I've never heard anyone in Apologetics as poised and wellspoken as Dr Kruger. He is a thorough scholar and an effecient speaker. Not a single word wasted in unpacking his insights.

@jdizle1178

Жыл бұрын

Check out Daniel Wallace if you haven’t. He is great too

Wonderful presentation! It's good to see a scholar who is truthful when it comes to biblical history, and points out the fact that others do not.

This was so good. I pray his voice becomes very widespread.

the important four points: The four gospels are the earliest gospels we have The four gospels are the only gospels that have a credible connection to the apostles (those called directly by Jesus) The canonical gospels lack the legendary embellishments of later gospels The canonical gospels were recognized as authoritative from a very early date

@G0n9G0n9

3 жыл бұрын

Not legendary Apostolic Manuscripts Earliest

@billhesford6098

2 жыл бұрын

@@G0n9G0n9 Shorter still. NAME

@Kid_Shelleen

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Ana :)

@phoenix21studios

28 күн бұрын

"The canonical gospels were recognized as authoritative from a very early date" no. some thought only Luke was true scripture. there was much debate at the start but then they eventually did settle in and all four were accepted.

"There's only one place Christians have really ever gone... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"... In all seriousness though, fantastic lecture!

Preach it, brother Kruger!!

I can't wait till I can buy a book from Dr. Kruger. God bless him in a mighty way. Such a blessing to the Christian community.

This is an exceptionally clear and compelling examination of biblical cannon.

Thanks for posting this!

Thank you so much ! Very timely for what I'm going through. In His divine providence, I found this post !💖💥

@androcracy

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/m2uV0M-enZqfdKQ.html This one is good too

Really enjoyed the discussion.

Great lecture!!

Thank you so much

This is remarkable.

Very good! 🙏

Always profit from Dr. Kruger’s knowledge and insight.

Overall, a very good lecture. Solid work, MK.

@JamesSnapp

3 жыл бұрын

@Resurrected Eyes Yes; provided that I have cleared my schedule. Feel free to contact me on Facebook or MeWe.

Thank you this was most helpful to me.

34:06 When you mad, but want to keep it professional :) This is a great talk, by far one of my favorite videos!

I thought this was about the development of the canon but instead it is just about the authenticity of the four Gospels.

@michaelarivony7409

3 жыл бұрын

Mark Rome well, the Authenticity of the the Four Gospels will Demonstrate the irrelevance of the other gospels... hence the demonstration of the efficiency of the canon. This is the basic fundamentals of the canon.

Re: 22m55s -- One might reckon that since Irenaeus was mentored by Polycarp, and Polycarp was mentored by John, Irenaeus' testimony about the text of Mark 16 would carry compelling force.

@isaakleillhikar8311

Жыл бұрын

And both visited the Church of Rome, Polycarp met the members of the first formed Church of Rome, which include the people who asked Marc to write out the gospel Peter was preaching to you, eventually a certain particular book in our Bible today.

That one’s a keeper.

13:30 The four points

If we applied this to the OT then how can we be sure that the pentateuch is accurate?

@christopherlees1134

3 жыл бұрын

Jesus affirmed the OT

@gregkotoch2765

2 жыл бұрын

The earliest manuscripts of the pentateuch might be missing but that does not mean they were not written by Moses, who was involved I'm much of the events recorded, it just means the transcripts were faithfully passed down from one generation to the next with earliest eventually being lost in time. By that point alone, the pentateuch, right off the bat, would meet the first two standards he gave.

Protestant's Bible today is not the Bible of Luther and Calvin back in the day. In fact, King James Version of 1611 includes the Apocrypha, until 1825 when the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to remove it.

@HearGodsWord

2 жыл бұрын

Luther and Calvin wouldn't have had the KJV though.

@AnHebrewChild

Жыл бұрын

@@HearGodsWord true. But that's not the commenter's point. The apocryphal books should be included tho. But many will follow the traditions of men (in this case 18th cent Protestants) and not recognize any of these books even though they are AMPLY quoted word for word AS SCRIPTURE in the New Testament.

@HearGodsWord

Жыл бұрын

@@AnHebrewChild they are not scripture. Jesus would have used the Tanakh, which does not include those books.

