Why You Can Rely On the Canon

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

Thank you for this topic and for allowing people to comment as I am learning from both.

[@johnsteila6049]

I have an important question for the doctor. If we trust that the Catholic/Orthodox Church determined which books would be included in The New Testament Canon, why should we reject the authority of that Church to interpret The Holy Scripture?

[@billlee2194]

Very logical question. 😉

[@dman7668]

That's a great point.

[@Davinci76mode]

Wow good point

[@veekee75]

There are no teachings in the Bible saying only a Church can interpret the Bible and a Church is infallible. A church can fail, fall into deception and even turn apostate, that's why Paul during his time needs to visit them, correct them, and write letters to them constantly. A church certainly has an amount of authority, but at the end of the day, God's word remains as the final authority. Anything that contradicts what's written in the Bible should be challenged.

[@johnsteila6049]

@@veekee75 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,” (2 Pet. 1:20,

[@nicholassantosuosso3476]

so what if they are the earliest? how do we know the writings are inspired? who says that they are inspired and how do we know they are right?

[@paulmuragewachira2732]

Very illuminative! Thanks. Good work indeed!

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@Autonomous_Don]

How do we say “Jude” is god breathed but “Enoch 1” isn’t? Can I get an answer?

[@budyharianto8229]

Dr. Kruger which Patriachs quotes parts of (synoptic) gospel then before 150 AD?.. are that sort documents valid and where were kept?

[@laxel01]

This is awesome! But why don't we include 1st clement?

[@topseykretts7608]

I love Dr. Kruger....he is one of the best. He's always very respectful of the Catholic Church and her role in the early formation of the NT and Christian Morality and liturgy. He, of course, being a protestant (leaning more toward sola scriptura), where I lean more toward sola ecclesia differ on many issues, but I love to hear him lecture....a truly great apologetic mind!!

[@quercus4730]

Christian morality! Have you read the bible?

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

the ecclesia is "we the people" or body of Christ in which there is to be no division. The only authority is JESUS CHRIST and His chosen apostles, otherwise, how would anyone be able to obey JESUS' admonition "Let *no* man *deceive* you?"

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

God doesn’t esteem “modern” or “Christendom” There is but one faith, once delivered to the saints -Jerusalem 33AD and all else is counterfeit and controlled opposition. Ask for the old paths, accept no less than the original and only which includes the original blueprint for local assembly with built in accountability for ALL and where Jesus alone is exalted and functioning as head.

[@johnsteila6049]

@@ONEFAITHofJESUS Obviously Christ appointed Peter as the head of The Church, according to The Bible.

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

No sir, there is nothing in scripture to make one think that JESUS would place Peter above himself. That is man’s doing. What scripture does support is that the revelation and confession of Peter in identifying the messiah(Matthew 16:16) is the Rock 🪨 JESUS vowed to build and is building His ecclesia upon. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Prayerfully consider the context, Matthew 16:6-20 and beware the leaven ⚠️

[@josephsaulski]

Okay, as let me get this right .....(6:10) so as long as the author says that he got his information from a reliable source (an apostle), we will believe it, and if doesn't make that claim, we don't believe it. Hmmmm ..... something is missing. Is this anything like Mohamad saying that he got the Koran directly from God?

[@Tysto]

Anyone wishing to truly understand the bible should watch pretty much any video where Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the New Testament. Your eyes will truly be opened.

[@osmanniazi7888]

I am still waiting for someone to refute Tovia argument by argument.

[@crucifiedwithchrist9367]

Excellent video.

[@darapdiengdoh2179]

Why Hebrew Bible and Greek New testament was put together??

[@lyriclotto]

The late Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul said 'We have a fallible list of infallible books' in the Bible. Since R.C. explicitly states that all the books on the list are infallible but that the list itself is fallible, that implies the only option is that there are some books missing from the list. Otherwise, he would not say the list was fallible. Ironically, there are 7 books missing from the Protestant list.

[@johnsteila6049]

Yep, most Protestants consider the KJV as an ultimate version but it’s incomplete and contains errors in translation from Luther.

[@billlee2194]

John, I have actually heard respected Catholic sources speak well of the KJV as will as other versions. They state that most translators have tried to do an honest translation using different ancient texts. David Anders says he lines them up together when doing exegesis.

[@johnsteila6049]

@@billlee2194 I’m sure many people say many things. The KJV is missing several books that were considered inspired by the vast majority of Christians throughout the history of Christianity. Do you suggest that for the greater part of the existence of The Church, that God allowed His people to be deceived??

[@hoc1992]

Thank you

[@jonathansmiddy7224]

"The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church."

[@michaelaratnam6517]

They were a part of every bible before the 17th century...!!!

[@Davinci76mode]

This was really about him selling his book?

[@hockeynz6465]

Marin Luther took out the apocrypha,sections of Esther and Daniel and wanted to remove James Jude Hebrews and Revelation. So how does that work? Until then they were in the bible for 1200 years.

[@reymartampus4411]

The problem is that you assume that we hold Luther with infallible authority as you would with the Pope or the Church of Rome. It's not. Reformers handle Luther the same way other Reformers and Early Church Fathers are handled--scrutinized by the Word of God and historical context

[@seanrathmakedisciples1508]

@@reymartampus4411 Yes Martin Luther wanted to take out the letters of James and Jude also. But Martin wasn’t perfect as the Lord Jesus alone is the perfect one . The extra books in the Catholic bibles are sacred writings but not scriptures as they declare that there was no prophets then. The extra books are beneficial to anyone studying End Times.

[@chemnitzfan654]

He didn't remove any books. He translated all of them, even the apocrypha. Why do papists lie constantly?

[@dman7668]

​@@reymartampus4411the very fact that you admit Luther was not infallible means he potentially was fallible when he decided to start his own faith alone theology.

[@jenex5608]

That's wrong historically nice try

[@dirk3288]

where in chapter 2 of Hebrews does the author say that he got this from the apostles? what is the exact reference? around the 5:50 mark

[@jonathansuggs9235]

dirk “It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭

[@heatherjones6006]

I would like to know why Thomas's books are not included now that there is historical evidence that he was in Inda and that there was such a king? Also, who decides what books go into the bible? I have many questions and reading things like Silence has only made me have even more questions due to the rules the Bishops gave and what was actually done in Japan.

