Am Catholic. Totally agree pop-Catholic apologetics over-simplifies the issue. I wouldn’t use this exact argument against a Protestant, at least not an educated one.
Thanks brother. Fellow Catholic here. On my CZcams channel and on my Facebook I've been trying to correct fellow Catholics on this for years, explaining how Catholic epistemology and history do not support their arguments against Protestants about the Canon. I'd appreciate if you took a look at the videos, gave feedback, shared them if you liked them.
@@fatimatriumphs that the canon of Scripture is a simple issue that was totally settled early on and the Reformers randomly removed books. With enough research, it becomes more clear that the Catholic canon is correct in my opinion, but it’s not so cut and dry. I have a video on my channel about it.
Was wondering about how to respond that recently. Some also act like their church never changed anything since the beginning as well. I have been interested in knowing more on protestant, roman catholic, orthodox sides for a while, but catholicism is just not it for me personally.
He literally didn't change the fact that the Catholic church selected the books in the canon, even the oldest Muratorian fragment list was different so why would you trust the Catholic church ? And btw dr. Copper just admitted that the Catholics were actually inspired by God
@@mig6728 because all of Christendom claims heritage to the early church which could be attributes to any of them because clearly it was actually the Orthodox church that put it together don't you see that? See how that works? Not one branch can say ahh it was us because the church was unified and at the time the Pope wasn't the supreme pontif of the church because that's never been his position historically. Further outside of Rome no one equates the Catholic Church of today with the early church because they are two different animals.
The canons where approved by Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431-1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563).
So clearly expounded and defended in less than 9 minutes. Thank you. What a wonderful time for young Christians who have questions about their Christian faith. I am older, and I see it as an utter failure of the college ministry I joined to not address these issues in the midst of the secular onslaught on campus against faith.
We Catholics Christians believe just like Protestants that the canon is inspired and we won't believe anything that contradicts the canon. Just because we have tradition doesn't mean that we are not following the scriptures. American Protestants are misguided and ignorant regarding what's Catholicism. He can speak for 9 minutes or 900 minutes and it won't make a difference, the fact of the matter is that the Catholic church selected which books to go in the canon. Even the oldest Muratorian fragment didn't have all the books and had extra ones. So why would Protestants trust the Catholic Church in this regard?
Really enjoyed the video I’ve been going through your channel, and realized you don’t have much on the NALC. I’m actually a member of a NALC congregation, and I would love to get your thoughts about it.
Hey i love your work and have been binging on your channel! Im an african american college student swamped with postmodern, DEi, and intersectional thought everyday which i dont subscribe too. I have siblings younger than me that i want to prepare for at minimal for the current cultural situation and at most lead into a new punk yet Christian way of thinking as i feel we are shifting away from postmodernity. More specifically I wanted to ask about your thoughts on METAMODERNISM and can it be the answer and a way for us believers in christ to win the culture wars or at least turn it in out favor. (sorry for this long comment im an artist and im passionate)
@DrJordanBCooper well it doesn't necessarily apply to this video or topic. But rather in general what are your thoughts on metamodernity and do u think it will successfully change the social paradigm.
Agree: the Church "finally" declared what was inspired in the late 4th c and there was a formation of the canon over the centuries. Informed Catholic's don't argue the latter point. The Bishops met first at the Council of Rome (382), then the synods of Hippo (383) and Carthage (397). Later at Florence. All those gatherings declared the OT to have 46 writings and the NT 27 writings. Agree: we have faith that God led his people to know which books are inspired: Jesus PROMISED to lead his Church - the pillar and bulwark of the truth - to ALL Truth. Trent affirmed what was declared 1200 years earlier. AND the Holy Spirit led the Church to determine what the criteria was for deciding canonicity as the criteria itself are not found in scripture. Notes: - the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected. - in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings. - Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included) - One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c. - Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c. - Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold) - there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history. - It's most inconsistent, that in Michael Kruger's work on the canon, he repeatedly cites Catholic Bishops, none of which agree with him on his view of the Sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism included, nor do they agree with him on the nature of the Church. And through out The Canon Revisited, he can't cite anyone prior to St Athanasius listing the canon of scripture as he has it today, though Origen comes close with Revelation still uncertain. Even granting him that Origen listed the canon exactly, which I do not believe, this fails to show that the Church universally agreed to the same canon. That's why the Bishops met in the late 4th c. In short, he tries to spin a case for his belief but comes up way short of proving his case. IMO, he really doesn't help himself citing Catholic Bishops who while agreeing with each other, repeatedly disagree with him on numerous theological points. Even a criteria for canonicity was whether the writing was widely read at Church - At Mass, which Kruger rejects. Excellent video here by Dr Pitre on the Council of Jamnia. czcams.com/video/i9fHd86-jYU/video.htmlsi=z0l60CHoNRE1I5hi
Your arguments are riddled with fallacies. I will only mention one because your comment is filled with fluff that would take too long to address. Let's address your claim of inconsistency on the part of Kruger. Why does it matter that Kruger cites some Roman catholic bishops, but doesn't agree with ALL of their theological conclusions? If agreeing with ALL of the conclusions of one author or person is a prerequisite for citing them, what do we make of several Fathers who cited and relied on Origen to make certain theological points? Gregory and Basil Republished the works of Origen that they found to be commendable in a book labeled "The Philacalia of Origen". Does this mean that they ought have to have agreed with Origens universalism or his denial of the resurrection of the body? No. Such reasoning is asinine. You can ascertain truth from people that you have fundamental disagreements with. Paul cited the Greek Poets in Acts 17, affirming that their poets were right about being the offspring of God. Does that mean Paul ought to have cosigned everything the pagan Greek poets said? My goodness. You cannot be serious.
@@jeremybamgbade "Why does it matter that Kruger cites some Roman catholic bishops, but doesn't agree with ALL of their theological conclusions?" Because it's very inconsistent that Kruger quotes repeatedly Catholic Bishops, defacto authority figures, in his trying to create his case for the canon, while not mentioning, let alone adhering to what they believed. From memory, he doesn't even acknowledge their titles and positions which is quite disingenuous. Does Michael believe that they were a bunch of early reformed fundamentalists? Which of them would Michael invite to come speak at his Church or in his class? One wonders accordingly, in the theology of Kruger, just HOW does the Holy Spirit work? What Michael is doing is trying to recreate history to fit his belief system. The canon formation itself is a very big problematic rock in the river for him and this issue has led to many protestants coming to Rome (at least being a point to lead to further study). Here are who he cites: St. Jerome (Catholic Priest) Origen (Catholic theologian & Priest) St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic theologian, priest possibly) Tatian (Catholic apologist) St. Justin Martyr (Catholic apologist) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) St. Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons) St. Melito of Sardis (Catholic Bishop of Sardis) Tertullian (Catholic apologist) St. Papia (Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) Eusebius of Caesarea (Catholic Bishop of Caesarea) St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Catholic Arch Bishop of Nazianzus) St. Athanasius (Catholic Bishop of Alexandria) St. Augustine (Catholic Bishop of Hippo) St. Polycarp (Catholic Bishop of Smyrna) And it's acknowledge, that they all did not always agree on a topic. But where they all agree or nearly so, and one disagrees, one needs to pause and consider one's understanding of the Christian faith and where it comes from? One can start with the nature of the Church and the Eucharist. Examples on the Eucharist below. Would Michael invite any of the men below to speak to one of his classes on the Eucharist? St Clement? *The words of St Clement* _“For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And _*_the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”_* Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). *St Ireneaus* “But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks *[the words of consecration by the priest]* have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). *Tertullian too* _“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.”_ Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212). *St. Athanasius* _“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers _*_[the words of consecration by the priest]_*_ have been recited, then _*_the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…_*_ When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”_ Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). " Such reasoning is asinine. " Not at all. I stand by my comments. Ad hominem attacks by the way are a sign of weakness of argument. Just saying.... And I stand by all my points below. If you think there are fallacies, feel free to respond to one or more. I have no problem admitting error if you can prove you are right. :) - the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected. - in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings. - Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included) - One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c. - Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c. - Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold) - there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history.
@@TruthHasSpoken Did you even read my comment? Like seriously. I cited Origen, precisely because the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox church) church has condemned him as a heretic. So it's a little funny that you would call him a "Catholic" when he has been disavowed by your own church. Moreover, the point was that you can cite people you have fundamental differences with. It's like you have this wall of text saved and you use it in discussions wherein you don't actually engage the other side. Who knows, just a hunch.
@@jeremybamgbade "the Roman Catholic ... church has condemned him as a heretic. : Please provide a citation as to when the Church declared this ... That said, Origen held to universalism in regards to salvation, ie, hell would be emptied. This was debated and refuted after he died. Hence, he is referred to as a ecclesiastical writer and not a Church Father. Some years ago, Pope Benedict called him a "master of faith." "So it's a little funny that you would call him a "Catholic" " He was a Catholic priest. What's then "funny" about calling him Catholic? So too the 16th c Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest as was Ulrich Zwingli. Both were "Catholics," as was the lawyer John Calvin. And my contention that Kruger is inconsistent, stands. 100% inconsistent. Feel free to refute my points, the below included as well as the quotes I provided on the nature of the Eucharist. - the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected. - in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings. - Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included) - One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c. - Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c. - Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold) - there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history.
The problem is krugers idea of a self authenticating cannon is absurd and doesn’t fit the historical record. Not sure why people seem to mention him as their go to guy on this subject.
When there's only one of something, you just need the word 'the'. The earth, the creation, the resurrection, the church. Scripture actually uses this convention: the church in Corinth, the church in Jerusalem, etc.
So wait, let me get this right... Your argument is that we all just know what the cannon is because God wouldn't want us not to know the Cannon which is why the cannon is a point of contention across denominations?
Nicea dealt with Aryanism, but it was much more than that. Representatives from the Byzantine Empire AND from every diocese in the world NOT in the Empire such as India and Ethiopia and Romania which were largely isolated from Byzantium came together for 70 days. They formally dealt with Aryanism, but also produced the canons of the council AND compared scriptural canons used in different diocese and liturgical practices. Some of these included rules for ordaining deacons, priests, bishops, deaconesses, and even penances (periods away from the Eucharist) for certain serious sins. Different diocese were using different scriptural canons, and by ";use" I mean they were reading from different sets of books in their weekly schedule of services. The most important part of Nicea was to get everyone in the same city for two and a half months to compare and canonize and while there was variability in the scripture used as readings in the weekly and yearly schedule of services and commemorations, there was general agreement that some should be used and others not used. The books in the N.T. were generally accepted based on their utility as readings in the weekly and yearly schedule of services. Some churches maintained expanded canons but the expanded canons weren't generally read in the weekly liturgical services. So while Nicea wasn't called to canonize books of the N.T. these representatives were put together in the same place for 70 days for the purpose of comparing local practice of holy orders, liturgical services, and local scriptural canons. They dealt with Aryanism in a couple of days and had massive consensus almost immediately. And if you are interested, read the canons of the first ecumenical council (as well as others). The N.T. was largely shaped by the usefulness of certain books as liturgical readings analogously to the Torah readings in Judaism that continued in the Church at certain evening services.
