Is the Bible Gods word? - David Asscherick

From the serie "Eleventh Hour Evidence"
Thanks to 3 ABN 3abn.org/ and David Asscherick www.mission-ext...

[@PowerAestheticsOfficial]

God, please bless and keep this pastor, amen!

[@PowerAestheticsOfficial]

Great sermon! 🙏🙏🙏

[@adriennaude1265]

Good Morning Pastor Asscherick. Thank you very very much for an awsome message. May Our Heavenly Father bless you as He has used you to bless many with excellent sermons and teachings from His Holy Word.

[@itsswevyys5928]

This is home work in my school

[@brendos444]

No worries. Thanks for your comment. I do think that in my heart I am Orthodox, but love so many of my SDA friends and family. I'm not sure whether i can ever make the leap to Constantinople, but I have learnt a lot about spirituality from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I have also promised myself not to engage further in polemics with SDAs. And i apologise if I have previously come across as combative - not to u personally but to others. I need to repent of this. Blessings.

[@johnuk04]

There are many good things written by all these authors and you are right, the SDAs and many protestant lack a basic knowledge about them. But from God's perspective, you can't see this worry ever. My repentance and your repentance are not conditioned by the reading of the Church Fathers but by the reading and understanding of the Bible.

[@johnuk04]

I did participate to many Greek Orthodox services and I know how much from Scripture is quoted/read. At least in the places where I participated, only at the end of the liturgy it was a short sermon, to call it so, when the priest explained one Biblical passage and nobody was ever encouraged to go home and read his/her own Bible.

[@brendos444]

Athanasius' Letter was the first published account of the books we now regard as the NT. Eusebius also had a list where some books were questioned - Revelation was one of these. Revelation was ultimately accepted as apostolic. Other books like the Shepard of Hermas were regarded as orthodox, but not canonical. So yes, if Athanasius could recognise the canonical books, he must know something about the teachings of the apostles, or else how could he tell between them and, say,the gnostic writings

[@brendos444]

Yes, the Eastern Church is by and large the Churches we now refer to as Orthodox. Greeks, Russian, Serbian, Romanian and so on. The Orthodox are often identified with Byzantine empire, with the Patriarch of Constantinople still being the figurehead for the Orthodox - although he does not function like the Bishop of Rome nor does he claim infallibility etc. He functions like the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion

[@brendos444]

(2) i'm not really sure of the date. What's clear is that the Eastern Church, that became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church after the split, never accepted the claims that the Bishop of Rome was making about himself. This was one of the reasons for the split, as well as the fact that the Western Church changed the Nicene Creed. But this ultimately comes down to Papal authority too. the change to the Creed was the flashpoint that sparked the split

[@brendos444]

... Of course times have changed and Bibles are now readily available. The focus of Faith communities before the Reformation, whether Jewish or Christian was the reading and understanding of Scripture together rather than individually. Of course this doesn't preclude us from reading ourselves, but we cannot interpret Scripture privately as Paul tells us. We need to keep this in mind in our personal study.

[@brendos444]

I want to ask SDAs this: If the early church recognised the the authentic books to be included in the NT, why don't u listen to how that same early church interprets scrptures? Men like Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch Athanasius, Iraneus, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem and so on. All were extremely early Christian leaders and theologians. They comment extensively on scripture. Some of them taught directly by the apostle John.

[@brendos444]

... if you consider the lack of Scripture reading in Protestant and SDA church services when compared to Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches, you would see this clearly. Add to the fact that singing of the Psalms, the Lord's Prayer have always been part of the worship of these Churches, you can see how much the old liturgies are soaked with Scripture. SDAs churches typically don't have extended Scripture readings, but the pastor mixes the Word with his own words in the sermon.

[@brendos444]

The Reformers did not hold to the same interpretation of Revelation as do SDAs. It's true that many identified the Pope as the anti-Christ, but they did not hold to other interpretations of the symbols in Revelation that SDAs hold to. And I think many would now say that their identification of the Pope as anti-Christ was simply polemics not based on solid biblical interpretation, but because of their battles against Rome.

[@brendos444]

That's fair enuf. My experience has been that the phrase "Word of God" has been used to mean the Bible, not only by SDAs, but by most Protestant groups. I think all Christians, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant would agree that the Bible is inspired by God. But the Protestants do have difficulty proving Sola Scriptura. Clearly the early Church did not have an agreed upon NT canon for centuries. History shows that doctrine and practise of all orthodox Christian goups centred on...

[@johnuk04]

The Biblical definition for Church, extracted from the etymology of the word ekklesia may be different from what you understand by the term Church. Ekkelsia is the community of those "called out from" Babylon. And I don't say that all SDAs are part of the ekklesia, because many are still comfortable doing many Babylonian things. The day will come when you will see that things you heard in your SDA family will happen. And some are already happening. I appreciate your searching for the truth.