[@dougroane2134]

The gospel of Thomas was a gnostic , heretical writing that was written centuries after Christ. Clearly not a work of the the Apostle

[@billlee2194]

The Gospel of Thomas was a spurious book from, I believe, the 2nd C. I think some heretics might have used it. If any early Catholic bishops used it in liturgy, it was was still not considered inspired for the canon. The 4th C. Catholic bishops were the ones who decided, under Pope Damasus, the Canon beginning at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. Athanasus (sp?) documented the earliest know list in circa 278 AD (?). God bless

[@charliesalmans7587]

Very helpful, but could you do (or point me to) a video that places its focus on the trustworthiness of the old testament?

[@loooooojason]

That's a good argument and I believe, good enough for believers, but that alone does not provide a good enough answer to many sceptics. A great number of seminaries these days teach that the Old Testament was pulled from pagan sources in the ANE and redacted over time. I have no problem with redaction but I really think the pagan-source theory is greatly harmful to Christians. While it is at best a wild conjecture, it is so sad that such is taught as authoritative at seminaries. I agree with Charlie Salmans on this--we would like to hear a little more detailed scholarly work on this.

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

The Jews made sure the Old Testament was methodically preserved, no worries.

[@krstanley5145]

Cold case christianity

[@billlee2194]

I had forgotten about that book! Thanks for reminding me. I think it was by a cold case forensic detective who used his skill to discover how we got the Canon and why it can be trusted.

[@billlee2194]

I wouldn't be so quick to give the Jews credit. They had no one official canon during the 1st century and they rejected any OT that validated Christianity. Their sources are not trustworthy for Christian purposes.

[@stevesawicki2062]

Maccabees 1 & 2, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach aka Ben Sirah has been used by Christians for the first 1500 years after Christ. What makes you more right than tradition?

[@douglasmcnay644]

The Jews didn't recognize them as inspired works. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the other writers of the New Testament.

[@stevesawicki2062]

@@douglasmcnay644 see which books were found in the dead sea scrolls discoveries, (how many copies of Tobit; such a beautiful book IMO)

[@davidaimer314]

7:00 The Bible authenticates itself : LOL There is no OBJECTIVE criteria that works on itself to rebuild the canon. And since Qumran, no criteria to delete the deuterocanical books from the bible. God let us a church. And the Church is the foundation of truth Peace

[@ladshawn4534]

@ David Aimer: The Holy Bible does Authenticate itself, you should know that, LoL. God doesn't need anyone to defend his words, God defends himself because he is Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is Capable to Protect his Words and Defend it. Matthew 24:35. So no you're wrong to say that the body of the church is the foundation of truth, there is no truth in the church but only in the Word Of God. The Word Of GOD is JESUS CHRIST and JESUS CHRIST IS THE TRUE FOUNDATION OF TRUTH! Amen🙏😃

[@davidaimer314]

​@@ladshawn4534 Dear friend and brother in Christ, the fact is that the Bible does NOT agree with what you say : - Christ is Truth (the fullness of Truth, the one to whom we are guided to by the Spirit (Jn 14,6 - Jn 16,13) - There is a truth (part of The Truth) that christians can have access to if they wants (James 5,19) - And this truth is what the Church teaches, because she is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3,15) - The Bible is sacred Scripture. And Scripture can be a way of damnation if interpreted the wrong way (2Peter 3,16) - The sacred Scripture when proclaimed and interpreted in the right way by the Church becomes Word of God A coherent understanding of chritianity can occur only if you take into account ALL bible verses, including those ones... Peace

[@ladshawn4534]

@@davidaimer314 My Dear Brother in Christ, If you know The Word Of God then you should know that what you're saying is not what God is saying. Christ is the Truth and will Always be the Truth, John 14:6 and John 16:13, This is saying that The Truth Is Jesus Christ and Only Jesus Christ becuase he is The Savior Of All People. Therefore the Holy Spirit will Guide us to the Truth which Jesus Christ. James 5:19, It's saying that if a lost soul wanders from Truth, it's our responsibility as Christians to win him back but we can only do so with the help of Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16, this is saying that from the begging Jesus Christ has chosen us to help bring back lost souls and we can do so if we ask him to bear fruits so our fruits may abide by asking the Holy Father in Jesus Christ name. Yes the Church does teaches the Truth and only the Truth but the Church is not the Truth, It's LORD JESUS CHRIST who is The Truth. Timothy 3:15, you have to be careful now on how you're studying this. The Apostle Paul is saying that the people in the Churh must know how to conduct themselves, The Church Is A Family a and they are a Pillar(A Body). A Pillar is what hold a building together, therefore a pillar supports the head of the building, the head of the of building is the Foundation of Truth, JESUS CHRIST Colossians 1:17-18. The Apostle Paul is saying that as the pillar we are connected to the head, when the Apostle Paul said the foundation of Truth he's not talking about the Church, He's talking about the pillar that is connected to the Foundation of Truth, Lord Jesus Christ. Please study the Scriptures carefully. The Scriptures are Sacred and can be a damnation if interpreted the wrong way. Exactly my point, that's why you need the Holy Spirit to help you study it more carefully. Yes the Church must proclaimed and interpret it the right way to understand the Word of God but the Word of GOD will always be the Word Of GOD, Matthew 24:35. Even if the Church fails and becomes wicked, GOD'S Word will never be destroyed. A coherent understanding of the Holy Bible and All of its Holy Scriptures can be taken into account if you allow the Holy Spirit to take Guide you on you're studies and that can only be done so If you ask GOD by Accepting His Son and Repent Of Your Sins with a Humble Heart. Please Study These Sacred Scriptures With The Lord Jesus Christ By Your Side. John 2:23 Matthew 12:32. John 16:13 John 14:26 1 Corinthians 6:19 Titus 3:5 1 John 3:4 Psalm 139:7-10

[@davidaimer314]