4:00- “Because we have faith that scripture is inspired, we also have faith that God would guide his people to know what the books that he has inspired are” Ok, question 1- what group of Gods people prior to the reformation held to the same 66 book canon Protestants hold today? Question 2- Since there are exactly zero, is the argument then that God led his people to the wrong list for 1600+ years or did he lead them to the right list and Protestants got it wrong?
Right. This was a 9 minute video that made no positive argument for the case, it just told us why this argument is insufficient to prove one specific church’s claims as being *the* church. But we don’t have one single argument for why we are the Church.
Great point about Judaism. Moreover, Rome putting together the cannon, even if that premise was granted (which I do not grant), does not imply that they have maintained fidelity to the contents that are contained within that cannon. Romans 3:1-3 says the Jews had a special advantage over all other nations because to them, the covenants, promises, and oracles of God were delivered. Nevertheless , Paul says they were ignorant of the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3 ) which was taught in the scriptures that were entrusted to them (Romans 3:21-26). Therefore, the argument that "we put the scriptures together" or "we received the scriptures faithfully , therefore we interpret it faithfully" is nothing more than question-begging nonsense. Moreover, as you have said, the Oriental/Coptic Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east all make the same claims. Therefore, even the Catholic must concede that they have to use their own subjective and admittedly fallible judgment to determine WHICH claim to apostolic fidelity is correct from among these ancient branches of visible administrative Christianity. So the "problem" they try to knot up Protestants in is not one they really get to escape. If they ask "how do you know you have an infallible cannon?" before answering, I would ask how they know they belong to the correct infallible tradition/church, seeing that the aforementioned churches may with just as much propriety as Rome (only granting this for the sake of argument) make the same claims about tradition and apostolic succession using essentially the same kinds of evidence to substantiate their lofty claims.
*Moreover, as you have said, the Oriental/Coptic Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east all make the same claims.* There's basically nothing the Coptic don't consider canon. The Eastern Orthodox have a Macc. 3&4 issue, along with psalms 151. But those little bones of contention are what prots point to when it comes to the rejected authority of what they're all unanimous on: The Deuterocanonical books. Prots are the only "Christians" that suggest they aren't scripture. *make the same claims about tradition and apostolic succession using essentially the same kinds of evidence to substantiate their lofty claims.* The Coptic come from Mark and the Eastern Orthodox through John and Paul largely. There is no "lofty" claim about being able to prove their modern hierarchy can be traced back to the original Apostles. Just sucks for Protestants that they can't, nor will they ever, be able to say that.
@@jeremybamgbade You aren't going to disprove the fact that the Deuterocanonical books are scripture in every bible that isn't a protestant translation.
The CATHOLIC CANON of the New Testament That's right, the SAME canon of the NT that is used by Protestants (including Fundamentalists and even "non-denominationals) was defined and declared by the Catholic Church (which begs the question, what else did we get right?) The first Early Church Father (ECF) to declare the NT canon as we now have it was St. Athanasius in his _Festal Letters_ circa 367 AD. All earlier ECF lists and authoritative-citations (or anonymous lists such as the Muratorian Canon) either did not mention certain gospels and epistles, or EXPLICITLY rejected or called "disputed" ones we now accept as canonical or EXPLICITLY accepted as authoritative ones we do not now accept (Such as the _The Didache_, _Epistle of Barnabas_ and _The Shepherd of Hermas_). What CAN be agreed upon by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants is there was "general" agreement among Christians who were actually Christians of the NT canon prior to the 5th C. NO ECF lists or mentions any gnostic "gospel" or semi-gnostic text (such as "Gospel of Thomas") as anything but spurious or heretical. However, "general agreement" means just that and no more. It is truly faulty scholarship by fundamentalists to conflate ECF lists (spread over 3 centuries) and ignore how they disagree with each other, other dioceses, and the NT canon that was eventually worked out by CATHOLIC councils in the 4th C. It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the provincial councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in the 4th C. that there was any sort official declaration on the NT and OT canon. These local synods and councils with the backing of the Roman Pontiffs SETTLED (with a few here and there temporary objections) the scriptural canon for 1100 years. This over-300 years gap between the founding of the Church circa 32 AD and any sort of OFFICIAL declaration is very hard to understand if one is a Protestant holding to the belief of "sola scriptura" because such a declaration of what WAS scripture and what was NOT scripture would have been a top priority if "scripture alone" as THE rule of faith HAD been a belief taught by the first Christians. For Catholics (and Orthodox) it presents NO PROBLEM since Apostolic (Oral) Tradition along with Sacred Scripture are considered EQUALLY authoritative sources of "public revelation" with the teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) being the IMMEDIATE rule of faith for the believer. Under the latter belief, an officially defined canon of scripture was simply not as important an issue as the teachings about the Trinity and Incarnation were. The ONLY reason the Catholic Church felt compelled to later infallibly once-and-for-all declare the canon of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) at the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the 16th century was because of Protestant challenges to the canon (both old and new). Almost all dogmatic declarations by the Catholic Church are done to define an ALREADY held belief and refute some RECENT challenge to that already held belief. These dogmatic declarations (either "ex cathedra" by a reigning pontiff or by ecumenical council ratified by a reigning pontiff) do NOT "create new teaching" they defend what has ALWAYS been held!
The Detailed Listings Muratorian canon (C. 170 AD perhaps in response to Marcion's "Apostilikon"): Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul's epistles, Jude, 2 John, Apocalypse of John (Revelation) Apocalypse of Peter Wisdom of Solomon. --Apocalypse of Peter now does not belong to our New Testament, while Wisdom of Solomon is now part of (Catholic) Old Testament. --The compiler mentioned about Shepherd of Hermas which can be read but not to be given to people. --He also wrote about Paul epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which he claimed to be forged but was apparently accepted by some as authoritative). Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170 AD): quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. and 1 and 2 John 1 Peter --most likely knew all 13 Paul's epistles (except Philemon) --MAYBE James and Hebrews and Revelation. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200 AD): The four Gospels Acts, 13 Paul's epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude Revelation. He mentioned Hebrews as the work of Barnabas and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon.
Origen (185 - 254 AD) Distinguished the undisputed and the disputed books of New Testament Undisputed: Four Gospels Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John Revelation. Disputed: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Didache Also refered to Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all seven non-Pauline epistles) He was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter. He also considered Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and mentioned the Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul and some other books. Cyprian (third century) listed: four Gospels, Acts, 9 Paul's epistles (minus Philemon), 1 Peter, 1 John Revelation. He also cited Shepherd of Hermas as scripture Recognized Didache as apostolic quotations.
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (314 - 339 AD) divided New Testament books into three categories: Universally acknowledged: four gospels, Acts, Pauline 14 epistles (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter Revelation Disputed: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John Spurious: Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache Revelation Note that Revelation was listed both as the first and the third category. It shows the two different opinions of the canonicity of Revelation, which was especially true among the eastern churches. He also mentioned Gospel of Peter, which was read and appreciated by Christians in the second century and quoted by Justin Martyr. Eusebius also mentioned as heretical books like Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias and groups of books of Acts bearing names of apostles (Paul, Peter, Andrew, John and Thomas). All these books and others which do not belong to our present New Testament canon are now known as New Testament apocrypha.
In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria gave the list of 27 New Testament books, for the first time without making any distinction of them and which now becomes our New Testament. Council of Laodicea (c 363 AD) gave the list of 26 New Testament books (Revelation was not included). The same list of 26 books was given by Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386 AD) and by Gregory of Nazianzen. Amphilochius of Iconium gave the 27 books but mentioned that some of them (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation) as spurious. John of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople from 397 to 407 AD gave list which excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. The Syriac church's earliest canon of New Testament consisted of: 4 gospels or Diatessaron, Acts 14 Pauline epistles. 5th century onward included: James, 1 Peter 1 John. Not until 508 AD did the Monophysite branch of Syriac church finally include the other five books while the other branch, Nestorians accepts only 22 books to this day. Pope Damasus I ordered Jerome to translate the 27 books into Latin (Vulgate).(5th C.) Augustine in the fifth cenntury listed the 27 books in his work, "On Christian Learning" Those 27 books were later declared at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and at Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD. The same councils also declared the list of Old Testament books which now become Catholic Old Testament. The sixth Council of Carthage in 419 AD promulgated the (same) canon of the Bible. It can be said that the 27 books of the New Testament (together with Catholic Old Testament books) were determined in the fourth Century. Among the 27 books, seven (James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation) books entered the list after some disputes. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) has all 27 books of our present New Testament, but also includes Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) was torn at the end, so does not reveal the whole list---the existing part consists of 21 books and part of Hebrews of our present New Testament. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) has the 27 books plus: 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Claromontanus (6th century): has no Philemon, no 1 and 2 Thessalonians no Hebrews but includes Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul Revelation of Peter. 4th Century "Cheltenham list": 4 gospels, 13 Pauline epistles (minus Hebrews) Acts, Revelation, 1 John 1 Peter.
“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther
This one of those places where they conveniently disavow Luther. This is why I could never be lutheran. Their very existence requires a verbal craftiness that I've always found unworthy of religion.
@Catholic-Perennialist do you think lutherans are committed to every word a single pastor taught? They aren't. Confessional lutherans confess their Confessions, which were endorsed by many pastors and churches. I'm not lutheran, but you have misunderstood them completely. They don't Martin luther was without error or a prophet or a pope.
@@Catholic-Perennialistwhat makes you think they would have to disavow luther in his comment here? Where does it conflict with the kutheran confessions?
