyes and hart are opened to God's truth and you stop following that pagan institution.

[@wanderingoutlaw2083]

Christ did not found the Catholic church jesus never taught catholic doctrine

[@pkab9945]

But somebody or group of scholars had to decide what went in the Protestant canon. Some books that were left out were highly debated and either Peter or James almost didn’t make it in our canon because of the works righteous connotation. So to say there wasn’t a body of people deciding what went in, in my opinion, would be erroneous.

[@SAGKavin]

James 2:24 is a nail in coffin to Protestantism. Martin Luther hated it.

[@sskspartan]

@@SAGKavin Bible 1:1 to 1:100000000 is a nail in the coffin of Catholicism

[@neoneherefrom5836]

Lmao at both comments below

[@coreycolvin2985]

Protestants believe faith without works is empty as well. Lol. Maybe you’re diverting to just Calvinism, but to say that a Calvinist doesn’t stand by James 2:24 would be false as well. I’m not sure that you’ve met the same Calvinists I have. It’s that works come from faith, not the other way around. That’s where we disagree with Catholics to an extent. It’s a means of salvation by faith and through that faith produces good works, and scripture even says that these works are to believe in him instead of earning salvation by praying to a certain picked out saint and by making a cross symbol with your hand after you pray. John 6:29

[@pkab9945]

@@coreycolvin2985 I believe justification is by faith alone, whether it’s for salvation or sanctification, and substantiated by many other passages. All I’m saying is, the original language in James 2:24 makes a very clear but troubling statement that scholars had to work through and use the entire Bible for an accurate interpretation to determine if the book got in the canon. The verse says it very clear…”You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” That’s NASB. Again, I’m not saying that salvation can be gained by works. All I’m saying is, it is and has been a difficult passage…especially when witnessing to Catholics.

[@processpsych]

One thing we DO need to keep in mind here is that this historical analysis IS informed by certain theological assumptions, and that those assumptions influence the meaning of what scripture is and what the history implies. Be careful to separate the history from the faith, so that the process isn't making the history say something that it may not be.saying. this is an interpretation of history, as history is, itself, interpretation of data

[@jorgemartinez8462]

What is not being recognized clearly here is that the compilation of the writings and the declaration of the Canon as authoritative, was produced by the Catholic Church under Pope Damasus I. "He presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of sacred scripture." (Wikipedia quote) Not only was that a Catholic Council, but also the Synods of Rome and Carthage which affirmed the list of divine books. Back then (IV century) there was no other unified body of Christian scholar who determined what the bible would be, but the Catholic Church.

[@josel.martinez8649]

Good info. Also the book of Revelation was only recognized as apocryphal til the “church” included it as canonical in the 4th century.

[@TheRockdoctor54]

All true, however the problem is Roman culture and the link between prominent church leaders and their own political ambitions within the late Roman Empire. Wasn't the first time the Romans appropriated a religion or spirituality or technology from someone else into their own culture and then used it to further the empire in one way or another. Also, if you read the 4 Gospels, nowhere does Jesus say, hey btw, write this all down and put it in one book. I'm not saying the bible is false, I'm just saying you have to be very very careful, and take it with a grain of salt, when reading and interpreting it, for myriad of reasons, not the least of which was the crumbling and horribly corrupt nature of the late Roman empire. These were Roman religious officials who had a very vested interest in this whole 'Christianity' thing lengthening and enriching the Roman Empire.

[@JW-no5sq]

So you didn't watch the video

[@billmartin3561]

There were a lot of things in this video that were either inaccurate or misleading. First, go back in time to the year 150 AD, and you will find the orthodox church is extremely Catholic. What does that mean? First and foremost, the church followed apostolic succession, that is how you knew you were not in danger of heresy. You had to belong to a church that was led by a bishop that could trace his lineage back to an apostle. The Catholic Church has that same apostolic succession to this day. Second, as the video points out, there were books of the Bible that were clearly authoritative, but there were many books that were in debate until the 4th century. While Peter‘s letter does lend credibility to Paul’s letters, Peter’s letter never mentions other books such as Jude or John or James, so how can those be considered scripture? Revelation, which we all regard as inspired scripture, very nearly did not make the final Bible canon. It’s inspiration was clearly in question. So who made the call that it was inspired? Of course the answer is the Catholic Church, by which I mean the bishops of the only orthodox church in existence at that time. It’s also a bit misleading that you quote these early church fathers such as Ignatius or Irenaeus or Justin Martyr, but you neglect to talk about their other subjects including apostolic succession as the legitimate form of Church polity, or the Eucharist being the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and not just a symbol, or the baptism of infants, or baptismal regeneration. You need to accept all of their writings, not just a few. That’s the problem with protestant churches, you all have your own theology‘s which you then interpret the Bible through, rather than reading the Bible at face value and building your theology off of it. You are right about the importance of the early church fathers, they are the ones we should trust for interpretations of scripture, not modern day opinions or even our own opinions. The men who knew the apostles know the theology of Christianity the best.

[@richardkramer4076]

Bill, you nailed the truth.

[@zdenekcanada5408]

@@richardkramer4076 I don't think so .. Catholic Church is misleading monster

[@MrBeeg55]

The Roman Church IS described in the Bible, especially in Daniel and Revelations. Missing is transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, mariology, in short- any authority of an elected human leader to change the laws given by God. Come out of the BEAST.

