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 ❤

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you believe those things actually happened?

@kimmiehyun-gv8ng

4 жыл бұрын

Never Trumper because there's evidence and scriptures 🙄

@MercenaryGio

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

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

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

@christopherlampman5579

2 жыл бұрын

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

@chellyd8759

Жыл бұрын

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

@musings2022

9 ай бұрын

@@chellyd8759 lol - was thinking the same! :D

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

@tylerfrancis_

Жыл бұрын

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

11 ай бұрын

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

21 күн бұрын

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

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.

@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

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.

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

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.

@musings2022

9 ай бұрын

"You will know them by their fruit" - look at the fruit of the catholic church

@paulmualdeave5063

9 ай бұрын

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

@paulmualdeave5063

9 ай бұрын

@@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

15 күн бұрын

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

@YankeeWoodcraft

15 күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

@captainmarvelmsc7692

11 ай бұрын

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

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.

Thank you. This was outstanding.

@razadaza9651

Жыл бұрын

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

God bless this ministry. 🙏⛪

That really helped

Thank U 4 simplifying deep church history for all to learn

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908

3 жыл бұрын

@@futsinen very true

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Incredible explanation, thank you

Good words.

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.

Gary Mashuta is a great Bible expert

@BrianGondo

Жыл бұрын

Gary Michuta

Interesting!!

Thank you

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.

Through Jesus Christ. Amen

My dear brothers and sisters. I need these answers in book format. If available please send me the link.

Nice interesting talk

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

@sskspartan

4 жыл бұрын

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

@neoneherefrom5836

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao at both comments below

@coreycolvin2985

2 жыл бұрын

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

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@VirtuaFighterRPG

3 ай бұрын

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

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

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.

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

@samf8887

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

@hadiyusuf

Ай бұрын

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

13 күн бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

@srich7503

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

This is great, thank you!

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@silenceoftheyams7647

2 жыл бұрын

amen

@michaelquintana1098

11 ай бұрын

Lol. Prophet priest and king.

@sanetiamorris5694

10 ай бұрын

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

10 ай бұрын

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

@malvokaquila6768

10 ай бұрын

​@@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.

For with God nothing shall be impossible

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.

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

@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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@eric777100763

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

@@eric777100763 amen to that!!

@eric777100763

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

@@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! ✝😊

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?

I appreciate this answer but i have a question; how did the Gospel of John become gospel with the author still being unknown?

What about the Septuagint? And the Vulgate?

@charliedontsurf334

4 жыл бұрын

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

@Quis_ut_Deus

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

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

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

You seem to be attempting to ignore who these authoritive sources are. From those who restricted what could be added, to those who wrote later on the subject, the councils you mention. In the same way that Ignatius quoted from the NT, The Gospels are quoting from the Greek OT.

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

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

@gussetma1945

4 жыл бұрын

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

@hadiyusuf

Ай бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@TheRockdoctor54

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

So you didn't watch the video

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

Was Koine Greek the only language used in the documents we now know as the 27 book NT canon? Where they divinely inspired in any other language? I was told that since Jesus didn't speak Koine Greek but Aramaic instead, that the original language of Matthew for example was Aramaic and not Koine Greek. Thank you very much for any insight you might give me. Thank you for your work and God bless your ministry.

@malleusdei1520

5 жыл бұрын

Where in the Bible does it say Jesus didn't speak Koine Greek?

@lorainabogado8990

5 жыл бұрын

@@malleusdei1520 good point. probably spoke english also

@malleusdei1520

5 жыл бұрын

@@lorainabogado8990 - ya never, never know

@MichaelAChristian1

4 жыл бұрын

Jesus Christ created all languages! The scriptures bear witness to itself! Ignore the "historian" and study the Word of God! "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews."- Luke chapter 23 verse 38.

@hadiyusuf

Ай бұрын

The Jews during Jesus' time spoke Greek. Whether he did or not, no one can 100% say

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

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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

@jerrymartin3965

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@jerrymartin3965 I am very sorry I hurt you.

@jerrymartin3965

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

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.

@hadiyusuf

Ай бұрын

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."

Great presentation!

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?

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@paulchambers3279

4 жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

He just said that not all of them were authorship based

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.

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".

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

Very well said.

@aapp953

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

3 жыл бұрын

Boom!

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

3 жыл бұрын

yeah. so why?

@jakamsoohia7492

2 жыл бұрын

Jerome did not consider them canon but it became added

@CPATuttle

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

By accepting canon you are also accepting Catholic Rule

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.

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

@andrewscotteames4718

2 жыл бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

He removed 7

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

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.

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

4 жыл бұрын

The Jewish synagogues do not view the Apocrypha as scripture.

@davidphillips2496

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

3 жыл бұрын

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

@IsraeliteDefense

2 жыл бұрын

This guy just got tripled teamed 🤣🤣🤣

@jakamsoohia7492

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@mrs.redeemed3600

11 ай бұрын

You are such a delusional my friend

I have a question about the Old Testament. It’s my understanding not all Jewish sects agreed on the cannon for a few hundred years (Ethiopian Jews still use a different cannon). How do we know which OT books should be included if they were in disagreement after the time of Jesus?

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

@CPATuttle

2 жыл бұрын

Yes.

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

@JW-no5sq

Жыл бұрын

It's called the Holy Spirit

@jeremysmith7176

Жыл бұрын

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

Holy Spirit gave it to us.