[@brendos444]

the Eucharist (this is true of churches outside Rome's reach, including the Ethiopian Chrch, who still keep the Sabbath to this day, the Malankara Orthodox in India, the Assyrian Church etc). Old Testament and Gospel readings based on a lectionary were central aspects of worship. Singing or chanting of the Psalms also. Epistle readings were incorporated as consensus around the NT canon developed over the years. I dont find any proto-Protestant groups in the first centuries of Christianity.

[@brendos444]

We all have things to do. I understand. best of luck with your paper.

[@brendos444]

I was born and raised SDA. But I'm looking very hard at Eastern Orthodoxy. So I use the Protestant Bible. It's clear, though, that the early church, including the apostles, used the Septuagint, which included the Apocryphal books. So I'm open to regarding these books as canonical. It's also clear that the book of Revelation was highly contested in the early Church. It is not read liturgically in Orthodox services because it has a propensity to be misued and misunderstood

[@johnuk04]

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the first one who listed all the 27 books of the NT, if I remember well. From all my studies I would say that God was involved directly in the formation of the NT canon. The argument you bring about monks is not a solid one because in the same way we can speak about Jews. the fact that through them we have the OT Scriptures is one thing, and their rejection of Jesus made their sin even bigger, being so blessed in the past. (Rev 2:5; Acts 18:6)

[@brendos444]

Thanks for your response. It should be noted that there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church as we now know it until 1054AD when universal church split into East and West. The Western church is the RCC, the Eastern church are the Orthodox (who have never recognised the infallibility of the Pope, and this is 500 years before the Reformation). So the early church fathers predate what you label Papal Roman church...

[@brendos444]

The emphasis in Orthodox services is worship. Since the Reformation, the sermon became a the sole focus of worship services. Listening to a sermon/lecture of considerable length is not necessarily worship. And the point remains as to how we know what the preacher is saying is correct. Better say little than more. I do think that there should be more Bible reading amognst these communions. But remember, these Bible's weren't always available to ppl in times past...

[@johnuk04]

I am not reluctant to read John Chrysostom or Augustine or Thomas d'Aquino and the list can go on. But all these authors and their books have to be tested with the Bible. This is what Jesus taught us. This is what Paul required the Bereans to do, to read the Scriptures for themselves (there is no similar appeal in Orthodox and Catholic Churches) and test his teachings with the Bible.

[@brendos444]

But my point still remains the same. If the Early church recognised the authentic books which now form our NT, then surely they must know how to interpret it correctly. For how else could they know what was truly apostolic? Furthermore, for the first 3 or 4 centuries of Church era, there was no Bible as we know it today. How did the early church function without a Biblical corpus? Add to that the fact that there was no printing press and the vast majority of ppl were illiterate

[@brendos444]

These are pressing questions that don't make sense from an SDA/Protestant perspective. These are just things that I have thought about and don't make sense from what I was taught in my SDA upbringing. Anyways, blessings friend :)

[@brendos444]

The Vulgate is simply a Latin translation of the scriptures. All translations are imperfect because you cant necessarily capture everything the author wanted to say in a translation. Subtleties etc get lost in translation. I actually don't know enuf about the Vulgate to comment further.

[@johnuk04]

Your appeal to the Fathers of the Church is similar with the one made by the Jews, confronting Jesus: their tradition. Always Jesus underlined the Scripture and spoke against the tradition. And surely in the the Jewish tradition there were many good teachings, not only heresies. In Revelation 2 and 3 you have the history of the church. There was never an unconditional support from God for people who didn't stick to an "It is written". And you can see the warning repeated in those chapters.

[@johnuk04]

Hope you don't mind about my intervention. I was born in a Greek Orthodox family. It is in deed different than the Catholic church, but not as different as it should be. And sadly, both these two big branches of the Christian Church (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) are pretty far away from what the Bible teaches. I discovered this only when I started to read the Bible for myself, about 18 years ago... long time :-)

[@brendos444]

I would only say that perhaps you didn't understand your Orthodox faith fully. But both Orthodoxy and Catholicism provide a far richer understanding of Scripture and the Christian faith in general than SDAs. Let me ask you this. How is it that the Bible, specifically the NT, came to be? Who decided upon these books included and those excluded? Where would we be if monks hadn't copied down the scriptures throughout the centuries. I think SDA's version of Church history is deficient

[@brendos444]

(1)No worries. It's an interesting conversation. Yes the Catholics claim that they go back to Christ. As do the Orthodox. I think any church makes the same claim. In truth, history shows that both the East and the West were unified until 1054AD. The question is whether the claims that the Roman Church were making about the Pope are correct. In my view I don't think they are. I think Papal infallibility etc were innovations that crept into Rome around the 7th century or so...

[@brendos444]

There wasn't any New Testament at the time of Jesus. They were written between 30 and 60 years or so after his death. How do SDAs know how the books contained in the NT are canonical?