[@bhs3871]

Amen! Sadly, we have a lot of heretics who blaspheme the Holy Mother Church by calling Her all sorts of names. These belong to the illegitimate denominational sects and cults as you can see by their anti-Christian rhetoric towards the Holy Catholic Church.

[@richardkramer4076]

@@MrBeeg55 ...oh, it's all in the bible, you just need someone competent to interpret the bible and Protestants twist the meanings to denigrate the RCC. The Trinity isn't in the bible either, or the word bible, or the revelation that everything revealed by God has to be found in the bible.

[@ianbynoe6515]

You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Anyone who tries to falsify the scriptures is quickly exposed and removed. This is God's secret weapon to protect his book.

[@ianbynoe6515]

@@Peekaboo-Kitty , they are around but only fools follow them.

[@crimson6172]

You must be talking about Martin Luther.

[@wayfaringfarmer2724]

By accepting canon you are also accepting Catholic Rule

[@DPK5201]

Uh.. No!

[@DarwinTriana-pm3hv]

Heaven and earth shall pass away but God's word will remain, no matter who carry it, and it is open to all that believed in it. 2 Tim 3:16

[@thedonahoes]

That really helped

[@ryandersones]

To me, it sounds like you are making a pretty good claim that the Catholic Church has the authority to reject certain books and affirm others.

[@yancy3987]

Precisely

[@ob2249]

@@yancy3987 thereby making the bible the word of catholic man rather than god.

[@coreycolvin2985]

The Catholics think that their leadership has that authority, but that’s not what he believes.

[@jakamsoohia7492]

the term Catholic Church is badly used. This was before the reformation and great schism with both orthdox and protestant. Not to mention the majority of the canon of the New testament comes from what we now call Eastern Orthodoxy.

[@roseredd447]

Catholic Church wasn't even mention

[@jonaseukariotes]

But how did they know that a book was "inspired"? Is there any objective criteria to determine that? And if a text is objectively considered "sacred", is it wholly sacred, or could some parts be sacred and other parts not?

[@JW-no5sq]

It seems like all the catholic apologists are not actually watching the video. The point is that the canon always existed and not by anyone's authority but God's was it revealed through the passage of time.

[@timothyharris4246]

I very much appreciated this video. You were able to pack a lot of information into a short period of time. This is very useful for teaching people who don't want to invest in hours of research. I wish we all would and could do extensive research but we live in the world the way it is, not in the way we wish it could be.

[@JesseABN]

Another GREAT video, Dr. Plummer! We are so thankful for your devotion to extending knowledge of the Scriptures and our Lord. Godspeed, Sir.

[@Vlabar]

When Paul said "All scripture is God breathed" he wasn't referring to his letters. They are scripture but Paul did not consider them to be at the time.

[@Joyyarns]

How do you know that? 1 Corinthians 2:13: "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words."

[@Constantin_C]

There was no a strict canon during the apostolic time. We can see references in the Gospels to books not included in today's Bible - whether catholic, orthodox, or protestant. The most striking references are in the Epistle of Judas, where conversation between Archangel Michael and satan is mentioned. There is NO description of this in any of the Old Testament books.

[@srich7503]

Hippo and Carthage “formally recognized” the 27 book NT canon 👍🏻 Sort of! Hmmmm! Isnt this a Catholic thing??? Didnt these councils also “formally recognize” a 46 OT book canon at the same time? 🤔

[@srich7503]

@YAJUNYUAN think about what you are saying. You cannot have it both ways. Either the councils got them both right or you have no way of knowing if they got it anything right. 🤦‍♂️

[@srich7503]

@YAJUNYUAN if “external” you mean “the Holy Spirit” then 👍🏻

[@srich7503]

@YAJUNYUAN correct, but man, you are all over the place when it comes to context and focus. 🤦‍♂️

[@row1landr]

Gary Mashuta is a great Bible expert

[@BrianGondo]

Gary Michuta

[@kimberlycorley4164]

Who's learning in July 15th 2021

[@caseycrowe3805]

Daniel was written *way* after 430 BCE...probably the third or possibly the second century before Christ. "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC apocalypse from Judea with a 6th century BC setting," source: John J. Collins (his book Introduction to Daniel) and Wikipedia.

[@SAGKavin]

@ 0:45 Collection of authoritative writing? How you know a book is authoritative writing or not?

[@gussetma1945]

Only on the basis of an exterior authority. There is only one candidate for that authority.

[@Joyyarns]

The books were treated from the beginning as authoritative because they were considered scripture. Peter said that about Paul; Paul quotes Luke in his letter to Timothy and the early father (who lived while the apostles lived) considered the writings as authoritative.

[@bkf8166]

Thank you. This was outstanding.