@AnHebrewChild

Жыл бұрын

@@HearGodsWord pat answer. I'm not interested. Tell me: where in the Tanach is it written thus, And so it is written, _The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit._ When you have chapter and verse for that... from the Tanach, let me know. "but..." cut the nonsense. Look, I'm not Roman Catholic or Eastern O. You'd call me a Protestant. But those books should never have been removed from our printed bibles. Go read Wisdom of Solomon 2. You'll feel like you're reading Matthew 27. "but 2 Esdras teaches purgatory" And so it does. Paul's letters can be construed to teach very odd things too. But we sense an obligation to "harmonize" those. *A. Truth or B. traditions of men.* Choose one. Based on your reply, it'll be clear which one you're interested in.

@HearGodsWord

Жыл бұрын

@danullb you said you're not interested (even though you're interested enough to be commenting), so there's no point engaging with you if that's the case. 🤷

Bookmark 45.00

@isaakleillhikar8311

Жыл бұрын

What?

Re: 38m03 - What about P72? Not exactly an apocryphal Gospel alongside a canonical Gospel -- but there's a mixture of canonical and non-canonical writings.

21:15

If Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger fused together

James White for president and michael Kruger for VP 2024!

In the early days the Roman born all the other scripture and sentence to death anyone who has the other scripture and don't give them to burn so obviously there's no no many copy left of the other scripture

The early church was and is currently the church in the wilderness (Judah & Israel) according to the 1611 KJVA, (Psalms 147:19,20) He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

I’m only 16 mins in and may perhaps know why this gentleman was not asked to present prior to this occasion.

Hello Mr. Kruger when, where, and by whom was the first complete bible compiled.... Stop beating around the bush.... Give me the answer

@ReformedDisciple1689-xk4pw

6 ай бұрын

That's not the point of this lecture. You can't be beating around a bush if it's not there.

@judesangma3583

6 ай бұрын

@@ReformedDisciple1689-xk4pw ha ...ha...

@ReformedDisciple1689-xk4pw

6 ай бұрын

@judesangma3583 I mean, it might be funny, but it wasn't the point of this lecture. If you are actually curious of his answer, he answers what you are looking for in his lectures in the Reformed Theological Seminary app. Don't accuse someone of not doing something based on 1 lecture.

@judesangma3583

6 ай бұрын

@@ReformedDisciple1689-xk4pw it's ok I understand

@ReformedDisciple1689-xk4pw

6 ай бұрын

@@judesangma3583 Understand what?

Timeline 450 BC - Tanach (Tanahk). 24 books, 3 sections 300-100BC - Septuagint (contains WoS, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus) 85 - Marcion of Sinope attempts a canon. much hearesy in his ideology, ex-commed from early church. forced church to respond with a canon. 155 - Polycarp’s letter (to the Philippians) indicates that the early church already considered the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles as inspired Scripture. 180 - Muratorian Canon. 22 of 27 books. did not include Hebrews, James, Peter 1 & 2, 2 John 3 John, it did include Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. 313 - Christianity Decriminalized by Constantine. 313 - Eusebius disputes James. 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation. 636 - Council of Laodicea affirmed 26 NT books. Rejected Revelation 367 - Athanasius makes list of accepted 27 books 384 - St. Jerome did not want to include additional books, compelled by church to include them anyway 393 - Synod of Hippo (Hippo Canon) 27 book NT, Recognized by early church. New 33 book + OT canon. 1st "Official" church canon. Regional canons exist. 397 - Counsel of Carthage - Hippo canon confirmed and binding by the church 1054 - Great schism 1522 - Martin Luther canon moved OT (WoS, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Maccabees) books to Apocrypha. Considered Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation as disputed 1545 - Council of Trent. Added back books Luther removed and gave them new title "Deuterocanonical" 1820s - Paper cost increases lead to publishers removing Deuterocanonical books. 73 to 66 books.