@@ladshawn4534 Dear Lad, we agree that Jesus is Truth. And we agree also that at the time James writes his letter, the promise Jesus made to his disciples, that the Spirit will guide them to the Truth, is not yet accomplished. Then when James says truth, it's truth, not Truth. In a practical manner, it's the truth christians at this time can have access to. The Church Jesus founded is the pillar of truth, and the gates of hell will never destroy her. What do you have against the Church and the authority Jesus gave to her? Peace

[@ladshawn4534]

@@davidaimer314 Dear Brother Please think on what you're saying. The Holy Spirit has not accomplished his mission, The mission that Christ the Holy Son gave him, The 2nd Attribute of the GodHead Commanded the 3rd Attribute of the Godhead. No Dear Brother, The Holy Spirit has already accomplished his mission, by guiding the ones that are willing to give their life to him. What I mean by this is that The Holy Spirit is GOD, The Holy Father, The Holy Son, And The Holy Spirit, This is the GODHEAD. I don't have anything against the Church, I Love The Church and I Love All Of My Brothers' and Sisters' but if they are not speaking from scripture I'll have to call it out. The Church Is not the Truth, The Church is the Pillar for the Truth, The Truth is Lord Jesus Christ (GOD). Amen 🙏 Acts 1:8 You also need to study The Book Of James More and please study the scripture I gave you. I'll be praying for you brother or sister. Amen 🙏

[@weovercomethedevil652]

your link in the description box does not work.

[@ewankerr3011]

You can rely on the canon because it contains things most Christians would rather it did not say.

[@johnsteila6049]

That is not a legitimate argument.

[@ewankerr3011]

@@johnsteila6049 :The criterion of embarrassment is a valid historical tool. The NT contains many examples.

[@defeatingdefeaters]

A book being early or even apostolic isn't sufficient to show a book should be included in the Bible. It certainly doesn't show the writings are inspired or have a divine status, but that's what everyone is wanting to establish.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

Well, then let's take a little closer look... Old Testament: The first 5 books of the Tanakh were written by Moses and Joshua, and there are numerous references to their authority (Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4). From the time of the Exodus to the end of the Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, records were kept of Israel’s history, and these historical books such as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah were all pulled together into one collection by the scribes Ezra and Nehemiah in the 400’s BC (Ezra 7-10, Nehemiah 8, Luke 1:70, Romans 1:2, Acts 3:21). As for the books of prophecy and other writings, both poetic and moral, there is little attestation as to when they were finally organized into a single unit, but the Tanakh as we know it today was closed around the year 200 B.C., and as an attestation to their authority, all of the Old Testament books are quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament except for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. New Testament: By the time John completed the book of the Revelation in 94-96AD, the New Testament was complete and had already been widely circulated as scripture. The New Testament was not compiled by any church council or by any decree of a ruler, rather, the apostles themselves dictated what the Scripture was (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:3-5, 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 2:42, John 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:13, Revelation 21:14, 2 Peter 3:1-2).

[@BornAgainRN]

Defeating Defeaters... Not only was Hebrews written in the first century, like the 4 gospels, there was specific godly criteria that the book of Hebrews had that qualified it as Inspired Scripture: 1) It did not have any theological or historical errors or contradictions with prior or later Inspired Scripture (1 Clement contains historical errors, which disqualifies it as Inspired Scripture) 2) It was used extensively in the liturgy in the early church 3) Although anonymous, early church fathers in the first couple of centuries attributed authorship to either Paul, or a contemporary of Paul like Luke or Barnabas. So, it had first century authorship by an apostle or a close contemporary of one. 4) It was written during a brief period of history during the "foundation of the apostles & (NT) prophets" (Ephesians 2:20), when massive miracles were performed by them to validate that what they wrote came from God & not from man. 5) When the canon was being discussed in the early church - particularly in the fourth & fifth century church councils - the author of Hebrews was nearly unanimously understood to have been written by Paul. Whether he wrote it or not, again, it was no doubt written by either an apostle who performed miracles, or a contemporary of one whose writing was validated by a miracle-performing apostle (like Paul validating Luke's writings & Peter validating Mark's).

[@surfk9836]

"Self authoritative" is a fancy way of saying circular logic. My book says it's true so I know true. How do I know it's true? Because my book says so. This is the textbook definition of a logical fallacy.

[@BornAgainRN]

@@surfk9836 based on your response, you don't quite understand what "self-authoritative" means. It doesn't mean "my book says it's true so I know it's true." THAT is circular reasoning. Self-authoritative means when you examine the internal context of a piece of literature, it objectively reveals ITSELF to be self-authoritative, independent of the reader, such as the objective criteria I listed above. Anyone can "claim" something they write is self-authoritative. It's another thing to be able to prove it with the objective criteria the Biblical canon possesses.

[@shirohilight1502]

@@lawrencestanley8989 your talking rubbish

[@steverose234]

The Book of Enoch was part of the Old Testament for Hundreds of years. It was Also part of the Dead Sea Scolls. It was Wrongly Removed....IT IS Part of Scriptures

[@yakovmatityahu]

I want you guys to please try how Mahabharata was cannonized, or ramayana, or Vedas or quran, please try to explain their cannons too...and compare that with Biblical cannon and see the difference...please do it.

[@johnsteila6049]

*Canon

[@tacticalfilmfightingacadem9200]

So the book Peter was not written in the 1st century therefore wasn't written by an eye witness? Peter said in 1Peter 5:1 as a witness to the sufferings of Christ. Really?

[@malvokaquila6768]

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Thus sayeth the lord

[@malvokaquila6768]

@Mavors Uhh... 🤔 While I thank you for trying to give me credit for this saying, it's almost 2000 years old now.🤔 Roughly around 40-70ad as a quick google search would show.

[@malvokaquila6768]

@Mavors uhmm... you do know that he was "identified" in the source documents right? 🤔

[@malvokaquila6768]

@Mavors Uhh.. you do know that it's recorded in multiple text's right? So which of the clearly not anonymous text's are you referring too?

[@malvokaquila6768]

@Mavors Is the Gospel of Mathew anonymous? 🤣🤣 How about Luke?

[@malvokaquila6768]

@Mavors I'm glad you went this road as the quotation from Jesus was in multiple texts. The question left is So what? lets assume for a second your right what's your point?