[@razadaza9651]

Hopefully you didn’t beat any of your slaves to death within 2 days of inflicting the beating. God would not be happy with you

[@david_porthouse]

Long ago, people wrote on scrolls made of papyrus and a library was a pile of scrolls. Along came paper and vellum, which are easier to fold, and the codex was invented, also known as a book. If the Bible is just a pile of scrolls, then its contents can be variable unless a system of referencing every scroll from every other scroll is adopted, which didn't happen. Once the Bible becomes a codex, then the question of what to include in it and what to leave out becomes pressing. The earliest complete codex is the 72 book Codex Amiatinus, written in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about 700 AD. By the time of the Gutenberg Bible in the 1450s, the Book of Baruch had been added to make 73 books. Gutenberg is the first Bible to go into mass production on an industrial scale. If some Protestants are to be believed, the printers of Gutenberg were able to see into the future and add seven extra books as decreed by the Council of Trent. The codex is very much a Christian invention. The Jews didn't bother with it until about the tenth century (the Aleppo Codex) or 1008 (the so-called Leningrad Codex). What the Jewish Canon consists of isn't obvious. To some extent, the papyrus scroll was the posh way to do things and the codex of paper or vellum was something to look down on. Popes stuck with papyrus for their Bulls for some time. Papyrus is made from the papyrus plant and tends to crack or disintegrate over time. Paper is made from rags and is easier to fold into quires to make up a book. Best quality acid-free paper lasts a long time. Vellum is animal skin, usually calfskin, and is also long-lasting. The Codex Amiatinus was written on vellum which is why we still have it.

[@BigRichardNRG96]

Conveniently skated over the consistencies of some of the non chosen texts

[@SiRasputin]

I think he makes an artificial distinction between an authorised collection of writings vs an authoritative collection of writings. Of course the scriptures are inherently authoritative. But they were written in and for the benefit of a specific community. And it was that community who recognised which books were authoritative for that community. At the start of the video, Dr Plummer makes out as if the "Catholic" (and this group can be extended to the Orthodox) were some outside authority who were just making arbitrary decisions about which books make it into the NT. I think you can reverse that reasoning back onto Plummer. The scriptures were not some exogenous phenomenon. It's not as if the scriptures fell down from heaven or just appeared out of thin air and said "here we are and we're inherently authoritative". No. The Church community knew from its own experience, which books were Apostolic and genuinely authoritative. They knew this because the books were read in Church. They knew the NT because it was handed down to them. To try and separate scripture and Church is impossible. And I think this is what the doctrine of sola scriptura tends to do.

[@larrymac50]

Well said...Also, there would logically need to be an authentic Church with "loosing/binding" authority in order to avoid chaos. We must remember that even with a recognized Canon after Pope Damasus and the councils that followed, the Church was still debating whether Jesus had a divine will, a human will, or some combination thereof at ecumenical councils centuries after the official Canon. So, obviously, just having the scriptures is not enough. Jesus never said to write anything down. We have the Council of Jerusalem as a template. Unfortunately, Christianity has turned into a free for all with the Bible used as a type of weapon of leverage and relegated to a pawn in the game of Christian relativism. We better unify as brothers and sisters in faith in fairly short order in humility and charity. We know this, the Holy Spirit can not teach against Himself, but that is the message that sadly is projected. There cannot be two sets of truths. I respond with love as an RCC Deacon.

[@SiRasputin]

@@larrymac50 the great commission was not solely for the the disciples to write books, but to go out making disciples by baptism. Of course the gospels and epistles were part of that commission, but not central to it

[@EdwinMendez91074]

Very well said.

[@aapp953]

@@larrymac50 Definitley well said. I will add though that Jesus Christ came to set free those who were in captivity to religion which was the Jews. The intention was not to create a church and name it after himself. It was to end religious divisions and unite jew and gentile thats why the original desciples were sent to the lost tribes and were instructed not to go in the way of the gentiles. Baptism was only for israelites/Jews because they were the only ones who were in captivity. Paul was sent to the gentiles because he was the only one who was gonna find the truth of the mission and that was that Jesus Christ crucifixion was the marking point that God was gonna dwell with mankind on earth each person from the least to the greatest all equally have God in their heart even those who identify as atheist have God dwelling in them and most of all actually. They are the elect.

[@ryandersones]

Boom!

[@SAGKavin]

9:05 council of hippo was conducted by Catholics. Augustine of hippo attended it. Deutrocanonical books were also accepted by council of hippo. Martin Luther got alarm and change the scripture. Removed 6 books from Bible.

[@NevetsWC1134]

He removed 7

[@randyabeyta7318]

For with God nothing shall be impossible

[@raymalbrough9631]

Finally, someone who teaches the truth in this and is not intellectually dishonest. Some pastors have been all over the map being dishonest in some things they teach.

[@Quis_ut_Deus]

What about the Septuagint? And the Vulgate?

[@charliedontsurf334]

Jesus quotes the Septuagint, and it has more books than the Masoretic "Old Testament" in Bibles today.

[@Quis_ut_Deus]

@@charliedontsurf334 I know. But more interesting here is that the Septuagint is the first translation from hebrew to greek of the jewish "bible" (if ever they was a canon hebrew bible at this time, i.e. 270 B.C.). The Vulgate the first mass printed bible. Do you know exactly the quotes Jesus used that come from the Septuagint? Maybe in Matthew 22 when Jesus replied that God is the God of the livings the idea may come from the Septuagint...

[@charliedontsurf334]

@@Quis_ut_Deus I will have to look it up for specifics. But the Septuagint was the only non-Hebrew translation of the Bible at the time. I know the Vulgate is the first Latin translation from ~400 AD. I am just extremely frustrated with videos like this because this guy clearly does not know the first thing about history. The Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches make the claim that the Old Testament was closed in 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. Now there is some debate as to the validity of the existence of this council, but the Council of Trent did not affirm, it reaffirmed these books. If this is the level of scholarship then the Church doesn't have a chance against people like Richard Dawkins.