“Polycarp an earliest well known Bishop in Christianity who was mentored by the Apostle John himself”. That is wonderfully powerful and clear evidence that Polycarp and his contemporaries including Ireneaus were truly recipients of the Holy Spirits inspiration but only as it concerns Scripture. Obviously they were absent any kind of inspiration from the Holy Spirit when developing Church Ritual and Tradition. The not only what it means to be a Christian but the how to be a Christian is there own fallible in fact, heretical beliefs imposed on an ignorant congregation. It would be funny if this kind of hypocrisy hadn’t led to the fragmentation of Christianity to it near destruction in the west. After all how can an Apostate be responsible for the Bible but only an Apostate because he also created the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Listening to this as an Orthodox Christian is like listening to a scholar explain the meaning and purpose of the Constitution from historical accounts when the actual document is right in front of him. The first Century Church of Polycarp and Irenaeus exists today and remains faithful to all the elements the Church Fathers provided through the singular fundamental organizational principle of enduring consensus as established by James and the Apostles in first Century Jerusalem when they corrected what could be referred to as the first heresy, Peter’s teaching that you had to become Jewish before you could become Christian. Peter honored the the consensus. Now just think what would have happened if he didn’t. We could have ended up with tens of thousands of Christian Churches. What a tragedy that would be! John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, this is called Apostolic succession and has been maintained in on place The Orthodox Church.

He needs to debate someone with his stature. Unopposed, you can say whatever you want and regular people will believe it.

@Tanjaicholan

2 жыл бұрын

Unopposed? Theses and Theological Scholarship are peer-reviewed in Academia. I guess you have not heard of this!

First you dating the gospel to the first century but it's not clear that Jesus was in that time there is opinions that he was 100 years earlier and the writer of the New testament placed him in this time for a reason to make a point that the temple of the Jews with collapse because they just don't accept Jesus

@AnHebrewChild

Жыл бұрын

Interesting. I question everything including the timeline "they" give us. DAN7:25 I happen to think we may be living in a different time than we are told (2023) by _hundreds_ of years. There are scriptural reasons which appear to bear this out. Thanks for bringing this up.

Secondly if you want to believe the earlier version of the story of Jesus you can look in the Hebrew talmud and there is stories about Jesus not so fluttering(he practice witchcraft and baw to statues) so I think your reasons is very good and the story about Jesus in the talmud are true so stop practicing Christianity and start crying to the god of Israel because he's the true God and if so to practice Christianity is adultery

1John 5:7-8 Trinity Johanna Commanuem debate an admitted invention and insertion into scriptures.

@Stanzi18

5 жыл бұрын

"Interpolation" of the Catholic Church into a later manuscript. No biblical scholars would take it seriously. The issue you have is not with man; your issue is with God. He loves you and has kept you regardless of anything you've done. I'd beseech you to search the scriptures; to read them in context, in order to derive the meaning that was intended by the authors. I know that faith comes through hearing the word of God. I beg you, friend, Come to Christ. Bring your sin and don't worry about changing to become good enough for Him. God is the one who works that desire into us. Search His scriptures to see Him as glorious. I care for you; that you would not spend an eternity wishing you would have responded differently to the man who came to warn you in a KZread comment. It is appointed for every man once to die, then comes judgement. I care for you, friend. I know some people may be very poor representations of who Christ really was, but I hope you come to know Him for who He really is. God bless you.

@rickdavis2235

3 жыл бұрын

The plurality of God is all throughout the Old Testament. The only way you will know this is to read and study the Old Testament Scriptures. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a concept that defines what we see when we read the Scriptures.

@isaakleillhikar8311

Жыл бұрын

It seems to be in Tertulliens Greek copy. And the ones Jerome translated from. It’s not just the old Latin. Plus Ireneas, it seems also.

@MitzvosGolem1

Жыл бұрын

@@isaakleillhikar8311 Tertullian invented Trinity 200 CE only to reject it himself as idolatry..

@isaakleillhikar8311

Жыл бұрын

@@MitzvosGolem1 Doesnt Ignatius ofAntioch believe Jesus is God ?

YOU ARE GOD DAMN RIGHT!

Literary embellishments are a reason why the apocryphal gospels aren't as good as the canon? Excuse me, Matthew contains an infamous episode where dead people all across Jerusalem break out of their tombs and wander the city! An undeniable "literary embellishment"

Who out there is saying that you can pick and choose whatever gospels you want to believe, that they are all possibly valid? I would like to know who these people are that believe this story he is telling. Otherwise this is just another straw man argument. There is no conspiracy to undermine the bible. The many problems with the stories in the bible have been widely known for centuries. If this was not so there would never have been a need for biblical scholarship or apologetics. Just my opinion.

Nose inglés 🤦🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

This takes trusting God out of the picture. God always verified His word in the OT. You have to put your faith and trust in mortal men to believe the NT is inspired.

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.