Myth 66-Book Protestant Bible wasn’t used by any of the early Christians...list nearly every ancient writer who listed a Canon and where he stood on the issue and the result is four men had a 66 book Canon, seven different men and councils came within one or two books of the Protestant number, and a grand total of ZERO had the Catholic number of 73 before the Council of Carthage. Further, it is possible this Council did not even include the Book of Hebrews, which means that not one ancient Christian in recorded history has the Catholic Canon, when four have the Protestant Canon. Early Christians that held to the Protestant, 66 book Canon: -St Amphilochus of Iconium Rufinus Jerome Epiphanius (He speaks of Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach being under dispute.) Early Christians that held to the Catholic, 73 book Canon before the Council of Carthage: -Zero. It is worth noting that the Council of Carthage probably did not include the Book of Hebrews, so it was in fact a 72 book Canon. Further, Augustine wrote of Maccabees that it is “not in the Holy Scriptures
Even if you listen to a Catholic apologist like Erick Ybarra he actually admits the Catholic claim for the apocrypha is actually not that strong...fact is 4 figures held to 66 book Canon before Council of Carthage and 0 73 book...even after that you have a steady stream of people rejecting the Apocrypha as canon proper (atleast 52 figures including Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Jiminez etc) all the way up to just before the Council of trent that dogmatically settled the apocrypha to be included for the Catholic church. RESPONSE to bansheebrethren below as my comments are being deleted...In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” First of all The Synod of Rome is not an ecumenical council, secondly there us a distinction between Canon proper and useful for edification or historical reading which is clear from Cardinal Cajetan...In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” It makes absolutely no sense for Cajetan to appeal to Jerome in his rejection of Apocrypha if Jerome thought it was canon proper! And btw Protestants make the same point distinction that Cajetan made (namely a difference between Canon as a rule of faith i.e for doctrine and possible use for edification or historical reading value. Lastly...I would say it's totally uncharitable to remark "quit lying to yourself" as if I have some kind of less than genuine agenda... obviously we disagree on the facts and it's a display of bad faith to claim I am "lying to myself " and contributes nothing towards a genuine dialogue.
@@Adam-ue2ig the synod of Rome under pope Damascus was before Carthage and affirms the Catholic canon. Jerome submitted will for his translation under the pope and included the Deuterocanonicals, then the I don’t know, ONE THOUSAND YEARS of usage of the Deuterocanonicals affirms the Catholic canon was accepted by all of Christendom. Stop lying to yourself
I’d encourage you to read their canons a little closer. Amphilochius does not mention Esther Rufinius clearly accepts Baruch. Jerome accepts the longer version of Daniel Epiphanius accepts Baruch. Just an aside, but just looking at the books church fathers name as canonical or not doesn’t give you the full picture. You also have to do the harder work of seeing how that father USED the books. As an example, while Rufinius does not explicitly mention Baruch in his list, we know he accepted it as part of Jeremiah and as scripture (as was common-even Calvin accepted it) because he quotes from it as scripture and doesn’t list it among either the ecclesiastical or apocryphal books.
@bansheebrethren797 it's simply not true that ALL of Christendom accepted the apocrypha...you are either woefully ignorant or lying. Also synod of Rome is not an ecumenical council. In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical: “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” It's obvious that Jerome did not hold Apocrypha as canon proper as it would be nonsensical for Cajetan to appeal to Jerome in 1532 (also including it does not mean he personally held it to be canon proper). I might add your comment about "quit lying to yourself " is quite uncharitable as obviously we have a genuine disagreements about the data and facts. Also a distinction is made between canon for rule of faith i.e doctrine and "canon" simply in the sense of being for possible edification or historical value of reading (which is a distinction most if not all Protestants have btw)...I don't need to lie to myself as obviously I genuinely believe you are the one in error and for you to assume otherwise is just acting in bad faith and unproductive to any real diaolgue.
The argument based on the canon does not require that there be an infallible pronouncement by the church of what the canon is. It merely requires that the church be able to infallibly determine what is and what is not in the canon. It does not matter if formation of the canon is through a papal decision, a decision by a council or by general acceptance throughout the church. The point is that there must be an infallible authority outside scripture to determine what is and is not in the canon, or we cannot have confidence that any book in the canon is, in fact, inspired.
Před měsícem+2
How do we know who that infallible authority is when many claim it for their own? How can one know a Tradition™️ is true when the only thing to go off of is that same Tradition™️, (unless Tradition™️ is somehow self attesting, which ends up with the same claim as Sola Scriptura, yet without a written revelation from the apostles themselves)?
@@RepublicofE By 380 A.D. the church was certainly not Protestant. It already had the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon for centuries. It was celebrating the mass or divine liturgy. It believed in the Real Presence. It believed in baptismal regeneration. It was venerating the relics of the martyrs. One of the most interesting episodes of the aftermath of Luther's Revolt was the Lutheran approach to the Orthodox church. The Lutherans presented the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Augsburg Confession. The Patriarch told them in no uncertain terms where Orthodoxy differed from Protestantism.
We have the fathers of the church and the decisions of the Councils. While individual fathers may not be infallible, as a group, they bear witness to the mind of the church. So one can ask questions like: 1. Is this something that the apostolic churches teach? 2a. Was this a teaching of the church from the earliest times? 2b. Do the church fathers teach this or is it a logical extension of their beliefs? 3. Is it consistent with or not contrary to scripture? To take the example of baptismal regeneration. So we can look at the questions: Is this something that the apostolic church teach? Yes. Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all teach baptismal regeneration. Is this something the church has taught from the earliest times? Yes. The church fathers teach it. The first treatise on baptism by Tertullian firmly declares that baptism is regenerative. Justin Martyr speaks of baptism as regenerative. Is it consistent or at least not contrary to scriptures? Yes. In a number of points in scripture, it speaks of baptism forgiving sins. So when people come along 1,500+ years after the fact and start teaching the contrary, we can be pretty sure that they are wrong.
Před měsícem
@@charleskramer8995 what did the early church teach about the death penalty?
So many of the ECF ‘recognized’ that the dueterocanon was inspired of God. The ‘recognized’ argument doesn’t really help when it comes to a final canon.
Great topic and discussion! Some thoughts: Inspired writ doesn't come with a Table of Contents, true. *But* it does come with principles & rules whereby we are to evaluate if some "Thus says the Lord," is in fact the Word of the Lord. Many of these rules are contained in the foundational books of each testament, the Pentateuch and Matt&Mark's gospel. eg. Deut18:21, And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? [And the word which the Lord hath spoken?] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Mat18:16 the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. See also Mrk14:59 Some more tests... Deut19:15, Deut13:1-4, Amos3:7, Mat11:2-6, John 10:27, there are others... Genuine scripture is able to authenticate itself to believers: and not merely in a woo-woo manner; the tests God gives us are reasonable: they make sense. Someone might ask, well, given these rules... do you affirm that all the words in the NT are divinely inspired? I'd answer, I believe some parts of the NT are _divinely included._ I want to respect the authors and take serious their statements to their audience - off the top of my head I think of 1Cor7 (throughout the chapter) & Luke1:1-3. as examples... Anyway, good topic. thanks for posting !
@@mwright_boomer how do you determine which canon to use to begin "self-authenticating"? Certainly the Ethiopian church believes their canon is also "self-authenticating", ditto for mormons
@@mwright_boomer Except for the part where the modern Bishops get their authority from apostolic succession, that is they were ordained by somebody ordained by somebody going all the way back to the 12 apostles and Paul, of whom were ordained by Christ Himself. They're vouching for the authority of the canon. Paul would be able to say "I wrote this." Timothy and Barabbas could say "Paul wrote this." The Bishops ordained by them can say "Yes, Paul wrote these." Sola Scriptura is saying "Paul wrote this because scripture says Paul wrote this," and that's basically it
Před měsícem
How can one know a Tradition™️ is true when the only thing to go off of is that same Tradition™️, (unless Tradition™️ is somehow self attesting, which ends up with the same claim as Sola Scriptura, yet without a written revelation from the apostles themselves)?
Před měsícem
@@eddardgreybeard you speak as though we're living in 75 AD.
That claim; that the canon of scripture is determined wholly by Papal Decree, is incredibly frustrating. Taken at face value it implies that possibly, the Bhagavad Gita or the Qu'ran are canon; all one needs is a papal decree declaring them to be so. But if necessarily, the Bhagavad Gita and Qu'ran are not canon, it follows that at most, Papal Decree discovers the canon of scripture. But if Papal Decree can discover the canon of scripture, so can any Protestant.
Yeah, Rome has her problems and her arguments are convincing either but all churches pre- reformation who all go by tradition and yet end up with different cannons, why is right and why?
Straw man argument. The sheer variety of early canon lists shows the need for guidance. Some early Christians rejected Revelation and other now accepted books, while others included now rejected texts like 1 Enoch, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas. While there was no decisive declaration back then, one can see a process of standardization by the bishops evidenced in the early synods. The bishops gradually sorted the canon out, leading to the near universal acceptance of the 73 book canon in the Middle Ages.
where was their a bible before this document it please 🤦♀️ As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether. Please be mindful of the fact that those seven books had been in Bibles used by all Christians from the very foundation of Christianity. Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church. Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
The question of whether the Deuterocanonical books properly belonged to the Old Testament was contentious in the church right up to the Council of Trent. Even at that council the vote was divided and to my knowledged those who dissented were not excommunicated. The Council of Rome was a local and not ecumenical council and there is no contemporaneous evidence that it was recieved as infallible dogma as opposed to merely a disciplinary canon for liturgical purposes. Furthermore contrary to what most Papists believe the inclusion of those books in the canon was not an official grievance of the Lutheran reformers and the matter is not even mentioned as a point of controversy in the Augsburg Confession. Nor did Luther attempt to promulgate the idea that they weren't in the canon as a binding doctrine. Prior to Trent the consensus of the church was that Scripture did not come with a "table of contents" and one could not be imposed upon it. It was at Trent that a dogmatic list was promulgated for the first time, and also where it was declared for the first time that you had to subscribe to the table or else be outside the church. This in turn prompted English Reformed Protestants to create their own binding Table of Contents which excluded the Deuterocanons, which is why so many people now believe rejection of them was a chief cause of the Lutheran Reformation even though the Lutherans had nothing to do with it. And although those books don't appear in most Lutheran bible translations today, our official stance on their canonicity remains the same as that of the Eastern churches: uncertainty that doesn't vex us any more than it did the early church.
@@RepublicofE AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written. AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as Scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deleted references to Jesus's Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament", the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. AD 200: The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D.. 382 --Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 393 A.D. --the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius. AD 397: The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by ... 787 A.D. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence. 🤔AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation. AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. 😁AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
Dr. Cooper did not answer the issue raised by Catholics - what he did is simply using different verbs "to recognize" in place of "to determine/decide" The verb he chose does not release him from the question: how do we know which church "recognizes" the correct canon? As he pointed out in the video The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Protestant churches do not have the same canon. Who has the right canon and how do we know? Luther himself separated James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation from the other 23 books of NT - he placed those four at the end of his NT. His criteria of "recognizing" Scripture: "That which does not teach Christ is still not apostolic; even it were the teaching of Peter or Paul. On the other hand, that which preaches Christ, that would be apostolic even if Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod did it." (Source: F. F. Bruce: The Canon of Scripture, page 244). Dr. Cooper does not have to agree with his way of "recognizing" Scripture and can create his own method of "recognizing" Scripture.