[@Quis_ut_Deus]

@@charliedontsurf334 I have heard recently about this "council". The term isn't really accurate but I read that even if this gathering was small and not universal it has a great importance in the rabbinic history. This "assembly" is said to be the birthplace of the Mishnah but its influence take at least a century to be felt. The french wikipedia quotes this work: Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian volume II by Lester L. Grabbe (an other work is from the french historian Simon Claude-Mimouni).

[@charliedontsurf334]

@@Quis_ut_Deus Thanks for the info. I'll look that one up.

[@onesimosaenz2286]

God bless this ministry. 🙏⛪

[@Dr.Judy.N.Lubega]

Thank U 4 simplifying deep church history for all to learn

[@raymalbrough9631]

You got the canon from Catholics who established what books are to be in the Bible in 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome. The Old Testament Septuagint was established in 283 B.C. which were used by the Apostles. Yes, Peter affirmed that Paul's writings are Scripture.

[@psallen5099]

Sorry, the 27 books of the New Testament were first assembled into a single book by the Catholic Church at the council of Hippo in 393 AD and ratified by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD.

[@JewessChrstnMystic]

No they weren't. .prove it.

[@loveinaction2772]

I highly recommend Watch Dr. Fred Tarsitano on you tube excellent on all topics.

[@psallen5099]

@kaitlin It’s historical knowledge, look it up on Wikipedia

[@davidelks8972]

@@psallen5099 Wikipedia HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@stillbill6408]

@@JewessChrstnMystic The Catholic Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St. Damasus" and reads as follows: "It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing; however, is listed separately in later editions). Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." St. Jerome was chosen to perform the translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was (and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the 7 books later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe. Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7 Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation). The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead, Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and reconciliation. The later councils (Hippo 393 A.D., Carthage 391 A.D., and Trent 1545~1563 A.D.) further ratified the Canons as Scripture. There is your proof.

[@cyberjunk2002]

A "canon" means a "list"...it requires an external force by its very nature to write it. A list was never in the bible...it took the Church (as the Body of Christ) to treat these as authoritative. Even what's known as the OT canon wasn't at all a settled matter as there were different lists, and the Christians used a different canon than the later canon developed by the Jews (which had books missing which the Christians used). Even books like Hebrews or Revelation took many many decades (and even centuries) to be accepted universally. Why were they eventually accepted? Not because there was some scientific study of some writing plopped on their lap, but because they were accepted and used by the Church and people who were trusted due to the continuous connection to the early church. There were FAR more spurious writings than what became eventually accepted by the Church. The need for a canon came about because of Marcion and his spurious hybrid gospel.

[@axebrew1]

Bingo! This guy tries to make a distinction then proves the opposite!

[@andrewscotteames4718]

The question is not whether the church recognized a list of authoritative books, but whether these books were authoritative because the early church decided that they are authoritative or whether they are authoritative because they are God’s words to his church and the early church officially recognized this authority. The Protestant position is that if the Bible is God’s words to his church, the books which comprise the canon are authoritative regardless of any official recognition by the church. Yes, the purpose of officially recognizing the canon was to keep heretics from adding non-authoritative books to scripture and changing the apostolic deposit. This does not mean that the Bible derived its authority from the church. This only means that the early church officially recognized which books are legitimately scripture to ward off apocryphal and psuedopigraphical writings.

[@melanierabe8794]

Prodestants don't know and some don't believe they took books out. Many believe we added the 7 books ourselves later

[@waynemohi2767]

I agree, they say this book was left out, that gospel was left out and on seeing this I can see why. It's only because of the internet that many people can look up and say "why was this gospel left out", back then they did not have that privilege or else we would have to wait for the Complete Bible to be available centuries later.

[@shlamallama6433]

Didn't the councils of Hippo and Carthage affirm the same Old Testament canon as the one given at Trent? Also, even if the inspired books are in themselves authoritative, how do we know which books are inspired? The Bible doesn't give an inspired table of contents, so you have to look for something infallible *outside* the Bible in order to know that a book is actually inspired. You can't do that under Sola Scriptura.

[@jakamsoohia7492]

That's easy. Using the technique they used at the council of hippo it had to be associated with an apostle, since an apostle was filled with the holy spirit in insiration of the scripture. We can apply that to the old testament and the apocrypha fails to meet the requirment. As the holy spirit left israel after malachi the last prophet, and claims no divine inspiration

[@leonardu6094]

@@jakamsoohia7492 So why is Hebrews in the canon? Since nobody knows who wrote Hebrews.

[@JW-no5sq]

It's called the Holy Spirit

[@jeremysmith7176]

@@jakamsoohia7492 Yet the claim that no inspired writings we're given between the time of Malichi and Jesus is itself an extra biblical claim.

[@conor4475]

The council of Hippo canon included the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) so why do Protestants exclude these from their canon? It seems that they use the council's to affirm their NT canon but then ignore it for the OT canon

[@The_Scouts_Code]

yeah. so why?

[@jakamsoohia7492]

Jerome did not consider them canon but it became added

[@CPATuttle]

@@jakamsoohia7492 Jerome wasn't Pope. Jerome later accepted the decision of Pope Damasus and didn't argue further. Before Jerome they were disputing books, look up "Antilegomena" was the term

[@SpotterVideo]

There are thousands of copies of the Byzantine Greek texts, some of which go back to the fourth century. These have been used by Greek speaking peoples since the fourth century. This is how God has preserved His Word.