@aaronneil780

5 жыл бұрын

Great reply.

@TheB1nary

5 жыл бұрын

They weren't "Catholic" Bishops: they may have been "catholic" Bishops, and that from the Orthodox Church, but they were not "Catholic" ;)

@TheB1nary

5 жыл бұрын

Nor was it called "mass". It was "the eucharist".

@FrMoody

5 жыл бұрын

Amen. Amen.Amen

@FrMoody

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheB1nary orthodox are catholic. It is perhaps better to say orthodox catholic, as opposed to roman catholic. Though till the schism they were orthodox.

The early church was the Catholic Church. The Apostles used and taught from the Septuagint Greek Old Testament which was established in 293 B.C. The 1611 King James Version of the Bible did contain these Apocrypha a.k.a. Deuterocanonical books found the both the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. Factual history is that Protestants removed these 7 books from the Old Testament Bible they choose to use today in 1885. When it is said that Catholic added these 7 books to the Bible, it is a bold face lie. Both the Old and Testament canon of Scripture was firmly established in 382 by the Council of Rome. So, in reality, it is Catholics who established the Bible used today. Nothing more needs to be said.

Stop giving reasons

The early church was also Catholic.....I know that's a dirty word...but true just the same

@acolytes777

6 жыл бұрын

Catholic, not Roman Catholic

@topseykretts7608

6 жыл бұрын

Good Point....you're right. There are several Christian Churches older than the Diocese of Rome (or the Vatican).....but none older than the universal church founded by Christ on St. Peter.

@jefflavenau6805

6 жыл бұрын

the correct grammatical exegetical undersatanding of that verse is that Jesus founded the church on the confession Peter had just articulated that Jesus was the Son of God--Not anything about Peter himself. Re-read the verse with a good study bible, friend.

@kboone122

4 жыл бұрын

Not so,

@theologian1456

4 жыл бұрын

@@topseykretts7608 the church was founded on the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Like Paul says: built on the foundation of the apostles teaching (the gospel), Christ being the chief cornerstone. And all believers are saints and priests.

If you read the Bible , Thank a Catholic

@damiandziedzic23

6 жыл бұрын

Thank God, we got our Bible long before Roman Catholicism ever existed ^^

@wjm5972

6 жыл бұрын

No one had a Bible Prior to the catholic Church Canonizing it

@damiandziedzic23

6 жыл бұрын

So I guess no one had a Bible until the XVI century when the final canon was declared (infallibly) because no one really cared about Hippo and Carthage under Augustine - even Pope Gregory the Great didn't care and follow Jerome :))) Funny thing that everyone from the beginning recognized what books were and what were not Scripture :) Good day sir.

@wjm5972

6 жыл бұрын

Gregory may not have thought they were on par with the rest of the Ot as Jerome thought , but he did not believe them to be uninspired, and mde no attempt to remove them and later quoted from some of them. In 787 the 2nd council of Nicaea listed 46 books in the OT and the Ecumenical Council in florence in 1446 , 100 years befor Trent, did the same. Good day sir

@damiandziedzic23

6 жыл бұрын

So I guess that even the greatest Catholic scholars in the time of Reformation like cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Ximenes also rebelled against the Church. Oh.. or maybe it was so because the official and final list of books wasn't established - as I pointed before - until Trent. But everything of that is not really related to the fact that from the very beginning Christians recognized the books that were Scripture and that a canon is firstly a theological construct - because God inspired some books and not all books, so when the first book of the New Testament was completed, the canon already existed as dr. Kruger and dr. White correctly pointed out.

and this is proof of the Catholic Church as the one true church a Christ established ... The Catholic Church produced the Bible

@chaboi7

3 жыл бұрын

Those scriptures were there before the catholic Church

@amikkelsen

2 жыл бұрын

That assumes the Catholic Church of Today holds the same doctrines as the Catholic Church under the Roman Empire.

@mikemccormick9667

Жыл бұрын

And indulgences, creating graven images which totally breaks the 2nd commandment , put a sinful man seared as the head of the church; a position rightfully reservef for Jesus Christ, teach that we aren't saved by grace through faith in Christ. That sacraments must be part of salvation. Yes please sign me up ? Ugh!!!

Yo Saul Paul was the biggest liar.. Y dnt u speak abt contradictions and hw your gospel unknown writers tke stories out of context frm old testament