Před měsícem+1
So how do we know the correct canon? Whose Tradition™️ is correct and how do we know without circular reasoning?
The answer of your question is what Dr. Cooper and others do not accept: We need infallible authority outside Scripture to determine which books and how many of them belong to Scripture.
Před měsícem+1
@@justfromcatholicyou didn't answer my question though.
There's no evidence that Jesus celebrates Hanukkah in the modern sense. They had a feast, but the miracle of lights associated with it is not attested to until much later than the time of Jesus' ministry. It would be like comparing traditions of Christmas today with those of a few hundred years ago, almost everything associated with Christmas today came about in the last 150 years. Without the clarification some modern Jews might think the mention of Hanukkah refers to the menorah and miracle celebrated today.
@@triggered8556 But Hanukkah wasn't about the miracle of lights as far as we know until later. There's no evidence of that aspect until around 300AD. We only know it as being a small feast to remember the cleansing and rededication of the temple. Using the name Hanukkah may imply to a Jew or a less informed Christian that Jesus confirmed the celebration of the miracle of lights.
@@litigioussociety4249 it’s called the feats of dedication aka Hanukkah. The miracle of the lights it’s related to it. Why are you being so dense? Jesus participated in Hanukkah. Hanukkah is in the Old Testament, in 1 Maccabees.
@@triggered8556 The miracle and the original purpose of the rededication were two different things. The miracle part was possibly added after the time of Christ, since it's not mentioned before that.
The Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint. The Sadducees only held to the books of Moses. The Church - the Pillar and Bulwark fo Truth - where the manifold wisdom of God is made known - the Jesus PROMISED to lead to ALL Truth - Led by the Holy Spirit - would decide the OT canon (46 writings) in light of Jesus Christ, at the same time declaring the NT to have 27 writings.
Josephus, writing in 94 AD, cites an OT canon of 22 books (which sub-divides into our 39 books) Athanasius, writing in 367 AD, affirms the same OT canon as Josephus. Jerome, writing in 392 AD while translating the Latin Vulgate, also affirms the same 22 book canon list as Josephus. Jerome is easily the most qualified of all 4th century church fathers to make this determination, being a Hebrew scholar himself. Not only does the very best evidence show that the OT canon dates back to the first century and before. But simply due to the nature of the deposit of God's divine revelation, and the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. It follows that the entire OT canon must have been fully received by the original target audience, prior to any deposit of New revelation. Otherwise nothing in the New Testament would make any sense. Not just when it was written down, but when the events were actually happening, they wouldn't have made any sense. If you believe the New Testament, then it follows that you must believe that the revelation of the Old Testament was fully received before Jesus' birth. Since we have no dispute over the NT canon, and Rome has claimed to have "infallibly" determined the whole canon, while demonstrably getting it wrong. Then Rome's entire claim of infallibility is also proven wrong. Thus, scripture has done its job perfectly, by providing the necessary reproof and correction to force humility upon those who are so swollen with pride, they would attribute to themselves that which can only be attributed to God. Man cannot determine the canon of God's word. He can only discover it. God determines it, the moment He deposits His word through inspiration.
@@TruthHasSpoken Did Jesus read the Greek Old Testament when he went to the Synagogue and read from the prophets? Did he read from the Greek Old Testament when he went the to Temple Courts to listen to the teachers and ask questions?
Interesting video. I’d be interested in seeing your response to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. It seems clear to me that the scripture and the oral tradition are equal in importance and authority, and that the Holy Spirit will guide both. Thanks ✝️🇻🇦
Před měsícem+1
This assumes that the things taught by word and by mouth were different, so perhaps the burden of proof would be on those who claim as such. Perhaps it can be done, but I don't know for sure.
Also check out Mark 7:8-9: "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!" Seems like God's written word ranks way higher in importance and authority.
I wonder if you follow that… One of those 10 commandments was also to honor the sabbath. Although they met together on Sunday, there is no indication that a formal Sunday change was made in the New Testament. So do you follow the “way higher” written word or follow the tradition of the Church and worship on Sunday?
@@toddthacker8258 You’re equivocating on the term ‘tradition.’ The Bible makes a distinction between human tradition and oral tradition. ‘Tradition of men’ is noted in the Greek Manuscripts as ‘παράδοσιν ἀνθρώπων.’ Whereas the ‘oral tradition’ is noted in the those very same manuscripts as ‘παραδόσεις.’ This is the term Paul used in the Corinthians.
Cooper’s argument was incredibly insufficient or complete. If you believe Jesus is God then you trust that he trusted his Apostles to establish a Church. Jesus and the Old Testament argument , he made it clear that the Pharasis were so BOOK bound and ignored the spirit of the WORD. “Before I leave, I have this book, because last time I gave y’all written commandments you didn’t follow them. Make copies of this too. That way I really don’t need you apostles anyway. So choosing y’all wasn’t really needed anyway either” said NOT Jesus at the acension .
But-but-but what of the Mormons and Adventists! They also think their canon is directly inspired by God but-but we think they heretics, what gives us the right, faith in God? Mormons claim the same thing :((
A lot of Catholic teachings are not ‘necessary’, but they are most ‘fitting’. And if one does not deem Sessationism true, a lot of them derive from divine revelations. Why do Protestants not get revelations that says Catholicism is true? Probably because we’ve ‘freely rejected’ Roman Catholicism.
Every time I hear the argument that, even if we accept that there is a tradition necessary, it doesn't prove which one (RC, EO, etc), I think of the atheist argument against Christianity. The one that goes, "even if I accept that there is a god, that doesn't prove Christianity. There are many groups claiming the path to divinity, from Christians to Muslims to Hindus." The (usually unsaid) implication is, "Since there are multiple groups claiming this, I can reject all such claims." The issue, of course, is if the atheist accepts that there is a God, they may not necessarily be able to jump straight to True Religion, but what they cannot honestly do is remain atheist. The question becomes sorting which religion is True.
A good point. Mr. Cooper is correct that if one can disprove sola scriptura that does not tell you which church is Christ's. But it does tell us which churches are not the original Christian Church. It takes it from thousands to only a handful.
We are not saying the Church invented the Canon, only that it had authority to decide the canon. Which it obviously did since you are adhering to that authority.
@@dman7668 the church doesn’t decide the canon-God does! The church has no authority over scripture whatsoever-the church must be in submission to the word of God. The church can recognize what is scripture, but it doesn’t decide what is.
During the Incarnation (2 BC to 32 AD) the Jews did not have a fixed canon (Koine Greek kanon, meaning measuring rod). What was considered authoritative Scripture varied depending upon what Jewish community or sect you were part of. To declare in any absolute sense certain books were or were not accepted as authoritative Scripture in the First Century, especially before the Destruction of the Temple in 70, is either ignorant or misleading-possibly even intentionally so. Simply, there is no evidence that the pre-Revolt Jewish religious authority (Sanhendrin) attempted to declare a set canon even in Judea, let alone in the Jewish communities of the First Diaspora. Pharisee Jews in Judea and Galilee largely accepted a 24 book canon, in three divisions, later called the Palestinian Canon. This was apparently the canon that only was “settled: (with some notable exceptions) by much later Jewish authorities in the mid Second Century. This makes sense as the Pharisees were the only sect to survive the two Revolts, eventually becoming the basis of Rabbinic Judaism. The Law, the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateutch The Prophets: 4 major and 4 minor prophets The Writings: 11 books The Sadducees were divided. Many believed only the Pentateutch was inspired and authoritative, others held the other books, with the exception of Daniel, had a lesser degree of inspiration and authority. Daniel was rejected not just because verse 12;2 supported the General Resurrection, which the Sadducees rejected, but also because of the “Son of Man” figure in 7:13-14 It is interesting that when quoting Scripture, Jesus only quoted from the Pentateuch when speaking to Sadducees, but from the Palestinian Canon when speaking to Pharisees. So Jesus not quoting from the 7 Deuterocanonical books only shows he was speaking to either group on their terms, not that Jesus was confirming either group’s canon.