[@rebn8346]

The bible was compiled in 382AD at the Council of Rome.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@rebn8346 What texts were already in use at the Council of Nicaea, over 50 years before your date?

[@rebn8346]

@@SpotterVideo texts. There's texts. The Council of Rome was a response to Marcion's texts. There was no Bible. What councils was the lists of the canon of the Bible ratified at?

[@jesuschristbiblebiblestudy]

Through Jesus Christ. Amen

[@trailrvs]

If the New Testament writers were quoting the Septuagint and the Septuagint had the Apocrypha, then wasn’t that what Paul was referring to when he said All scripture is inspired!

[@elvisisacs3955]

The Jewish synagogues do not view the Apocrypha as scripture.

[@davidphillips2496]

@@elvisisacs3955 They also don't think Jesus is the Messiah or that the New Testament is scripture. So why do you care what they think?

[@aaronmueller5802]

@@elvisisacs3955 Jesus also never quotes from Joshua, Judges, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Ezekiel, among others.

[@IsraeliteDefense]

This guy just got tripled teamed 🤣🤣🤣

[@jakamsoohia7492]

@@davidphillips2496 He means the Jews predating Jesus birth, Jesus himself did not use the apocrypha. And furthermore The new testament was written in Greek, so it is impossible for Paul to quote the hebrew scriptures which were written in Hebrew. Doesn't mean anything what matters is Paul was quoting scripture.

[@thedon978]

The Church existed before the New Testament existed. Souls got to heaven WITHOUT the written word of God, but not without the Church.

[@Andeezy04]

Souls got to Heaven before the institution of the Church in the New Testament, as salvation has always been by grace through faith. However, the Church does not save us; it is the grace of God that does. The Church did not exist in the Old Testament during the dispensation of the Law. Believers in Yahweh assembled together in the OT, but not in the form and structure of the Church built on Peter and the Apostles. Respectively, the Church did not exist before thee Church built on Christ’s Resurrection cane to be 👍.

[@gussetma1945]

I think I recognize a member of the true Church.

[@gussetma1945]

@@Andeezy04 The true Church, you which one, is the ark of salvation. Through its sacraments grace is showered upon the sinner. Repentance and salvation follow, if the sinner avails himself of this font of grace. Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. ✠✠✠

[@LuisPerez-fy6up]

Andy S. My uncle told me in the Old Testament people went to hell then In the New Testament JESUS went to preach there in hell and took them out from there. I am a new Christian btw.

[@thedon978]

You’re a new Christian, Luis, or an old Christian and a new Protestant? In any case, your Uncle S. was quite wrong. You see, no one got into heaven, from Adam and Eve to the most pious individual who died a fraction of a second before Christ did. Heaven was closed to everyone. It was Our Lord, Who - through His death on the cross as atonement/payment for the sins of humanity - opened the gates of heaven. All the just, good men and women and children who had died before Christ, waited to be admitted into heaven from the beginning of the world unto the death that reconciled God and the world. Now, after the saving death of Our Lord, those who believed in Him could gain heaven; those who rejected Him were rejected by Him. The point is: there was no bible until the Pope and Catholic Bishops declared which books were inspired and which were not. For over 200 years, those who believed in Christ and were baptized, gained entrance to heaven WITHOUT the written word of God. They had the living word of God as preached to them by our first bishops and priests and deacons. They became sons and daughters of God through the waters of baptism and their rebirth into Holy Mother Church... I shall keep you and your uncle in my prayers, especially at Mass where daily the Word becomes true flesh and blood.

[@CrisusAttucks]

but many of the books were removed then some replaced time and time again through the various Ecumenical Councils. so, the Bible wasn't ever a completed book at any time since the first iteration of the "Canon".

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

The good Dr. conveniently leaves out the fact that the canon of the Bible was established by the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic church during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). All the Church fathers he quotes were Catholic. This is a historical fact, and not a matter of theological interpretation. During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history. As Protestant church historian, J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53).

[@loriirons9503]

The first Christians were Jewish not Catholic, and the word catholic just means universal.

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

@@loriirons9503 Exactly

[@billmartin3561]

Jesus Christ established a church on earth, he did not leave us the Bible. The church gave us the Bible, not the other way around.

[@mariojh427]

How can it be determined they’re inherently authoritative without human input? My point is the “external source” view makes more logical sense. The New Testament canon came from the Catholic Church, love it or hate it.

[@jakamsoohia7492]

the New Testament canon actually existed before the Roman Catholic Church. back then there was no schims between orthdox and protestant. so it was the one holy catholic apostlic church. catholic means universal. Also pre dating the council of hippo the New testament documents were in circulation within the church , a lot of pauline letters were popular and gospels. And Athenasius already chose which was divine and not since there was a widespread of gospels. So the Catholic Church Should not take sole responsibility on the compilation of the New testament when its all done by the handwork of God

[@JW-no5sq]

Try to apply that reasoning to the Ten Commandments and maybe you will understand the answer

[@gregnunan4885]

The Catholic Church alone compiled and selected which books would be part of the complete bible together with the New Testament. Protestants rejected books that Catholics included in the bible from the Septuagint which Jesus and apostles would certainly have quoted from and carried around with them.