[@billmartin3561]

The Didache was a first century document. It didn’t make the canon because church fathers didn’t know the author.

[@dougroane2134]

actually, it didn't make canon because it was not theopneustos (which doesn't mean it didn't contain theological truth). that's the whole point - that the canon is not determined by man, including the early church fathers

[@billlee2194]

Some like to state things as though God gave man no role whatsoever in the salvation story. I think that is because they have been taught that it would take glory away from God. The irony is that God did give man a role to play through his own freewill. Seeing it that way we can still say that God is the principal author of Scripture and the Canon list while man is the material cause. If God had not seen the worth and cooperative role of man, He would not have bothered to become one of us. That in no way takes glory from God. Augustine of Hippo said it best in the 4th C. 'Lord, when You crown our merits, You crown Your own gfts'. God bless

[@rockzalt]

It would be interesting to know more about who wrote Hebrews.

[@langw2461]

i think paul

[@rockzalt]

@@langw2461 I'd like to know more about the discussion. Why some people think it could be someone else.

[@langw2461]

@@rockzalt yeah I’m not sure, but the person is addressing a issue towards the Christian Jews that they go back to sacrificing animals rather then trusting in Christ which is something that Paul dealt with a lot I think. So that’s one reason I believe it could be paul

[@suripsuparjo907]

What the original scripture, Who preserved the Bible, who authorized?

[@johnsteila6049]

The Catholic Church.

[@billlee2194]

The Catholic Church. Google and learn. God bless.

[@abc-eb7rq]

Our Protestant brothers say no one is infallible, then contradict themselves and claim their humanly devised criteria can infallibly determine what books are God-breathed Canon. But this cannot be true because fallible human opinion has no way of ever infallibly knowing what books are God-breathed. Happily, we can know what books are God-breathed Canon because God gave infallibility in this matter to "The One True Church," the Roman Catholic Church. This must be true or we can never know the authentic Bible.

[@TMcConnaughhay]

The one true church? Don't make me laugh! There is so much corruption in the Roman Catholic Church....world wide corruption and blasphemy!

[@MarquesGoetsch]

@@brianbachinger6357 There is good scholarship demonstrating that the Didache was written in the 40s and I Clement in the late 60s. According to you, the earlier, the more authoritative. Why should they be excluded from the canon?

[@johnsteila6049]

@@TMcConnaughhay The Church may indeed be corrupt, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the institution founded by The Apostles at the direction of Jesus.

[@billlee2194]

I agree wholeheartedly with one correction. It's the One true Catholic Church. Remember Roman is one Catholic Rite on a list of 6 Catholic Rites. Just so our Protestant brethren know the difference. God bless

[@TMcConnaughhay]

@@johnsteila6049 Um, that would be the Christian church, NOT the Catholic Church.

[@sonaldhanorker4490]

Protests Bible came in 15th century . Why God waited for 1500years to provide right Bible to people ? What will happen to all those people who died before getting protestants Bible will they go to hell ?

[@perfectsnaitang]

Have you even touched a Protestant's Bible?

[@sonaldhanorker4490]

@@perfectsnaitang I m a protestant by birth.

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

the apostles writings were already in circulation before any council of men was formed. The early church is the only church. No need to protest, just follow JESUS and His ordained apostles' doctrine. One LORD, ONE Faith, Peace

[@billlee2194]

If Jesus left us no visible authoritative church as He and the Catholic church both claim, by what authority do we presume to claim the authenticity of the canon especially since the Bible itself proclaims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the Bible itself. How do we know, for example, the book of Jude belongs in the canon? Jude does not say it does. Neither does any other book say Jude should be included. Sola Scriptura requires that it must be stated in the Bible to be true. Why would we even trust that the Catholic church got the canon list correct since we don't trust it in any other area? R.C. Sproul said we have a fallible list of infallible books. If you think about it, R.C. is saying there are some books missing since all the ones contained in list are infallible. It seems to me that Protestants are guilty of the same thing they accuse Catholics of. Namely using men's traditions to arrive at the truth. Tradition is exactly how the Catholic church gave us the canon. They chose what books were being used mostly in the Mass liturgy for the majority of churches. The question of the canon cannot be separated from the question of authority. Either Jesus built a visible Church on Peter that was handed on to the successors of the Apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against or we are forced to label Jesus a liar. The truth is contain in early church history if we are willing to drop our biases and finally see it. May God enrich us all to seek the truth even if it's inconvenient. God bless all

[@Mic1904]

"Sola Scriptura requires that it must be stated in the Bible to be true." No, Bill, it doesn't. Go and do the most basic, entry-level research on the matter before undermining your entire point with such an inaccuracy.

[@billlee2194]

My basic level research tells me that Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle John and was ordained bishop of Antioch after Peter. Ignatius went on to call the Church the Catholic Church in 107 AD. In another of his epistles, in the same year, he stated adamantly that the Eucharist is the same body of the same Christ Who died for our sins. Since Sola Scriptura does not required me to abide by SS, are you saying we are allowed to take Ignatius' words from non-canon tradition to be true?

[@investfluent4143]

I'm a believer, but this is not overly convincing. Hebrews is written by someone who knows the apostles because it says so. The New Testament is trustworthy because of its early date? Are those good answers?

[@bilal-zr6uy]

We have no idea who wrote these. We have no idea when, we have no idea why. This is a scripture from man not god.

[@Ignatius81]

1Timothy 3:15

[@nonoylopez5197]

but the fact is you prots sprung in d middle ages and hv nothing to do whatsoever on d determination of which is which during d 4th cent when people are contending as to which is which right kruger?

[@nonoylopez5197]

with 300+ years and with the primitive technology they have it wouldnt b easy to identify which books were from 1st cent right kruger?