[@brendos444]

Remember that Israel were the people of God and preserved the OT Scriptures. The Church has come with Christ, and he said the gates of Hades would not prevail against them. Yes Christ warns of those who would fall away from the faith, but no where does he describe a wholesale complete apostasy as many Protestant groups say. Before the printing press the Bible was simply too expensive for everyone to own. Christians literally heard Scripture read each week in Church....

[@brendos444]

Of course God was involved in the formation of the NT Canon. I don't think any Christian would deny that. But he used the Church to do this. If the Church was involved in the formation of the canon, then they must have known the Apostolic teaching and the meaning of Scripture. God did not override the Church, but worked with the Church. Athanasius is one of the heroes of the faith and knew much about the Scriptures. As did John Chrysostom. It's a pity that SDAs implicitly slander such men.

[@shure46]

David Asscherick - you are a brilliant man , your sermons are true and well done .... the ONLY thing that bugs me is when you constantly say "what did I say everyone ??" ..... Maybe I don't speak for everyone , but I find that terribly annoying ..... We all know you are brilliant , but give a little credit to your listeners , we heard you the first time and we are not 3rd graders .... Other than that , I think you are brilliant and glad you're on "our side" , and I look to you as a General ...... I'm sure Napolean was not condescending to his soldiers , and I never see any teaching presented that way in the Bible .... You also seem to define some very common words for us , which is unnecessary .... we know what the word means ..... and if you think "well some people are not that educated and need clarification" , then that "lady" was right .... you speak way too fast for those people to keep up ...... In my opinion , your "speaking fast" is great , it makes people pay close attention because they know , "if I lapse in concentration I'll miss something important" ......

[@alanljungberg3291]

***** Yeah he has a unique way of speaking.

[@rl9018]

David thank you so much God bless my friend I need a Saturday Church help me please im.n Baltimore city and I'm in a wheelchair confusing to me do I go 2 Sunday Service or hold Saturday service myself I'm not qualified to do that

[@julio14335]

Morals and Dogma. The Teachers, of Christianity are in general, the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is as incomprehensible as the Sohar".

[@shure46]

+Julio Kosters - I can assure you , Albert Pike (who wrote "Morals and Dogma") is very much "ignorant" about what the Bible teaches , unless of course you wanna think Lucifer is the "good guy" in it's message .......

[@julio14335]

***** JESUS-"The Father is greater than i"...You Christians say they are equal in Three or (Trinity). JESUS- "No one knows the hour excepts the God (The Father)...You say Jesus also knows the hour. JESUS- "The Lord our God is One"... You say he (Jesus) is God. JESUS- Think not that i came to change the Law of the Prophets but to fulfill it"... You say we no longer live under the Law but grace (outlaw). You are in complete opposition with Jesus or with ur Scripture. Despites all the errors and contradictions in the Bible the clear message of Jesus is still there. One may only ask the question between you Christians and the Bible who or which is more corrupts?

[@alanljungberg3291]

Julio Kosters Jesus has two natures he is unique to all of creation. Jesus is fully God and yet he is also fully man. It's because of this that Jesus can say "The Father is greater than I" and also "I and the Father are one" . The generalizations you make are not true of all christianity. David Asscherick, the speaker in the video does not say "we are not under the law but grace". I know for a fact we were always under grace. Watch the video through to the end. I suspect you didn't actually watch it or else you would not make the generalizations you do. But, please watch it through to the end and see if the perhaps the Bible is not the book it claims to be. If you have questions after watching it come back here and post them.

[@julio14335]

Alan Ljungberg What do you mean by Jesus having two natures? 1. Perfect and Imperfect at the sametime. 2. Al-knowing and Not Al-knowing at the sametime. 3. Fallible and In-Fallible at the sametime. 4. Divine and Non-Divine at the sametine. Is like saying i saw a "Tall Short man"...a non-sense that does not exist. You either saw a Tall man or a short man.

[@julio14335]

PieEater TheUnforgiven Friend, all what you are doing here is preaching. We have heard those stuff over and over. Unfortunately the ideas of the Bible and the ideas of the doctrines contradicts eachother. The Jews claims special responsibility for Killing Jesus in the Bible. What is there to be call Love? "He decides not to know for ur own good". Can you know something and decide not to know? Please!

[@brendos444]

Thecfoc NT phrase "Word of God" does not mean "the Bible". there was no such thing as a Bible when 1 Peter was written. The "Word of God" St Peter is talking about is Jesus himself. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" as St John says. We are not born again through a book, but rather we are born again in Jesus the Messiah. The constant misinterpretation of this phrase by SDAs shows that they really don't know about the book they profess faith in

[@brendos444]

This is a very superficial presentation. He spends about 1 minute talking about the process of canonisation. How is it that the church recognised the books that were authentic vs the books that weren't? He doesn't even mention the disputed books. He doesn't talk about the early church fathers. He doesn't talk about Athanasius and Eusebius' Church History. The fact is we have many sources coming from the 2nd and 3rd century. There was no consensus on the canon until 4th century at least.