[@Autonomous_Don]

The only way to affirm biblical writings is to recognize the author as a miracle worker/prophet or specifically commissioned of God

[@philemongandhi6286]

Those who think that the distinction that Dr. Plummer makes is artificial, obviously don’t know what he is talking about!

[@jerrymartin3965]

So because you believe what the Dr. says, everybody else with a different opinion, "doesn't know what they're talking about?" Who are you? What gives you the final say on who does and doesn't know what they're talking about?Your opinion is irrelevant and we all have a right to agree or disagree. I don't suppose being humble is one of your qualities.

[@philemongandhi6286]

@@jerrymartin3965 I am very sorry I hurt you.

[@jerrymartin3965]

@@philemongandhi6286 You're not even aware of the difference between hurt and anger. You don't have the capacity to hurt me. You grieve the spirit with your arrogance. I need no false apology from you.

[@sonofnun1917]

@Southern Seminary - Please do a video on the council of Nicea to specifically address the erroneous belief that it had something to do with the formation of the new testament and/or old testament canon. Many people are listening to people like Andy Stanley, who (by his own admission) is not precise in his use of language and therefore causes more confusion and error. Thanks for your work!

[@35snarf]

Yes, it was more the Catholic Councils of Hippo and Carthage that dealt with that.

[@eric777100763]

I wouldn't believe a word the Council of Nicea had to say. You got the same attitude back then that you got now people who believe they are the learned they think that they and they alone only understand on the word of God. Yahweh made it so simple that a child can understand it.

[@loriirons9503]

@@eric777100763 amen to that!!

[@eric777100763]

@@loriirons9503 sister Lori, it's always great when I meet a Christian that's on top of their game. Sounds to me like you have a very Berean attitude! I'm sure the Seminary is wonderful for a lot of things but as with anything you have to be cautious and it must be verified by the only true Authority the Bible. In any case sister remain vigilant ask Yahweh to guide your path,and of course, as always greetings from the state of Kentucky!

[@loriirons9503]

@@eric777100763 Amen, we are not to be impressed by the traditions of men, but to only follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Greetings from Iowa! ✝😊

[@captainmarvel76927]

Protestant canon followed the Pharisee canon by the same group of men that slew the Word of God Incarnate.

[@Enochphilw]

The New Testament was canonized in two stages. The first was by Peter and Paul, followed by the second stage by John.

[@l3ender15]

Thank your for the clear answer. It leads me to one question: if NT writings were recognized in large part due to authorship, how come we aren't certain on who the author of Hebrews was?

Exactly!

[@paulchambers3279]

Good question, check out Hebrews 13:23. We don't know for sure who wrote Hebrews, but whoever it was they were in the apostolic circle of Timothy and Paul.

[@JW-no5sq]

He just said that not all of them were authorship based

[@MrJayb76]

Who or what determines "inherent authority "? You? I can't believe smart people don't see their circular reasoning. Jesus bestowed authority on the apostles not scripture. Jesus did not command anyone to write a book. He left us his example and His apostles.

[@bechet12]

It seems you have not read Peter or the gospels to make such statement!

[@MrJayb76]

@@bechet12 what's in Peter have I not read that proves my point?

[@bechet12]

Read 2 Peter 1:19-21. Scripture is very important! Your statement is not thought out very well.

[@MrJayb76]

I never said scripture was not important. You are deflecting. I asked a very simple question. Let me try again. WHO? determines what is inherently authoritative? There were hundreds of so called scripture that circulated in the 2nd century. Out of all of them, WHO decides which writings make the cut? The writings themselves won't tell us that. Jeez why do protestants always run away from this question?

[@MrJayb76]

2 Peter 1, 19 says absolutely nothing about how do we know which writings are inspired. It just says scripture but who decides what is and isn't scripture?

[@Ligreid]

Your entire channel is an answer to so many of my questions. God bless you all!!!! As for the question, I would really love to hear what Bible says regarding Spiritual gifts. I've been digging up for a quite some time about this.

[@futsinen]

I have been thinking about this myself. The Bible says that the fallen Angels thought us magic and from what I understand the magic happens when you call spirits to do something. With this in mind I would argue that if someone has for example psychic abilities they have demons Inside of them giving this person these abilities. But I don't claim to actually know that. This is just where my current understanding of things are. And if God didn't want us to learn magic these abilities can't be good. I know one person who is extremely sensitive in having visions. Its actually scary how she is able to know things. But she has also been on different meds because she has some serious mental issues. Her life has been a tragedy on that part because she has been labeled crazy even though she might just have demons doing this to her. And nobody knows how to actually help her because here in the Western society we have 0 believe in the spiritual.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12&version=KJV

[@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908]

@@futsinen very true

[@paultrosclair1775]

This history of scriptures being passed down of which he speaks, only applies to the received text. It does not apply to the critical text upon which all modern versions are based. Only received text versions like the the King James and a handful of other old versions meet this criteria.

[@innominatusambrosius7103]

the book of Jude points to a lot of "Pseudepigrapha" books, for example The Book of Enoch which was also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls

[@jonathanbouriaque9828]

Jude never states that he's quoting the Book of Enoch, even though the preaching of Enoch is found there. The words preached by Enoch should be considered Scripture based upon Jude's Apostolic authority and its consistency with other Scripture. Just because Scripture is found in the Book of Enoch or that the Book of Enoch was found in the DSS does not make it canon.