[@nonoylopez5197]

self authenticating? thats d level of amish comprehension typical of prots

[@osmanniazi7888]

Cant you just ask the holy spirit to come inspire and reveal the single gospel of Jesus again? If they holy spirit is here, why cant it inspire Mark Mellinger

[@jonathantshibula9627]

Confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart the God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved..you will receive the Holy Spirit Repent of your sins. ("Repent" is Latin. It means "To Turn Away." Turn away from your sins, refuse to go back to who you once were.) Be baptized. (Be completely submerged under water) And the Holy Spirit will gift you. Hell is real and is forever. God loves you. Amen

[@billlee2194]

You listed some great points. I would humbly add confess your sins, work out your salvation, obey the commandments and the Lord's teachings as well as the Apostles, practice faith working through love, do the good works that God prepared beforehand as stated in Ephesians 2:10, endure till the end abiding in Christ. Remember, the Bible is not an either/or book. It's a both/and book. We need more than mental faith to be saved. Salvation is not a one-time decision. It is a process. God bless

[@billlee2194]

I humbly take issue with full immersion. The Bible is silent. The church writings beginning with the Didache, instruct baptism by immersion, pouring or sprinkling. The only other instruction is that it be Trinitarian.

[@billlee2194]

I humbly take issue with full immersion. The Bible is silent. The church writings beginning with the Didache, instruct baptism by immersion, pouring or sprinkling. The only other instruction is that it be Trinitarian.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Interesting that one (protestants) relies on the authority of 16th c Catholic men to have decided their Old Testament Canon, 39 writings, as the _Pharisees_ held, yet one relies on the authority of the late 4th c Catholic Church to have decided the New Testament canon, 27 writings exactly, out of 300+ early Christian writings. The latter authority said the Old Testament was 46 writings, not 39. How very inconsistent is it to believe that somehow, the 4th c Catholic Church got the New Testament RIGHT, and the Old Testament WRONG! Just HOW does the Holy Spirit work, and can one trust the repeated PROMISES of Jesus Christ or was he undependable (and a liar) ?? Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18) Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10) *Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth. (Jn 16: 13)* Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20) Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18)

[@frederickanderson1860]

Nobody knows the true canon. The main problem is. Gospel of john so different from the synoptic gospels. The opening verse regarding the word was with God and was made flesh. John in his epistle warns about the many anti christs who deny the word made flesh.

[@GregSanders-m8w]

Bottom line: is the list of books closed? Who closed it? How was it closed? Yes, the Orthodox bishops, in councils. All of these arguments this Calvinist is making fail. Gnostic texts all claim to be from the apostles. That’s irrelevant. What matters is that God manifested the canon through the bishopric, in councils - just as He condemned judaizing in the exact same manner in acts 15.

[@goblinsdammit]

"What are the best Biblical answer" for why these books are in the canon? LOL. There's absolutely no way to give a Biblical answer to that. The canon was decided years after all the books were written.

[@billlee2194]

It's actually fairly well recorded in history from the earliest 2nd C. spurious Muritorian (sp?) Canon on to Athanasus' list in late 270s AD on to the Council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus.

[@goblinsdammit]

@@billlee2194 That's fine, but that's not a "Biblical answer".

[@billlee2194]

Yummy Cheeseburgers! I like that name 😁. I'm not clear about what you mean 'that's not a Biblical answer'. Could you explain? Thanks.

[@goblinsdammit]

@@billlee2194 A Biblical answer would be an answer that uses the Bible as its source. The example you game is extra-Biblical historic information.

[@mikepruett1745]

luke 24 :44 jesus says it for us

[@quercus4730]

He doesn't have much work to be done if he is only interested in explaining to believers. It seems he isn't concerned with educating non-believers about the correct revision of the documents he so wants everyone to believe in. I"m going to try to convince atheists not to believe in supreme beings?

[@joe-say-did-it6201]

It’s not about convincing its about converting and only God can do that.

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

@@joe-say-did-it6201 Amen, Agrippa said to Paul, *Almost* thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

[@perfectmugwagwa9371]

He cannot give a Scriptural backing of the 66 canon. He can only go back to history, falsified history. He does not even address the issue disputed NT books.

[@JustinWest]

1:54 if the Book of Genesis is inspired, then being written by somebody who was near the event (in space or time) shouldn't matter. Unlike the Quran or the Book of Mormon or even CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, which were all canonically sufficient because they're single offer is the full explanation for their text, such a single author doesn't exist for the New Testament or the Old Testament, of course God is the inspirer but these were written by different men at different times. The Bible never tells you what books belong in the Bible and so from the beginning you are having to rely on an extra biblical source in order to judge the Canon of the scripture. And either that extra biblical source is known to be infallible, or else it must be presumed to be fallible. Ultimately it is the tradition of a bunch of men who called themselves Catholic and believed and Apostolic succession and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and that justification and regeneration were one and the same. Did these Catholic Bishops have authority to settle the cannon? Did they have the authority to assert that Jude or Hebrews or even mark are definitively inspired when those texts do not make the claim themselves? If they did then you should be Catholic. If they didn't then at best the Bible is good spiritual reading.

[@Antony-18]

Justin West The key evidence is actions and events that are presented as they occurred in a linear order. Archaeological we have that physical evidence and proof in chronological order. The base of the foundation of the Bible is 3,400 yers old , God chose many different men , and chose them in a chronological order for each event that had occurred in each time period , just think of a movie when it’s maid , first it goes into preparation , then they set a base which they will put everything in a chronological order , and then present the movie, the only difference here is that the Bible is not a movie, but historical events , not only in literature but in physical material as well , so , yes the Bible is trustworthy , it’s been put together in a chronological order, it’s irrefutable,

[@JustinWest]

@@Antony-18 who authored the book of Hebrews and how do you know that it is inspired?

[@Antony-18]

Justin West From the writing’s of the letter to the Hebrews, it shows a time frame of 66 to 70 A.D. that the letter of Hebrews took place in Italy at the time of Jewish Christians persecution , which Timothy was Paul missionary , what would you say?

[@JustinWest]

@@Antony-18 I don't think that this is an unreasonable or uneducated guess, based on what I know - but that means you have a guess as to it's authorship. You don't have definitive knowledge of who wrote it, and you don't have definitive knowledge that it is inspired and canonical viewing it as a text qua text - i.e. viewing it as a text in itself. It's a long set of extra-biblical jumps to get from there to "this is an infallible book that belongs in scripture." And so then the question become whether or not those extra-biblical steps are themselves fallible or if they are in fact protected from being in error, and how we can know that.