One big exception is at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhendrin, which was majority Sadducee, including the High Priest Caiphas. In Mark 14: 60-64, when Caiphas officially commands Jesus to declare if he is the Messiah or not, Jesus paraphrases Daniel 7: 13-14 to claim he is not just the Messiah-Deliverer, but the same Son of Man who the prophet placed on equal status with “the Ancient of Days”, God. While rejecting the authority of Daniel, Caiphas as the rest of the Sadducees knew it well enough to get exactly what Jesus was claiming, and immediately declare him guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death. Likewise, Pharisees knew the non-Palestinian books of the Septuagint well enough to try to stump Jesus (Matt 22:23-27), drawing from Tobit a question regarding multiple marriages in the afterlife. Additionally, unless it was pure coincidence, the Chief Priest, Scribes, and Elders (again, largely Sadducee) when witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus, paraphrase quote Wisdom, one of the Deuterocanon books. Matthew 27: 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. Wisdom 2:17-20 Let us see if his words are true,and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is,and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
The Samaritans, in the First Century and to this day, only accept their version of the Pentateutch as Scripture. The Essenes at the Qumran community accepted the Palestinian Canon, minus Esther. They also held several peculiar writings, Jewish apocrypha, in high enough esteem as to be de facto Scripture. Flavius Josephus, writing circa 90 AD, said the Jews recognized 22 books (Palestinian 24) divided into 3 divisions: 5 Books of Moses 13 Books of the Prophets 4 remaining books Josephus did NOT name these books, so saying they were the same as the Palestinian Canon, with some books being combined and others separated, is pure speculation, perhaps even confessional bias. It is reasonable to assume, since he was of priestly descent, Josephus was a Sadducee, holding to the somewhat broader Sadducee canon-meaning he rejected Daniel.. Outside Judea and Galilee, in the Koine Greek speaking communities of the First Diaspora used the longer canon of the Septuagint, including the seven books of Tobith, Judith, Baruch (with Letter of Jerimiah), Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. It also had longer versions of Daniel and Esther. The 7 additional books are not held by either ancient or modern Jewish scholars as “apocrypha” (obscure), which is reserved for works like Enoch. While mid 2nd Century Jews rejected the later (Deutero, hence Deuterocanon) composed books as inspired and authoritative, they were generally held in respect, unlike the true apocrypha, which contained wild apocalyptic passages, and perhaps even early Gnostic influence. The label of “Apocrypha” to the Deuterocanon was a 16th Century Protestant insult, and hence should be avoided. The Septuagint (meaning “the 70” from the tradition 70 scholars took 70 days to translate the books) is divided into 4 divisions: The Law Historical Books Poetical and Wisdom Books Prophets
The much-cited by Protestants Council of Javneh (aka Jamnia, aka Jabneh) which supposedly excluded the Deuterocanon must be dealt with. First off, it wasn’t a Council (in Hebrew, Sanhedrin, “sitting together” , or assembly). Rather, it was an early and very influential school, or yeshiva. Javneh had no authority to make make binding decisions on Jews anywhere, per Roman dictate, When they did attempt to make a binding declaration, in saying Bar Kochba was the Messiah, leading to the Second and even more disastrous Revolt of 132-136, it was so spectacularly wrong that it simply begs the question why any Christian shouldn’t reject anything they said. Secondly, Javneh didn’t issue any specific list of excluded books. Rather, they gave rather broad categories: No books that were not originally of Hebrew composition, No books composed after 400 BC. Must be written in Judea and Galilee. And, the rather vague, Must conform to the Pentateutch. From start to finish, the exclusions were designed to counter Christianity. The First Century Church WAS using the Septuagint. Biblical scholars. be they Christian, Secular, or Jewish, agree at least 86% of the New Testament’s quotes or allusions of the Jewish Scriptures were from the Koine Septuagint. The Apostles and their converts, including Jewish Christians, considered the Septuagint so reliable, its Authority to the Church can be considered a given. Far more explicitly than Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant in Wisdom 2 shows not just that the Messiah must first suffer, be humiliated, and die, but that it would occur by the command of his people’s own leaders, This chapter was constantly quoted by the Early Church, and Javneh decided to change the goal posts.Javneh’s strategy was, “if Jews don’t consider Wisdom Scripture, then they won’t be as vulnerable to conversion”. In a way, this end-run play was a tacit admission by Javneh just how dangerous Wisdom 2 was to them. There were other issues Javneh had with the Deuterocanon, including in Maccabees, several embarrassing treaties of friendship with the Roman Republic.Ironic as that Maccabees is the textual basis for the Feast of Hanukkah. One thing Javneh or other Jewish yeshivas DIDN’T have an issue with was the idea of post-death purification, as demonstrated in 2 Maccabees 12 While historical and contemporary Jewish thought on the afterlife varies-from none at all to universal redemption, or even reincarnation-the idea that a human may have to suffer some period before eventual eternal bliss is at least an acceptable concept, The practice of saying the kaddish prayer for the departed supports this. The hatred of 2 Macc. 12 supporting the Catholic teaching of Purgatory is again, a 16th Century Protestant reaction and does not occur in prior Jewish examples. It should be noted that one of the 1947 Dead Sea Scrolls was a pre First Century copy of Baruch in Hebrew. This strongly supports that Baruch was both originally composed in Hebrew and in Judea-Galilee. Scholars agree all 7 Deuterocanon books show Semitic authorship, the remaining question being was the composition originally in Hebrew or Koine? If the former, then one, possibly two of Javneh’s principles is moot.
Additionally, Javneh categorically excluded any writings by the First Century Church. It apparently was very divided on the Scriptural status of the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, none of which is quoted by any New Testament writer. It is certainly inconsistent of Protestants to respect Javneh’s authority to exclude the Deuterocanon, but then reject Javneh;s rejection of the New Testament. As it was, per The Encyclopedia of Religion (Vol. 2, page 174) and the Encyclopedia of Judaism (page 117) Javneh was certainly NOT the last word on the Jewish Canon. Disputes on the canon continued into the late Second and even the early 3rd Century. To this day, Ethiopian Jews hold the Septuagint, minus Ecclesiasticus, as Scripture. As it was, the Church certainly was not influenced by Javneh’s exclusions, since a yeshiva founded several decades after Christ’s Ascension, largely in opposition to Christianity, had no spiritual authority over Christians
Now, the detailed Christian listings of the Old Testament. If we can call it a “canon” the heretic Marcion, c. 144 being at least a semi-Gnostic, excluded the entirety of the Old Testament. Justin Martyr, 155, considered the Septuagint as Scripture Melito, 170, recognized the Palestinian Canon, minus Esther. Iranaeus, 180, considered Septuagint as Scripture. Tertullian, , 200 , considered the Septuagint as Scripture, He also included Enoch as Scripture. Origen, 230, recognized the Palestinian Canon, but also included the Letter of Jerimiah from the Septuagint. Athanasius, 367, recognized the Palestinian Canon, included the Letter of Jerimiah, Baruch, and omitted Esther. He considered the other 6 Deterocannon books of inferior grade, which still is not an absolute exclusion from the Canon. Council of Laodicea, 363, follows Athanasius, but Esther is included. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, 348-386, recognized the Palestinian Canon, but also included the Letter of Jerimiah from the Septuagint, and included Baruch. Gregory of Nazianzus, 330-390, recognized the Palestinian Canon, included the Letter of Jerimiah, Baruch, and omitted Esther. Jerome, 346-420, had doubts about the Deuterocanon, did refer them as apocrypha (he was more than a bit of a Hebrew-language snob), but obedient to Pope Damasus, translated all of Scripture, including the Deuterocanon, into the Latin Vulgate. Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, agreed with Septuagint, and his listing of 44 books agrees with Catholic Old Testament’s 46 because he combined Lamentation and Baruch (with Letter of Jerimiah) with Jerimiah. Synod of Rome, 383, Affirmed Austine’s list Council of Hippo (Augustine’s See) 393 Affirmed Augustine’s list 3rd Council of Carthage, 397, and 4th Council of Carthage, 419, Affirmed Augustine’s list The above councils and synod also reaffirmed the 27 New Testament Canon we have today. the 4th Century:
You moved the goal post. The claim was that the prior to the Church, there was no cannon of scripture. Without the Church, there would be no scripture, or at least we wouldn’t know what constitutes inspired scripture. You concede that point. The argument is over. It’s a simple fact that there is nothing that says scripture is the _highest_ authority except for Protestant reformers whose statements are _not_ infallible by their own admission! It should be easy. It shouldn’t take ten minutes to explain. As for the Old Testament cannon, it is clear _from scripture_ that Jesus and the Apostles quoted largely from the Septuagint. The cannon found in the Septuagint matches the Catholic OT. Even _if_ you want to say “well Jerome preferred the Hebrew texts” or “using textual criticism you can etc. etc.” even if you say that, you can’t dig yourself out of the hole that _you_ have created. _You_ say that scripture is the _highest_ authority, and yet it says _nothing_ about how to ensure which texts are canonical. That’s right. No church fathers, no historical evidence, no textual criticism, nothing. You simply don’t get to build the canon using tools that you say are _inferior_ to scripture.
Both scripture and oral tradition are of equal importance (2 Thessa 2:15; 3:6) The Catholic Church selected which books are to make up the canon of the bible. Protestants don’t have books from the Septuagint that Jesus and apostles used, Duetercanonical books, because Jesus founded only one church for our salvation
1. Those verses refer to teachings given by "we", as in Paul and the apostles. The Pope and the men who sat on the Council of Trent were are not Paul and the apostles so the verse doesn't apply. 2. Lutherans never dogmatically rejected the Deuterocanons.
“We” Also taught that the bible clearly points to the Church (only Catholic at the time before Luther came along) the church is the foundation and support of truth ( 1 Tim 3:15)
I would say this is not your best video; this was kind of a mishmash with no clear line of argumentation, imo. If one wants to argue for an inerrant text, which is really where this dispute plays out between Catholics and inerrantist Protestants and Evangelicals, then you need to define exactly what the biblical text is and where it exists (other than in a variety of people's imagination). Beyond the "table of contents" question, there is the issue of defining which version of a particular book is the canonical one. Which version of Jeremiah (they differ by quite a bit), which version of Daniel, which version of Esther, etc. The simple fact is that different historical churches have had different biblical canons all along and you're correct in noting that there's nothing particular in the Catholic claim that makes it superior to, say, the Greek Orthodox claim. The various canons are the products of these churches. There's a lot of consensus, but again, if one is talking about needing an inerrant text, then that's a problem you didn't address. As a side note, Jesus was observing the Encaenia (see the Greek text of John) in Jerusalem, which was at that time had been rolled into Sukkot, one of the required Israelite pilgrimage festivals. Hannukah, which was observed later in the year and observances around which we know almost nothing at the time of Jesus, was never a required pilgrimage festival, so there would be no reason for Jesus to go to Jerusalem to observe it. This is important because Jesus in John is actually observing Israelite law and not "the traditions of men" as you claimed in the video. That's not to say that Jesus doesn't support Jewish tradition, it's just that it's an invalid argument.
This seemed rather unorganized and all over the place, and I think the argument still works. If someone wants to try to debate this in the comments and use Jordan’s argument, maybe I’ll see the thrust of it
Agreed, I think it just boils down to: trust that the Bible you have is the one that God the Spirit guided man in eventually collating. This is essentially begging the question, no?
@@JJSaund it seems so, as well as a misunderstanding of the Catholic position as a whole. If the canon can be closed by human reasoning and guidance, it can be reopened by the same. If the canon can be closed by divine reasoning and guidance (which Catholics believe the church to be able to provide), then it can only be reopened by the same.
@@aydentrevaskis8390 1) Trust in Jesus. 2) Trust in Jesus' promises to not abandon us leaving us orphans and to send an advocate to lead us and that the gates of hell will not prevail against The Church. 3) Once closed by divine reasoning and guidance it is always closed. 4) The Holy Spirit does NOT issue erratum. That is infallibility. Canon comes from BOTH 1) The list of books that were proclaimed at Mass in the early Church and over time through various councils became the ONLY ones authorized to be proclaimed at Mass in the Liturgy of the Word. These lists included those that eventual became what we know as the New Testament (NT) what protestants call the Old Testament (OT) and 7 missing books from protestant bibles usually called the "Deuterocanonical books" which the early church considered part of the OT. 2) As determined by the Church's judgment to be divinely inspired.
You can’t have Scripture without the Church and you can’t have the Church without Scripture. In the Old Testament God first chooses a people and then the Old Testament develops out of that. The New Testament is similar too. Jesus first establishes the Church. Then the New Testament also develops out of the life of the Church. Considering the nature of how Scripture developed, it was and is necessary to have an authority to define the canon. The Apostles did not define the Canon, but they passed the authority they received from Christ to their successors.
" The Apostles did not define the Canon, but they passed the authority they received from Christ to their successors." Can you prove this bald assertion?