[@yancy3987]

He is making his own story even the protestant father mr. Luther admitted without catholic there is No Bible.

[@mrs.redeemed3600]

You are such a delusional my friend

[@YankeeWoodcraft]

01:11 'I believe that the scriptures have an inherent authority.' Chapter & verse that states this please?

[@romanticblossom]

Incredible explanation, thank you

[@rubenmartinez4346]

Compiled by the Catholic Church. I see how careful these Protestants won’t admit that the Catholic Church put the Bible together.

[@joeswartz8286]

I don’t blame them.

[@bukenyagodfrey4556]

@@joeswartz8286 what did they follow before the compilation

[@joeswartz8286]

Hello Bukenya. Please have a nice evening😊. This is far to big a subject to debate in a “Comments” section. So I will leave you with the video. It already answered your question the way I would. But I will just give you a small informative comment and hint: Remember that Jesus read from the scriptures in the Temple and also that the Ethiopian was found by Philip reading Isaiah in his chariot. Very, very small answer to your question albeit not about actual compilation….which I know was done according to Gods leading and inspiration (hopefully!) by Greeks, Hebrews, etc. and further, ref. the Dead Sea Scrolls long before any Church denomination. May the Lord bless you and keep you. 👍

[@lallian6836]

Yes, by the early Catholic church (before A.D. 200) which was faithful to the truth, not by the false Roman Catholic church.

[@jakamsoohia7492]

Well depends what you mean. When the Bible was compiled it was compiled by the apostolic catholic church. Back then it was One church. The Church. Way before the schism and reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the old testament except forcing the apocrypha even when Jerome rejected it

[@teambible7803]

😉😉As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether. Please be mindful of the fact that those seven books had been in Bibles used by all Christians from the very foundation of Christianity. Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church. Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. St. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D.. In 405, his new Latin Vulgate* was published for the first time. *The word "vulgate" means, "The common language of the people, or the vernacular". The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.... ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

[@sbag11]

So, how do you distinguish a writing that is "authoritative" from one that is not?

[@barrygaynor1025]

Didn't great and influential preachers and leaders, like Irenaeus and Hippolytus have an influence upon which books were admitted into the canon?

[@CPATuttle]

Yes.

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

The Catholic Church gave the New Testament to the world officially in 382 AD Council of Rome. God Bless🙏🏻

[@ob2249]

350 years after g0d sacrificed himseIf t0 himseIf f0r a few days bef0re heading h0me unscathed, s0me sacrifice if jesus is in heaven his dying was meaningIess

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

@@ob2249 What do you mean?

[@ob2249]

@@INRIVivatChristusRex if he`s g0d, his sacrifice was n0t a sacrifice if he exists in heaven he`s n0t dead, erg0, his sacrificing his "Iife" is meaningIess if he is an imm0rtaI being what did he sacrifice ? aImighty g0d wh0 gave his 0nIy s0n -f0r a few days if he`s n0t dead he gave up n0thing

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

@@ob2249 The Mystery of the Incarnation

[@ob2249]

@@INRIVivatChristusRex n0ts0 much a mystery, m0re a meaaningIess, infantiIe cIaim

[@dalexxterminator4723]

You should debate and challenge the Catholic Church and prove your point that the Bible is not a Catholic book, because you are just evading the big question that where is the Church responsible for the canon of the Bible, and stop dodging it by referring it to the early christians, surely this "christians"/Church you are refering to are still exist to this very age in this planet.

[@jakamsoohia7492]

its really not a Roman Catholic Book. It was made by The Church, way before the reformation and the schism. It was made primarily for the magistrium. It was made by the Church, not Roman Catholic, but the church.

[@carlknaack1019]

Most early Christians would be labeled as heretical by modern Catholics. So you feel that the Catholic Church has the right to claim the heritage of the Church Fathers where they happen to agree, but when they don’t, then there is no connection? The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Church Fathers.

[@garyh5225]

The early church looked nothing like your catholic church. It was not the catholic church. Just a fact. The imposter church claims it goes back to Peter talking to Jesus but MONUMENTAL leaps are made to justify it. Doesn't make it true.

[@thechristianpodcastingnetw8458]

Revelation was written before the Temple fell See Rev 11

[@srich7503]

If the NT canon was completed “around AD90” the why does history record in the early church father’s writings that they, the fathers, never agreed on the 27 books through the 4th century. Not only do these writing show non agreement of the 27 books but a GROWING number of other books being considered inspired and used in the church liturgy during this time. I think your statement of “Hippo and Carthage “formally recognized” the 27 book NT canon may be slightly missing the mark.

[@JJ-cw3nf]

This guy is side stepping. There was many writings. Look up the Council of Rome 382 that decided the books. Match that with your Bible today. And the proceeding councils of Constantinople of 361. Council of Naccea of 325. Read who the attendees were. And what they debated on making an official cannon.

[@cutlercutler9576]

Agreed.

[@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908]

Many were ommited yes???

[@paulchambers3279]

Which specific books should be included that are not. Also, why?

[@Markwealthful]

He mentioned he ascribes to the Catholic perspective so he's speaking of the outcome of the debates you mentioned. I don't think he's side stepping, he's just saying "this is what we had to consider in making our selection during the debates."