[@Antony-18]

Justin West Considering it’s narrative, one could related to either Paul or Luke , I mean, the context does fit with either one. Paul was already in imprisonment in Rome at the time and Luke in Jerusalem and Timothy was a missionary of the Apostle Paul , and Paul was receiving messages in prison, I mean it is possible it could have been from Luke to give to Paul , and gave it to Timothy to give it to the Jews that were living in Rome in the time of Christian persecution . But either way , if it’s part of the Gospel, there most be a reason why it’s part of the canonical books.

[@bungeebones]

Why is there not one single instruction or prophesy for either the Jews or the Christians to create a list of "authorative" books? Also, Luke was not an eyewitness and merely interviewed witnesses which makes his entire account "here say" (to borrow a term from the legal system). The councils that determined the books of the Old Testament was the Council of Jamnia in 78 AD by the pharisees after they fled the destruction of Jerusalem. That begs the uestion of how a group that couldn't recognize God when he taught them directly could correctly discern which books were inspired? The fact that an Old Testament Canon didn't exist while Christ walked the Earth and He didn't even mention the need says alot about the whole idea of a Canon is just man's idea and was political. There was nothing inspired in the idea nor is the litmus tests the councils used for the process. They were all operating carnally and not under direction of the Holy Spirit.

[@worldneedsgod5645]

I ask this just to know, not saying I disagree, but how can we know most accurately that the Holy Spirit is talking to us?

[@bungeebones]

@@worldneedsgod5645 It depends on the type of Holy Spirit you believe in (or the one you were given). If the one you have speaks like it has a mouth full of marbles or spews lies then it isn't the Holy Spirit and you are hearing demons impersonating the Holy Spirit (or your own voice). On the other hand, since the Holy Spirit is the Creator of the universe and every living thing in it, do you think it's possible that that being isn't wise enough/powerful enough to make sure it's voice is heard? LOL

[@billlee2194]

You hit the nail on the head ie. Why would any Christian accept any canon from a group of Jewish leaders who failed to recognize the messiah. As far as the OT canon, the Church simp!y chose the one the Apostles used which was the Septuagint.

[@bungeebones]

@@billlee2194 You made me realize something ... supposedly, the Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek BUT there wasn't any such thing as a Hebrew "bible" as they were still individual books (more likely scrolls). They couldn't possibly copy all the scrolls of the supposed cannon onto one, huge scroll so what, exactly, did the Septuagint translate? Definitely not one, unified Hebrew book but numerous individual scrolls. And supposedly the Septuagint was translated 3rd century BCE. That was well before the codex method (using pages instead of scrolls) was in use. I would think that if the Septuagint was one unified "bible" then we would have heard some boasting that it was also the first codex!

[@topseykretts7608]

The Didache (the first Catholic Catechism) likely written around 55 AD. Something to think about.

[@BornAgainRN]

Topsey Kretts...actually, the earliest realistic date for the Didache is after A.D. 70, because it is highly dependent on Paul's writings including his later pastoral epistles which date to the late 60's, & the latest date of 120. The 55 A.D. date is a belief by Catholics, who do not take this into consideration. But unlike the gospels & the NT epistles, the Didache contains errors & contradictions with other NT Scriptures, like commanding both the baptismal candidate & the baptizer to fast for 3 days before the event, even though we have numerous examples in the book of Acts where brand new converts were baptized that very hour without fasting, along with the baptizer who also did not fast. It commands to be baptized THREE TIMES into each name of the Trinity, while Jesus commanded only to be baptized ONCE into the NAME (singular) of the Triune Godhead. It also commands not to fast on the same days as the "hypocrites" (non-converted Jews), even though John the Baptist & his disciples did, & Jesus did not rebuke them. These, and other examples, support not only a later date for the Didache since it conflicts with the NT writings (which if it were early, would not be so blatantly contradictory with them), but also that it is not Inspired despite an early - and uncertain - wide-range date anywhere between 70-120 A.D.

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

@BornAgainRN Very well said, especially mentioning the NAME(singular) as there is no o there name given among men whereby we must be saved. However, the word you used to describe the Godhead nor the dogma are found in scripture. Do you believe in baptism in the Name of JESUS CHRIST *for* the remission of sins?

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

David Ortiz The *NAME* of JESUS is the only *Name* given unto men under heaven whereby we must be saved. The apostles baptized in the *Name* of JESUS CHRIST *for* the remission of sins. The early church(only church JESUS is building) continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.

[@tresasanders8005]

It must depend on what scholar is speaking, Because some say Paul wrote Hebrew, And notice they never said what translation they were referring to, King James; Geneva; NIV.? I really did not find this useful; they added nothing to me.

[@billlee2194]

Most scholars don't think Paul wrote Hebrews. The style is not Pauline.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Dr Kruger has come up with a new way, not found in history itself, of determining what is and is not scripture. His doing so is based on his pre-existing theology. He’s going back in time and looking at history through the lens of his faith. He states: “The earlier the better” “If it’s apostolic then we can have good confidence that it belongs in the canon” “The 4 gospels we have are from the 1st century, written by an eye witness.” These criteria for being scripture, are not found in scripture anywhere. He gets these through the living Tradition of the Church. He states that we can know Hebrews is inspired because the author in chapter two says that he got his source directly from the apostles. Yet, just becomes someone claims such in an early writing doesn’t make it scripture. One really doesn’t know if the source was the apostles, and even it were, that it would be the inspired written Word of God. He states: the books themselves tell us it’s from God. This of course is most interesting. Not found in the first 400 years of Christianity, not found in the first 1000 years of Christianity. Not found in the first 1500 years of Christianity. One wonders what this criteria or feeling is ? One wonders if Dr. Kruger has applied it to each and every of one of the 300+ early Christian writings? And can others consistently discern what Dr Kruger asserts? Answer is no. He states: The key is not does the Church play a role, does it play a foundational role Well this is exactly what Dr. Kruger is trying to avoid. Dr Kruger only knows what is and is not scripture because of the repeated decisions of late 4th century Catholic Bishops. Up until this time, there was no early Church consensus as to what was, and was not, scripture. They did so in council, as their predecessors did some 70 years earlier in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea. The only way that “mere men” can make repeated decisions without error is if they were led by the Holy Spirit. And this in fact is exactly what Jesus Christ promised: sending the paraclete to lead his Church to ALL truth, that the Gates of Hell would not prevail, and that he’d be with His Church until the end of time. Christ’s promise protects the Church from teaching what is false as true. God also says that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, and its where the manifold wisdom of God rests. So when Catholic Bishops declared these repeated truths, one must trust God at his Word, otherwise one must believe Jesus lied. Interesting this: Those same 4th century Catholics Bishops who declared 27 books in the NT, also declared 46 books in the OT. And they brought this bible into Church, where they presided at Mass, all believing that the bread and wine became the resurrected body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Dr Kruger battles actual history, and the repeated promises of Jesus Christ.