@@RepublicofE There is one aspect in the office of the Apostle that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witness of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. CCC 860 The office of the Apostle also has a permanent aspect because the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them will continue to the end of time. Acts 1:15-22: In those days Peter stood up . . . and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it”; and “HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER TAKE.” ……..Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.” “HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER TAKE." Matthias is a unique Apostle, as Jesus himself did not make his appointment personally. In the election of Matthias, we have the beginning of Apostolic Succession.
Get it right, the Church recognized what God inspired His Church to write. His Church is the Catholic Church. You can't Trust the NT if you don't Trust God's Church.
It's arbitrary from the jump: Agree with the New Testament Canon - this is why they never added any of the books that were rejected by the Church, or opened their canon to any that surfaced later such as the Gospels of Philip, Thomas, or Mary Magdalene. Reject what has been considered scripture for thousands of years by literally the entirety of pre-reformation Christianity and disingenuously claim that what has been there the entire time was "added" at the council of Trent. Reject it on the basis that the very people that deny the authority of the New Testament and that Christ is the risen Lord, also deny the deuterocanonical books. Absolutely arbitrary.
Před měsícem
@@eddardgreybeardwhat books were rejected by the Reformation that weren't rejected by other Fathers before?
"rejected by other Fathers before," is purely arbitrary. There were never enough of them in number to ever disqualify the books as canon. It's the textbook definition of Cherry-picking, especially when you drop a name like St. Jerome and are then faced with the awkward position of the fact the man wrote books on Mary's Perpetual Virginity. *edit* Interesting, it appears my initial post as been deleted. Bizarre, because I hardly said anything that violated "terms of service."
He says that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc all make the same claim about scripture. This argument highlights his ignorance, as Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church were one and the same when scripture was canonized. The schism between East and West didn’t occur until 1054. The rest of his rebuttal is just a word salad that doesn’t refute the obvious truth, which is that scripture comes from the tradition of the church.
First, you have to show, explain, why the "redormation" and their more than 30 thousand denominations are what Jesus said, promised, and expected. Because one cant read the Bible and be part of ANY reformed, protestant denomonation...it CLEARLY contradicts what Jesus promised His Church.
The Reformation was a valid response to some serious corruption within the Church. Regardless of what you think for the result, the Church had some major issues that needed to be addressed. And I also want you to understand that the reformers did not want to splinter the Church, they just wanted to reform it. However, they were excommunicated. They did not leave on their own and their intention was not to start their own denominations. The Roman Catholic Church effectively forced these denominations into existence by excommunicating certain reformers instead of praying and working through the issues.
@@Catholic-Perennialist yes I have. The Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets, that doesn't make them inspired. By the way, which organization are you a part of? Do they hold that Enoch is inspired?
Hey Dr. Cooper, just wanted to say you have been instrumental in me finding my faith again. Thank you for all that you do :)
Am Catholic. Totally agree pop-Catholic apologetics over-simplifies the issue. I wouldn’t use this exact argument against a Protestant, at least not an educated one.
Thanks brother. Fellow Catholic here. On my CZcams channel and on my Facebook I've been trying to correct fellow Catholics on this for years, explaining how Catholic epistemology and history do not support their arguments against Protestants about the Canon. I'd appreciate if you took a look at the videos, gave feedback, shared them if you liked them.
@@taylorbarrett384 What exactly are you "trying to correct"?
What "exact argument" are you referring to?
@@fatimatriumphs that the canon of Scripture is a simple issue that was totally settled early on and the Reformers randomly removed books. With enough research, it becomes more clear that the Catholic canon is correct in my opinion, but it’s not so cut and dry. I have a video on my channel about it.
@@SinceAD33 oh, for sure. 100% agreed!
Was wondering about how to respond that recently. Some also act like their church never changed anything since the beginning as well. I have been interested in knowing more on protestant, roman catholic, orthodox sides for a while, but catholicism is just not it for me personally.
I have been dealing with this claim nonstop, I am very thankful for your explanation here.
He literally didn't change the fact that the Catholic church selected the books in the canon, even the oldest Muratorian fragment list was different so why would you trust the Catholic church ? And btw dr. Copper just admitted that the Catholics were actually inspired by God
@@mig6728 because all of Christendom claims heritage to the early church which could be attributes to any of them because clearly it was actually the Orthodox church that put it together don't you see that? See how that works? Not one branch can say ahh it was us because the church was unified and at the time the Pope wasn't the supreme pontif of the church because that's never been his position historically. Further outside of Rome no one equates the Catholic Church of today with the early church because they are two different animals.
The canons where approved by Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431-1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563).
3:16 …. There’s a difference between provincial councils vs ecumenical councils.
@@sjappiyah4071 They don't care. They think what Rome says goes, at all times.
Just thinking about this Catholic objection lately,And this Video just popped up right on time!😅
Exactly. Taking an exclusively historical approach to the NT canon without any thought to the theological approach, is a mistake.
So clearly expounded and defended in less than 9 minutes. Thank you. What a wonderful time for young Christians who have questions about their Christian faith. I am older, and I see it as an utter failure of the college ministry I joined to not address these issues in the midst of the secular onslaught on campus against faith.
We Catholics Christians believe just like Protestants that the canon is inspired and we won't believe anything that contradicts the canon. Just because we have tradition doesn't mean that we are not following the scriptures. American Protestants are misguided and ignorant regarding what's Catholicism. He can speak for 9 minutes or 900 minutes and it won't make a difference, the fact of the matter is that the Catholic church selected which books to go in the canon. Even the oldest Muratorian fragment didn't have all the books and had extra ones. So why would Protestants trust the Catholic Church in this regard?
Really enjoyed the video I’ve been going through your channel, and realized you don’t have much on the NALC. I’m actually a member of a NALC congregation, and I would love to get your thoughts about it.
Hey i love your work and have been binging on your channel! Im an african american college student swamped with postmodern, DEi, and intersectional thought everyday which i dont subscribe too. I have siblings younger than me that i want to prepare for at minimal for the current cultural situation and at most lead into a new punk yet Christian way of thinking as i feel we are shifting away from postmodernity. More specifically I wanted to ask about your thoughts on METAMODERNISM and can it be the answer and a way for us believers in christ to win the culture wars or at least turn it in out favor. (sorry for this long comment im an artist and im passionate)
Give me some context for what you mean precisely by metamodernism here.
@DrJordanBCooper well it doesn't necessarily apply to this video or topic. But rather in general what are your thoughts on metamodernity and do u think it will successfully change the social paradigm.
Brevard Childs' work on the canon is good.
Agree: the Church "finally" declared what was inspired in the late 4th c and there was a formation of the canon over the centuries. Informed Catholic's don't argue the latter point. The Bishops met first at the Council of Rome (382), then the synods of Hippo (383) and Carthage (397). Later at Florence. All those gatherings declared the OT to have 46 writings and the NT 27 writings.
Agree: we have faith that God led his people to know which books are inspired: Jesus PROMISED to lead his Church - the pillar and bulwark of the truth - to ALL Truth. Trent affirmed what was declared 1200 years earlier. AND the Holy Spirit led the Church to determine what the criteria was for deciding canonicity as the criteria itself are not found in scripture.
Notes:
- the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected.
- in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings.
- Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included)
- One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c.
- Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c.
- Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold)
- there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history.
- It's most inconsistent, that in Michael Kruger's work on the canon, he repeatedly cites Catholic Bishops, none of which agree with him on his view of the Sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism included, nor do they agree with him on the nature of the Church. And through out The Canon Revisited, he can't cite anyone prior to St Athanasius listing the canon of scripture as he has it today, though Origen comes close with Revelation still uncertain. Even granting him that Origen listed the canon exactly, which I do not believe, this fails to show that the Church universally agreed to the same canon. That's why the Bishops met in the late 4th c. In short, he tries to spin a case for his belief but comes up way short of proving his case. IMO, he really doesn't help himself citing Catholic Bishops who while agreeing with each other, repeatedly disagree with him on numerous theological points. Even a criteria for canonicity was whether the writing was widely read at Church - At Mass, which Kruger rejects.
Excellent video here by Dr Pitre on the Council of Jamnia. czcams.com/video/i9fHd86-jYU/video.htmlsi=z0l60CHoNRE1I5hi
Your arguments are riddled with fallacies. I will only mention one because your comment is filled with fluff that would take too long to address.
Let's address your claim of inconsistency on the part of Kruger. Why does it matter that Kruger cites some Roman catholic bishops, but doesn't agree with ALL of their theological conclusions? If agreeing with ALL of the conclusions of one author or person is a prerequisite for citing them, what do we make of several Fathers who cited and relied on Origen to make certain theological points? Gregory and Basil Republished the works of Origen that they found to be commendable in a book labeled "The Philacalia of Origen". Does this mean that they ought have to have agreed with Origens universalism or his denial of the resurrection of the body? No. Such reasoning is asinine.
You can ascertain truth from people that you have fundamental disagreements with. Paul cited the Greek Poets in Acts 17, affirming that their poets were right about being the offspring of God. Does that mean Paul ought to have cosigned everything the pagan Greek poets said? My goodness. You cannot be serious.
@@jeremybamgbade "Why does it matter that Kruger cites some Roman catholic bishops, but doesn't agree with ALL of their theological conclusions?"
Because it's very inconsistent that Kruger quotes repeatedly Catholic Bishops, defacto authority figures, in his trying to create his case for the canon, while not mentioning, let alone adhering to what they believed. From memory, he doesn't even acknowledge their titles and positions which is quite disingenuous. Does Michael believe that they were a bunch of early reformed fundamentalists? Which of them would Michael invite to come speak at his Church or in his class? One wonders accordingly, in the theology of Kruger, just HOW does the Holy Spirit work? What Michael is doing is trying to recreate history to fit his belief system. The canon formation itself is a very big problematic rock in the river for him and this issue has led to many protestants coming to Rome (at least being a point to lead to further study). Here are who he cites:
St. Jerome (Catholic Priest)
Origen (Catholic theologian & Priest)
St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic theologian, priest possibly)
Tatian (Catholic apologist)
St. Justin Martyr (Catholic apologist)
St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch)
St. Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons)
St. Melito of Sardis (Catholic Bishop of Sardis)
Tertullian (Catholic apologist)
St. Papia (Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis)
St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch)
Eusebius of Caesarea (Catholic Bishop of Caesarea)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Catholic Arch Bishop of Nazianzus)
St. Athanasius (Catholic Bishop of Alexandria)
St. Augustine (Catholic Bishop of Hippo)
St. Polycarp (Catholic Bishop of Smyrna)
And it's acknowledge, that they all did not always agree on a topic. But where they all agree or nearly so, and one disagrees, one needs to pause and consider one's understanding of the Christian faith and where it comes from? One can start with the nature of the Church and the Eucharist. Examples on the Eucharist below. Would Michael invite any of the men below to speak to one of his classes on the Eucharist? St Clement?