[@Markwealthful]

@@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908 Yes. He mentioned it around 6 - 7 minutes

[@davescave7267]

Holy Spirit gave it to us.

[@JJ-cw3nf]

The Holy Spirit is always with us. That doesn’t tell us anything. Anthanius of Alexandria picked the 27 books we have today in 367. And Pope Damasus affirmed these books in the 382 council of Rome. Look that up. Those 27 books never changed. Match it with any Bible

[@AnHebrewChild]

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. DEU18

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Still he did not answer the question about what kind of authority the early church had to reject some books and preserve others. But if the answer is ‘They had the authority of the apostolic tradition that goes back to Jesus’, then he just proved Catholicism. Especially he proved that the Catholic canon is the correct one, since the Catholic canon was the one the early church agreed on. Why is it then that Protestant use a different canon? Or is the apostolic deposit of faith of early church assumed only when it serves to support Protestant positions and denied when it doesn’t?

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

"Why is it then that Protestant use a different canon? Or is the apostolic deposit of faith of early church assumed only when it serves to support Protestant positions and denied when it doesn’t?" Why do you ask? Do you have a teachable Spirit? Is your desire to be edified? To know God and His Word better so that you can walk obediently with Him? To confess & repent of your falsely speaking for Him and misrepresenting Him? Are YOU WILLING to deny yourself, pickup your cross, follow Him and OBEY Him instead of your own ways? If not, then don't expect me to be casting any pearls your way. Though I will have my sword of the Spirit at the ready. One thing I will point out now is that your questions would be fair and good if it were not for the built-in bias you showed. So, for the benefit and edification of others who haven't answered that question or studied it, let it be noted that your "he just proved Catholicism. Especially he proved that the Catholic canon is the correct one, since the Catholic canon was the one the early church agreed on" is fallacious. The RCC did not even come to be until about 300yrs AFTER the Early Church had been formed and was operating. The RCC has appropriated the Early Church History and the true Church and deceived many by their falsehoods.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

We got the Bible from people who wrote down their thoughts and experiences which were later chosen and organized into a single volume by other people who believed what they wrote.

[@wjm5972]

Tim,the councilors used the Canon in the late 4th century an historical facts t

[@marceloorellana5726]

The Canon of Judaism wasn't closed in 400 BC. It was closed with Rabbinic Judaism that began forming after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the same time Christianity started to form out of Temple Judaism. And the Rabbinic Jews excluded books from the Septaugint. And the first Church Catholic and Orthodox included those books from the Septaugint. Protestants 1500 years later decided to go with the Rabbinic Jewish Bible from after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

[@NevetsWC1134]

The council you are thinking about that was in 90 ad has no historical proof that it ever happened. Jews into the 5th century still didn’t have a canon and are found to still use the Septuagint and quote from the 7 books and use them as scripture.

[@mashruralam5795]

You completely ignored that Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox have addition books in their Bibles. Only reason Protestants have their Bible is because of the God given authority of the Catholic Church finalized a canon in the West.

[@alexsalapan6329]

The "process" he said over 'n over again is refered to EDITING that AUTHORITY DID. Thats why we could NOT say that BIBLE authenticly came from God.

[@ryanmusgrave9307]

Its awesome to see how Jesus did not dismiss the scriptures of the old testament.

[@joeswartz8286]

That is a very good point and observation!

[@TheSonnygandara]

So it was the authority of the Catholic Church that determined the Bible. Now that makes sense

[@karlpoquiz451]

They did not make the Bible, they only help organized the Bible.

[@nicholassantosuosso3476]

how do you know those books are inherently authoratative? who decides that?

[@bridgefin]

If the Catholic Church had not canonized the NT we would not know which books were inspired back in the first century. And without the Church we would not have a New Testament.

[@wjm5972]

The Catholic Church Councils decided That's how

[@bennjanja2382]

it is the earliest church that started on 33AD

[@obadiahkilgore2964]

@@bennjanja2382 hi, Historian here. We rely on archaeological sources and oral histories backed up by dating methods. Can you provide any actual evidence of this founding? Beware that the Baptists make the same claim. Thanks!

[@joecastillo8798]

@@bennjanja2382 Show the evidence. We can! Because we are the one true Church.

[@michaelbanda9993]

@@joecastillo8798orthodox says the same…. Do a dive or church history and you’ll realize ur not the “one true” church.

[@Saleh-Malaeb]

Catholic church is of satan

[@rachelczumaya2806]

All the words that were written by prophets and only some survive... why do we assume that God would not give more scripture to clarify the inconsistencies in the Bible? I believe he wants us to have more than what survived the persecutions. There has to be more than what’s there.

[@funkylilbrain]

Oh my God. That's exactly what I was going to say. Thank you. God saw all of this happening. He wouldn't just leave humanity drowning. Please study Islam. God did send more scripture to clarify what is true and what isn't. The Quran claims to be the direct Word of God. And God sent a Messenger to convey His Message and explain it. May God guide all of us to the straight path and the Truth and make this path easy for us (Amen)

[@rachelczumaya2806]

@@funkylilbrain , also, I have a copy of the Quran in my home and have read from it from time to time. ❤️🙏🏽🌈

[@NevetsWC1134]

Well there is. It’s called traditions. The Jews didn’t have a book to just read them selves. They were passed on oral teachings and traditions.

[@arnoldramos39]

Interesting!!

[@jazerlights8870]

Great presentation!