[@wjm5972]

Amen Brother. The Church doesn't teach it because it's in the Bible, It's in the Bible because that is what the Church Teaches

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

JESUS CHRIST and His chosen, ordained apostles are the highest authority. JESUS is the head of the church/the *one* body. JESUS said "Let *no* man *deceive* you."

[@billlee2194]

That's actually a great way to state it especially since Jesus left us His teaching church (go into all nations teaching them...) but left them no instructions to write anything down. The church was some 17 years old before the first occasional epistle was written, perhaps James followed by Thess with the synoptic gospels following in the 60s and John's gospel in the 90s.

[@billlee2194]

The NT tells us Jesus left men in charge of His Church on earth. Common sense tells us the Apostles needed to appoint successors. Without them, there would be no canon. Jesus also left Peter as vicar or steward of that church. Without a central earthly head under Christ, you have no way to settle disagreements in Scripture interpretations and church practice and matters. Only one Church fits that description. The Catholic Church.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@billlee2194 "but left them no instructions to write anything down." Right, his instructions, our Lord and Savior, was to go out and "preach." And when they did examine the scriptures, it was the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which had all the Catholic Old Testament books plus a few more, more akin to the Orthodox Canon. "John's gospel in the 90s." Most likely still written in the 60's as there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem though one can argue for a later writing. :)

[@i_ama_messenger6091]

Don't call that Canon a Bible. It's blasphemy. Can't call yourself a Christian if you pray to Mary either. Turn to Jesus while you can.

[@williamjames4031]

It is the Catholic Church that created both the old Testament and the New Testament. Atleast show them some gratitude.

[@TMcConnaughhay]

@@williamjames4031 and you never see a Catholic carrying a Bible to church. Why? cause the priest in the authority and he will tell you what you need to know (while raping an alter boy before or after mass.). I'll show God my gratitude for His Holy scriptures. And I'll read it for myself so I know what it says and not trust someone elses interpretations. After all, so much of the Catholic faith such as praying to Mary and worshipping statues of saints is found NO WHERE in Scripture.

[@billlee2194]

The early church gave Mary the title Theotokos (God bearer) long before it chose the canon. They did it to declare the divinity of her Son Christ. We will never honor Mary more than her Son has by assuming her into heaven and placing her in the Holy of Holies as the New Ark and the Woman with a crown of 12 stars who gave birth to the Child that would rule the world and spiritual birth to those who believe in Christ. See Revelation 11:19-12:1&17. God bless.

[@Eraktab]

Wait, aren't two of the Gospels written in the early second century?

[@PlavitPOi90]

No, they are not. The last was written cca. 95 AD

[@aussiedadreviews]

Nope

[@billlee2194]

I believe there were a handful of gospels written in the 2nd C. along with one of more Apocalypse books. They were all deemed spurious by the church.

[@organicskincare]

All the "copies" he mentioned are not the same. In another words, you cannot know what was ever said with any level of accuracy, due to all the "copies" being different (conflicting) from each other and no one know who wrote any of the gospels. The gospels were written by a nameless writer.

[@thegospelcoalition]

Dr. Kruger addresses this common assertion one way in this article: www.michaeljkruger.com/is-the-original-text-of-the-new-testament-lost-rethinking-our-access-to-the-autographs/

[@billlee2194]

Church History records that Matthew was written by Matthew most likely in Aramaic. Mark was written by Mark. Luke, a physician wrote both Like and Acts. John wrote John and we can tell that writing is more mature and insightful than the earlier gospels and written mostly likely in the 90s AD.

[@mikepruett1745]

and dont forget acts 8 :37

[@newfound_adventures]

The 66 Books of the Bible are infact scripture inspired by God. It is because of the testimony of Enoch within these 66 books that I accept the Book of Enoch. Take Jude who quoted directly out of the Book of Enoch a document proven to be at the very least dated 300 years before Jude was even born. And Jude quotes right out of it. Jude even calls it " Prophecy ". That's huge guys. Prophecy can only be given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[@newfound_adventures]

Great question Hmm. The answer is very simple. Jude said that Enoch "prophesied". Go check out what the Apostle Peter said about Prophecy it will answer your question. And then ask yourself this, did Shakespeare prophecy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[@cevinmoses]

But to your point, where NT writers quote from the OT, they are largely quoting the Greek Septuagint. This is a big reason the Catholic Church has always included all of the Septuagint books, and not just those canonized in the Tanakh (which wasn't formalized until the late 1st century or early 2nd century). That is why Catholic Bibles have 73 books.

[@richlopez5896]

There's 73 books of the Bible. 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[@johnsteila6049]

The “Catholic Bible” has 72 books. Don’t you think that you may be missing something?..

[@billlee2194]

But how do you know Jude should be in the canon? Jude doesn't say it should. No other book says Jude should be included. By what authority do you claim Jude and Enoch and, if you do, how do you exclude the Deuterocanonical books and which of the church fathers agree with your conclusion outside the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? The universal church has agreed on the same 73 books of the canon since the Council of Rome in 382 AD with some minor differences between the ancient Eastern and Western church.

[@seanrathmakedisciples1508]

You say we Protestants? I thought that you were both born again? The Protestants and Catholics all need to be saved and born again. I was born catholic and I was then born again by calling on the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness and salvation and eternal life with the Lord Jesus forevermore. I’m now a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ while making other disciples of Jesus.