@JJ-cw3nf

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@SpotterVideo

Жыл бұрын

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

@rebn8346

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

Great vid should do a video on the holy Eucharist

@benjaminjoseph3299

Жыл бұрын

Protestants ... don't hold your breath . ✝️🙏⚔️

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

2 жыл бұрын

Bill, you nailed the truth.

@zdenekcanada5408

2 жыл бұрын

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

@MrBeeg55

2 жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

How can I learn more about what happened in that time frame?

@Jon-ws9vh

3 ай бұрын

this. I'm interested to learn more about the early post apostolic church.

Amen!

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

3 жыл бұрын

No they weren't. .prove it.

@loveinaction2772

3 жыл бұрын

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

@psallen5099

3 жыл бұрын

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

@davidelks8972

3 жыл бұрын

@@psallen5099 Wikipedia HAHAHAHAHAHA

@stillbill6408

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

3 жыл бұрын

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

@joeswartz8286

2 жыл бұрын

That is a very good point and observation!

I'm pretty sure that the deutocanonical books were in the "Old testament" at the time of Christ and the apostles

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

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.

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

3 жыл бұрын

Precisely

@ob2249

2 жыл бұрын

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

@coreycolvin2985

2 жыл бұрын

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

@jakamsoohia7492

2 жыл бұрын

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

2 жыл бұрын

Catholic Church wasn't even mention

And that's just the beginning

@harveywabbit9541

4 жыл бұрын

Start with Genesis one. Genesis one, divides the year into six months/days of summer and six months of nights/winter. During the first day (month March) of summer, God (the summer Ram) divided "between the light and between the darkness" (marginal reading), i.e., he made the days and nights of equal length = twelve hours each. He dried the waters off the earth during the second day (month April), leaving the ground fit for cultivation. During the third day (month May), he made the grass grow, when the cattle are turned loose to feed on it. The Sun, having gained his highest point (summer solstice) in the heavens during the fourth day, when he made the Sun and Moon, ruled the day; i.e., the longest day of the year. At this time, too, God, or Aries, having gained his zenith at sunrise, becomes the Most High God, i.e., the Most High Ram. The Moon, being at her full in the eastern horizon at sunset, of course gave light by night, i.e., shone all that night. On the fifth day (month July), God brought forth insects, creeping things, etc., which we all know nourish best at this time. During the sixth day (month August, the ingathering month), God made the " beasts of the earth " and cattle, and lastly man, i.e., in addition to his daily food, God gave man his winter supplies, if he were not too lazy, like gather them. it happened that all animals, man not excepted, had become sleek and fat, and were, of course, prepared to breast the hardships of the coming winter. "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them," i.e., the six summer months had passed away. "On the seventh day (month September), God ended his work which he had made," i.e., he ripened the fruits which had attained their growth during the previous six months, "and he rested on the seventh day (month September) from all his work which he had made" (Gen. 2:1, 2). Milton Woolley

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.

My wife ask me about this last night during our devotion...

@curbysworld1764

3 жыл бұрын

This is exactly why I’m here

@neoneherefrom5836

3 жыл бұрын

@@curbysworld1764 me too his wife asked me the same thing

@curbysworld1764

3 жыл бұрын

@@neoneherefrom5836 💀 funnyyyy

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

@Andeezy04

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

I think I recognize a member of the true Church.

@gussetma1945

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

4 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

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.

At 10:15 you state that if we lost all the manuscripts, we could still have the New Testament through early church father's quotes. Can you please give your source? This appears to be false.

@gussetma1945

4 жыл бұрын

There is a work of some scholars, Germans I think, who were able to reconstruct +90% of the NT from the quotations in the Fathers. Google something like Bible reconstructed by fathers German scholars etc.

@exiled30

3 жыл бұрын

You ought to do the work yourself just as others have to figure out the truth. Asking for sources doesn't negate what is true.

When did he say that?

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

@ob2249

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@ob2249 What do you mean?

@ob2249

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@ob2249 The Mystery of the Incarnation

@ob2249

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@joeswartz8286

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t blame them.

@bukenyagodfrey4556

2 жыл бұрын

@@joeswartz8286 what did they follow before the compilation

@joeswartz8286

2 жыл бұрын

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

@jakamsoohia7492

2 жыл бұрын

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

Professor i think you are missing the hole history of the bibilical canon study please you have to learn from ethiopian bibilical canon how ethiopian bible form,i think it me help you

Who's learning in July 15th 2021

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

@karlpoquiz451

4 жыл бұрын

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

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.

Lord forgive me for saying this but if this meeting happened my only question is did they take certain books out to make it sound more believable so you take what is written as fact and not fictional stories. Because i kno even in those days their doubts and aurguements about if any of these things acually happened. I believe in god but i just take the bible as a guideline of what is right and wrong and how to live my life

@coopermurphy6422

4 жыл бұрын

t j Thank you for your honesty. Please continue seeking the God of the Bible. Believing in Him is but one step in the journey. Book suggestion: Making of the New Testament by Arthur Patzia (2011). 🙏 Blessings.

@MichaelAChristian1

4 жыл бұрын

Pray for help and guidance and understanding in Jesus Christ name! Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. See kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZHxm0belZ9jMe5M.html&app=desktop

Also interesting is a video on " How we got our Bible" by Chuck Missler.