*The words of St Clement*
_“For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And _*_the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”_* Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
*St Ireneaus*
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks *[the words of consecration by the priest]* have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
*Tertullian too*
_“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.”_ Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
*St. Athanasius*
_“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers _*_[the words of consecration by the priest]_*_ have been recited, then _*_the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…_*_ When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”_ Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
" Such reasoning is asinine. "
Not at all. I stand by my comments. Ad hominem attacks by the way are a sign of weakness of argument. Just saying.... And I stand by all my points below. If you think there are fallacies, feel free to respond to one or more. I have no problem admitting error if you can prove you are right. :)
- the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected.
- in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings.
- Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included)
- One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c.
- Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c.
- Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold)
- there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history.
@@TruthHasSpoken Did you even read my comment? Like seriously. I cited Origen, precisely because the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox church) church has condemned him as a heretic. So it's a little funny that you would call him a "Catholic" when he has been disavowed by your own church.
Moreover, the point was that you can cite people you have fundamental differences with. It's like you have this wall of text saved and you use it in discussions wherein you don't actually engage the other side. Who knows, just a hunch.
@@jeremybamgbade "the Roman Catholic ... church has condemned him as a heretic. :
Please provide a citation as to when the Church declared this ...
That said, Origen held to universalism in regards to salvation, ie, hell would be emptied. This was debated and refuted after he died. Hence, he is referred to as a ecclesiastical writer and not a Church Father.
Some years ago, Pope Benedict called him a "master of faith."
"So it's a little funny that you would call him a "Catholic" "
He was a Catholic priest. What's then "funny" about calling him Catholic?
So too the 16th c Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest as was Ulrich Zwingli. Both were "Catholics," as was the lawyer John Calvin.
And my contention that Kruger is inconsistent, stands. 100% inconsistent. Feel free to refute my points, the below included as well as the quotes I provided on the nature of the Eucharist.
- the Church, the bishops, never met and debated over the canon after 400ad. Not until Father Luther with no authority objected.
- in the Lutheran tradition, there is no "closed" canon. There is no infallible declaration that the OT canon is 39 writings and NOT 46 writings.
- Thus, Lutherans must be open to the OT canon being 46 writings (or right or wrong, any other number, Orthodox canon's included)
- One won't find two traditions, 39 and 46 OT books, co-existing for 1,000+ years in Christianity leading to the 16th c.
- Rejecting 7 OT books itself is following a man-made tradition, promulgated in the 16th c.
- Unlike Jesus and his promise to his Church, the Pharisees were not led by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (the comparison does not hold)
- there never was a Council of Jamnia. This refuted 19th c invention is not found in history.
The problem is krugers idea of a self authenticating cannon is absurd and doesn’t fit the historical record. Not sure why people seem to mention him as their go to guy on this subject.
My question is what is the name of the church? During that time period?
When there's only one of something, you just need the word 'the'. The earth, the creation, the resurrection, the church.
Scripture actually uses this convention: the church in Corinth, the church in Jerusalem, etc.
One, holy, catholic, apostolic church
So wait, let me get this right... Your argument is that we all just know what the cannon is because God wouldn't want us not to know the Cannon which is why the cannon is a point of contention across denominations?
He seems to be begging the question.
Nicea dealt with Aryanism, but it was much more than that. Representatives from the Byzantine Empire AND from every diocese in the world NOT in the Empire such as India and Ethiopia and Romania which were largely isolated from Byzantium came together for 70 days. They formally dealt with Aryanism, but also produced the canons of the council AND compared scriptural canons used in different diocese and liturgical practices. Some of these included rules for ordaining deacons, priests, bishops, deaconesses, and even penances (periods away from the Eucharist) for certain serious sins. Different diocese were using different scriptural canons, and by ";use" I mean they were reading from different sets of books in their weekly schedule of services. The most important part of Nicea was to get everyone in the same city for two and a half months to compare and canonize and while there was variability in the scripture used as readings in the weekly and yearly schedule of services and commemorations, there was general agreement that some should be used and others not used. The books in the N.T. were generally accepted based on their utility as readings in the weekly and yearly schedule of services. Some churches maintained expanded canons but the expanded canons weren't generally read in the weekly liturgical services. So while Nicea wasn't called to canonize books of the N.T. these representatives were put together in the same place for 70 days for the purpose of comparing local practice of holy orders, liturgical services, and local scriptural canons. They dealt with Aryanism in a couple of days and had massive consensus almost immediately. And if you are interested, read the canons of the first ecumenical council (as well as others). The N.T. was largely shaped by the usefulness of certain books as liturgical readings analogously to the Torah readings in Judaism that continued in the Church at certain evening services.
4:00-
“Because we have faith that scripture is inspired, we also have faith that God would guide his people to know what the books that he has inspired are”
Ok, question 1-
what group of Gods people prior to the reformation held to the same 66 book canon Protestants hold today?
Question 2-
Since there are exactly zero, is the argument then that God led his people to the wrong list for 1600+ years or did he lead them to the right list and Protestants got it wrong?
Right. This was a 9 minute video that made no positive argument for the case, it just told us why this argument is insufficient to prove one specific church’s claims as being *the* church. But we don’t have one single argument for why we are the Church.
You are right on.
Great point about Judaism. Moreover, Rome putting together the cannon, even if that premise was granted (which I do not grant), does not imply that they have maintained fidelity to the contents that are contained within that cannon. Romans 3:1-3 says the Jews had a special advantage over all other nations because to them, the covenants, promises, and oracles of God were delivered. Nevertheless , Paul says they were ignorant of the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3 ) which was taught in the scriptures that were entrusted to them (Romans 3:21-26).
Therefore, the argument that "we put the scriptures together" or "we received the scriptures faithfully , therefore we interpret it faithfully" is nothing more than question-begging nonsense.
Moreover, as you have said, the Oriental/Coptic Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east all make the same claims. Therefore, even the Catholic must concede that they have to use their own subjective and admittedly fallible judgment to determine WHICH claim to apostolic fidelity is correct from among these ancient branches of visible administrative Christianity. So the "problem" they try to knot up Protestants in is not one they really get to escape. If they ask "how do you know you have an infallible cannon?" before answering, I would ask how they know they belong to the correct infallible tradition/church, seeing that the aforementioned churches may with just as much propriety as Rome (only granting this for the sake of argument) make the same claims about tradition and apostolic succession using essentially the same kinds of evidence to substantiate their lofty claims.
*Moreover, as you have said, the Oriental/Coptic Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east all make the same claims.*
There's basically nothing the Coptic don't consider canon.
The Eastern Orthodox have a Macc. 3&4 issue, along with psalms 151.
But those little bones of contention are what prots point to when it comes to the rejected authority of what they're all unanimous on: The Deuterocanonical books. Prots are the only "Christians" that suggest they aren't scripture.
*make the same claims about tradition and apostolic succession using essentially the same kinds of evidence to substantiate their lofty claims.*
The Coptic come from Mark and the Eastern Orthodox through John and Paul largely. There is no "lofty" claim about being able to prove their modern hierarchy can be traced back to the original Apostles.
Just sucks for Protestants that they can't, nor will they ever, be able to say that.
@eddardgreybeard i will respond after work. You are sadly mistaken about a number of things.
@@jeremybamgbade
You aren't going to disprove the fact that the Deuterocanonical books are scripture in every bible that isn't a protestant translation.
@eddardgreybeard That isn't the point lol. We will talk later lol.
@@jeremybamgbade
If you say so.
How does exactly the Holy Spirit guide his people to recognize the correct canon? He sad that, but never explained it.
The CATHOLIC CANON of the New Testament
That's right, the SAME canon of the NT that is used by Protestants (including Fundamentalists and even "non-denominationals) was defined and declared by the Catholic Church (which begs the question, what else did we get right?)
The first Early Church Father (ECF) to declare the NT canon as we now have it was St. Athanasius in his _Festal Letters_ circa 367 AD.
All earlier ECF lists and authoritative-citations (or anonymous lists such as the Muratorian Canon) either did not mention certain gospels and epistles, or EXPLICITLY rejected or called "disputed" ones we now accept as canonical or EXPLICITLY accepted as authoritative ones we do not now accept (Such as the _The Didache_, _Epistle of Barnabas_ and _The Shepherd of Hermas_).
What CAN be agreed upon by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants is there was "general" agreement among Christians who were actually Christians of the NT canon prior to the 5th C. NO ECF lists or mentions any gnostic "gospel" or semi-gnostic text (such as "Gospel of Thomas") as anything but spurious or heretical.
However, "general agreement" means just that and no more. It is truly faulty scholarship by fundamentalists to conflate ECF lists (spread over 3 centuries) and ignore how they disagree with each other, other dioceses, and the NT canon that was eventually worked out by CATHOLIC councils in the 4th C.
It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the provincial councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in the 4th C. that there was any sort official declaration on the NT and OT canon. These local synods and councils with the backing of the Roman Pontiffs SETTLED (with a few here and there temporary objections) the scriptural canon for 1100 years.
This over-300 years gap between the founding of the Church circa 32 AD and any sort of OFFICIAL declaration is very hard to understand if one is a Protestant holding to the belief of "sola scriptura" because such a declaration of what WAS scripture and what was NOT scripture would have been a top priority if "scripture alone" as THE rule of faith HAD been a belief taught by the first Christians. For Catholics (and Orthodox) it presents NO PROBLEM since Apostolic (Oral) Tradition along with Sacred Scripture are considered EQUALLY authoritative sources of "public revelation" with the teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) being the IMMEDIATE rule of faith for the believer. Under the latter belief, an officially defined canon of scripture was simply not as important an issue as the teachings about the Trinity and Incarnation were.
The ONLY reason the Catholic Church felt compelled to later infallibly once-and-for-all declare the canon of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) at the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the 16th century was because of Protestant challenges to the canon (both old and new). Almost all dogmatic declarations by the Catholic Church are done to define an ALREADY held belief and refute some RECENT challenge to that already held belief. These dogmatic declarations (either "ex cathedra" by a reigning pontiff or by ecumenical council ratified by a reigning pontiff) do NOT "create new teaching" they defend what has ALWAYS been held!
The Detailed Listings
Muratorian canon (C. 170 AD perhaps in response to Marcion's "Apostilikon"):
Four Gospels,
Acts,
13 Paul's epistles,
Jude,
2 John,
Apocalypse of John (Revelation)
Apocalypse of Peter
Wisdom of Solomon.
--Apocalypse of Peter now does not belong to our New Testament, while Wisdom of Solomon is now part of (Catholic) Old Testament.
--The compiler mentioned about Shepherd of Hermas which can be read but not to be given to people.