[@billlee2194]

Don't forget that the Church has always equated 'born again' with Baptism as in Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus. The Reformers did the same. The modern Protestant meaning for 'born again' grew out of the Great Awakenings. God bless

[@briandoherty8337]

If you actually knew what you were talking about then why is the Church so lost and blind and in such spiritual darkness? If the corrupt clergy of the 19th century had not gutted the book of Daniel and so many other books and falsified the geologies of Genius. Then false prophets of the 1970-90s would have not been able to bring such shame and disgrace upon the name of Christ.

[@billlee2194]

The darkness you mention has always been a part of the church. Jesus told us there would be wheat and tares to be separately by the angels on The last day. Look to the wheat for nspiration. Not the tares. There are plenty of them. God bless.

[@Nudnik1]

"textural variants" ...church fathers all Arian non Trinitarians and rabid antisemite s decide what the Bible should be. They exclude books change add 1 John 5:7-8 and Mark 16:9-20... Yes I did read what you wrote. My point is proven by you. Men decided what your Bible should be.

[@PatrickSteil]

Magically the Bible survived 1500 years all on its own until the Protestants (who were Catholic) found it, gave it to us and then a printer removed 7 books to save on printing costs. The Catholic Church deserves much more than he put forth here.

[@dylan3456]

Why be sarcastic? Is that charitable? I don’t think he said anything like what you seem to have heard.

[@Mic1904]

I reckon, Patrick, if you really tried, you could maybe squeeze a few more misrepresentations in? Maybe?

[@PatrickSteil]

@@Mic1904 Why do some Protestant Bibles have 7 less books than Catholic Bibles?

[@Mic1904]

@@PatrickSteil Let's pretend that was true for a moment (the so-called 'Luther's Bible' not only has all those books, much like the KJV did, but ironically ends up with more content that the Catholic Bible, not less). But I suppose, Patrick, in an odd way, the reasoning behind the various canon debates is very much related to why your Catholic Bible has fewer books than the Eastern Orthodox Bible. Why was that, Patrick? Printers saving money? A devious conspiracy? Someone forgot?

[@PatrickSteil]

@@Mic1904 I did my research into why the Eastern Church has a few more books. Their tradition says that the books they have blessed are for liturgical use. They are not necessarily making a claim as to divine authorship. The Orthodox in general do not like to define things as detailed as the Catholic Church. They seem less committed to the idea of needing Authority so that Christians can know what we believe. Now, why does the Protestant version have 7 fewer books? Who was the "authority" who finally removed them and what was their reasoning? What if you or I decided to remove some additional books - do we have the authority to do so?

[@Nudnik1]

Catholic Church fathers decided. Marcion the first one.

[@billlee2194]

Yes, the Marcion canon (circa 140 AD) is an interesting one, isn't it? It really shows how the Canon had to develop and gain consciences over time.

[@Nudnik1]

@@billlee2194 BC before conspiracy and AD after deception. BCE and CE . Marcion sought to eliminate all of the old testament calling it evil... 😆

[@johnathansmith713]

Well time to work backwards

[@naramsin1853]

Does not matter how many copies you have, if the original is shrouded in fiction.

[@douglasmcnay644]

@Mavors Just like evolution and atheism.

[@Nudnik1]

Fact: There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls. verify

[@Nudnik1]

bizarre how this fact is ignored....

[@BornAgainRN]

james norse...first, we don't have the "original koine Greek NT Papyrus." The earliest we have is p52 fragment of the Gospel of John which is EXACTLY word-for-word to the earliest Greek manuscripts Christians use for the Gospel of John today. Bizarre how this fact is ignored. But we can discern what the original text said by comparing the literally THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of early manuscripts to each other to find out what the original did say. An overly simple example would be: 1) XEXT 2) TXXT 3) TEXT 4) TEXX Based on textual criticism by comparing these four separate - but not exact texts - we can say for certain that the original word was "TEXT." Now, consider having THOUSANDS of Greek manuscripts, where they are in 99.99% agreement. It makes it much easier to discern the original. And if this is your argument, then you shouldn't believe ANYTHING that has been written in antiquity - including anything secular. If you do, then that is being hypocritical. BTW, the Dead Sea Scrolls were the OLD Testament, not the NEW which is what Dr. Kruger was talking about. Same with the TaNaKh which was a late second century A.D. work by Jews of the OLD Testament in HEBREW, not the NEW Testament which was in GREEK. If you're going to make an argument, make sure your argument has relevant points, instead of strawmen that are easily dismantled, because it will destroy the credibility of your argument very easily.

[@Nudnik1]

BornAgainRN Yes we have alot of the Papyrus...1John 5:7-8,John 7:53,8:11,Mark 16:9-20 and Eucharist in Luke all not in Papyrus from 125ce....Enough to clearly prove how church modified scriptures... Dr Bart Erhman exposes this. Tenak Talk channel explains.. Maybe research and verify what I posted rather than just reject it emotionally..I am Jewish and grew up in Christian family.

[@Nudnik1]

BornAgainRN The Dead sea scrolls were also heavily modified... I am well aware of the difference between the koine Greek Papyrus and hebrew Bible which matches the Dead sea scrolls. The Septuagint removed Isaiah 2:22-30 and Isaiah 36:7 and modified many parts of Hebrew. The original Septuagint translated by 72 rabbi s was only Genesis to Deuteronomy...not the rest of the hebrew Tanakh.

[@lalumierehuguenote]

youread misquothing Jesus and think you found something new... Christians were already discussing textual variants in the 2nc century...

[@andreabortelli3101]

Interesting to see Kruger unwaveringly give his Masonic hand sign throughout this interview; goes to show where his true allegiance lies.

[@samuellee42]

His Masonic hand sign?!?!?! lol I always thought people like you were just made up.

[@HearGodsWord]

Exactly Samuel 👍

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

where would one's true allegiance lie if they were flashing signs?

[@ONEFAITHofJESUS]

other than to Satan of course

[@georgepfenenger5808]

Wow he spoke a really long time and never answered the main question - "what are the best biblical answers for why these 66 books that we protestants clearly recognize as authoritative are the actual God breathed word to us"!

[@MrHoogoorock]

Hebrews was potentially written by a Woman, Priscilla.

[@billlee2194]

That's one I've not heard from any scholar.