--He also wrote about Paul epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which he claimed to be forged but was apparently accepted by some as authoritative).
Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170 AD):
quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.
and
1 and 2 John
1 Peter
--most likely knew all 13 Paul's epistles (except Philemon)
--MAYBE James and Hebrews and Revelation.
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200 AD):
The four Gospels
Acts,
13 Paul's epistles,
1 Peter,
1 John,
Jude
Revelation.
He mentioned Hebrews as the work of Barnabas and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon.
Origen (185 - 254 AD)
Distinguished the undisputed and the disputed books of New Testament
Undisputed:
Four Gospels
Acts,
1 Peter,
1 John
Revelation.
Disputed:
2 Peter,
2 and 3 John,
James,
Jude,
Didache
Also refered to Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all seven non-Pauline epistles)
He was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter. He also considered Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and mentioned the Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul and some other books.
Cyprian (third century) listed:
four Gospels,
Acts,
9 Paul's epistles (minus Philemon),
1 Peter,
1 John
Revelation.
He also cited Shepherd of Hermas as scripture
Recognized Didache as apostolic quotations.
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (314 - 339 AD) divided New Testament books into three categories:
Universally acknowledged:
four gospels,
Acts,
Pauline 14 epistles (including Hebrews),
1 John,
1 Peter
Revelation
Disputed:
James,
Jude,
2 Peter,
2 and 3 John
Spurious:
Acts of Paul,
Shepherd of Hermas,
Apocalypse of Peter,
Epistle of Barnabas,
Didache
Revelation
Note that Revelation was listed both as the first and the third category. It shows the two different opinions of the canonicity of Revelation, which was especially true among the eastern churches.
He also mentioned Gospel of Peter, which was read and appreciated by Christians in the second century and quoted by Justin Martyr.
Eusebius also mentioned as heretical books like Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias and groups of books of Acts bearing names of apostles (Paul, Peter, Andrew, John and Thomas). All these books and others which do not belong to our present New Testament canon are now known as New Testament apocrypha.
In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria gave the list of 27 New Testament books, for the first time without making any distinction of them and which now becomes our New Testament.
Council of Laodicea (c 363 AD) gave the list of 26 New Testament books (Revelation was not included).
The same list of 26 books was given by Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386 AD) and by Gregory of Nazianzen.
Amphilochius of Iconium gave the 27 books but mentioned that some of them (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation) as spurious.
John of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople from 397 to 407 AD gave list which excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
The Syriac church's earliest canon of New Testament consisted of:
4 gospels or Diatessaron,
Acts
14 Pauline epistles.
5th century onward included:
James,
1 Peter
1 John.
Not until 508 AD did the Monophysite branch of Syriac church finally include the other five books while the other branch, Nestorians accepts only 22 books to this day.
Pope Damasus I ordered Jerome to translate the 27 books into Latin (Vulgate).(5th C.)
Augustine in the fifth cenntury listed the 27 books in his work, "On Christian Learning"
Those 27 books were later declared at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and at Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
The same councils also declared the list of Old Testament books which now become Catholic Old Testament.
The sixth Council of Carthage in 419 AD promulgated the (same) canon of the Bible.
It can be said that the 27 books of the New Testament (together with Catholic Old Testament books) were determined in the fourth Century.
Among the 27 books, seven (James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation) books entered the list after some disputes.
Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) has all 27 books of our present New Testament, but also includes Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.
Codex Vaticanus (4th century) was torn at the end, so does not reveal the whole list---the existing part consists of 21 books and part of Hebrews of our present New Testament.
Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) has the 27 books plus:
1 and 2 Clement.
Codex Claromontanus (6th century):
has no Philemon,
no 1 and 2 Thessalonians
no Hebrews
but includes Epistle of Barnabas,
Shepherd of Hermas,
Acts of Paul
Revelation of Peter.
4th Century "Cheltenham list":
4 gospels,
13 Pauline epistles (minus Hebrews)
Acts,
Revelation,
1 John
1 Peter.
First codex in mass production is the Gutenberg Bible. Muck about with that, and it is merely chaos.
382 council of Rome was first canon.
For the western church, but the east never held to a specific canon until around the Council of Trollo.
“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther
This one of those places where they conveniently disavow Luther.
This is why I could never be lutheran. Their very existence requires a verbal craftiness that I've always found unworthy of religion.
@Catholic-Perennialist do you think lutherans are committed to every word a single pastor taught? They aren't. Confessional lutherans confess their Confessions, which were endorsed by many pastors and churches. I'm not lutheran, but you have misunderstood them completely. They don't Martin luther was without error or a prophet or a pope.
@@Catholic-PerennialistI've never heard a Lutheran reject this, I have heard much verbal craftiness from Roman Catholics though.
@@Catholic-Perennialistwhat makes you think they would have to disavow luther in his comment here? Where does it conflict with the kutheran confessions?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Not a mere pastor; your _founder._
Okay but what groups of Christians held to a 66 book canon before Protestantism
Myth 66-Book Protestant Bible wasn’t used by any of the early Christians...list nearly every ancient writer who listed a Canon and where he stood on the issue and the result is four men had a 66 book Canon, seven different men and councils came within one or two books of the Protestant number, and a grand total of ZERO had the Catholic number of 73 before the Council of Carthage. Further, it is possible this Council did not even include the Book of Hebrews, which means that not one ancient Christian in recorded history has the Catholic Canon, when four have the Protestant Canon.
Early Christians that held to the Protestant, 66 book Canon:
-St Amphilochus of Iconium
Rufinus
Jerome
Epiphanius (He speaks of Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach being under dispute.)
Early Christians that held to the Catholic, 73 book Canon before the Council of Carthage:
-Zero. It is worth noting that the Council of Carthage probably did not include the Book of Hebrews, so it was in fact a 72 book Canon. Further, Augustine wrote of Maccabees that it is “not in the Holy Scriptures
Even if you listen to a Catholic apologist like Erick Ybarra he actually admits the Catholic claim for the apocrypha is actually not that strong...fact is 4 figures held to 66 book Canon before Council of Carthage and 0 73 book...even after that you have a steady stream of people rejecting the Apocrypha as canon proper (atleast 52 figures including Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Jiminez etc) all the way up to just before the Council of trent that dogmatically settled the apocrypha to be included for the Catholic church. RESPONSE to bansheebrethren below as my comments are being deleted...In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” First of all The Synod of Rome is not an ecumenical council, secondly there us a distinction between Canon proper and useful for edification or historical reading which is clear from Cardinal Cajetan...In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” It makes absolutely no sense for Cajetan to appeal to Jerome in his rejection of Apocrypha if Jerome thought it was canon proper! And btw Protestants make the same point distinction that Cajetan made (namely a difference between Canon as a rule of faith i.e for doctrine and possible use for edification or historical reading value. Lastly...I would say it's totally uncharitable to remark "quit lying to yourself" as if I have some kind of less than genuine agenda... obviously we disagree on the facts and it's a display of bad faith to claim I am "lying to myself " and contributes nothing towards a genuine dialogue.
@@Adam-ue2ig the synod of Rome under pope Damascus was before Carthage and affirms the Catholic canon. Jerome submitted will for his translation under the pope and included the Deuterocanonicals, then the I don’t know, ONE THOUSAND YEARS of usage of the Deuterocanonicals affirms the Catholic canon was accepted by all of Christendom. Stop lying to yourself
I’d encourage you to read their canons a little closer.
Amphilochius does not mention Esther
Rufinius clearly accepts Baruch.
Jerome accepts the longer version of Daniel
Epiphanius accepts Baruch.
Just an aside, but just looking at the books church fathers name as canonical or not doesn’t give you the full picture. You also have to do the harder work of seeing how that father USED the books. As an example, while Rufinius does not explicitly mention Baruch in his list, we know he accepted it as part of Jeremiah and as scripture (as was common-even Calvin accepted it) because he quotes from it as scripture and doesn’t list it among either the ecclesiastical or apocryphal books.
@bansheebrethren797 it's simply not true that ALL of Christendom accepted the apocrypha...you are either woefully ignorant or lying. Also synod of Rome is not an ecumenical council. In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” It's obvious that Jerome did not hold Apocrypha as canon proper as it would be nonsensical for Cajetan to appeal to Jerome in 1532 (also including it does not mean he personally held it to be canon proper). I might add your comment about "quit lying to yourself " is quite uncharitable as obviously we have a genuine disagreements about the data and facts. Also a distinction is made between canon for rule of faith i.e doctrine and "canon" simply in the sense of being for possible edification or historical value of reading (which is a distinction most if not all Protestants have btw)...I don't need to lie to myself as obviously I genuinely believe you are the one in error and for you to assume otherwise is just acting in bad faith and unproductive to any real diaolgue.
The argument based on the canon does not require that there be an infallible pronouncement by the church of what the canon is. It merely requires that the church be able to infallibly determine what is and what is not in the canon. It does not matter if formation of the canon is through a papal decision, a decision by a council or by general acceptance throughout the church. The point is that there must be an infallible authority outside scripture to determine what is and is not in the canon, or we cannot have confidence that any book in the canon is, in fact, inspired.
How do we know who that infallible authority is when many claim it for their own? How can one know a Tradition™️ is true when the only thing to go off of is that same Tradition™️, (unless Tradition™️ is somehow self attesting, which ends up with the same claim as Sola Scriptura, yet without a written revelation from the apostles themselves)?
If that's the case then the task is complete and it was complete long before the Roman church evolved into what it was by Luther's day.
@@RepublicofE By 380 A.D. the church was certainly not Protestant. It already had the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon for centuries. It was celebrating the mass or divine liturgy. It believed in the Real Presence. It believed in baptismal regeneration. It was venerating the relics of the martyrs.
One of the most interesting episodes of the aftermath of Luther's Revolt was the Lutheran approach to the Orthodox church. The Lutherans presented the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Augsburg Confession. The Patriarch told them in no uncertain terms where Orthodoxy differed from Protestantism.
We have the fathers of the church and the decisions of the Councils. While individual fathers may not be infallible, as a group, they bear witness to the mind of the church.
So one can ask questions like: 1. Is this something that the apostolic churches teach? 2a. Was this a teaching of the church from the earliest times? 2b. Do the church fathers teach this or is it a logical extension of their beliefs? 3. Is it consistent with or not contrary to scripture?
To take the example of baptismal regeneration. So we can look at the questions: Is this something that the apostolic church teach? Yes. Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all teach baptismal regeneration. Is this something the church has taught from the earliest times? Yes. The church fathers teach it. The first treatise on baptism by Tertullian firmly declares that baptism is regenerative. Justin Martyr speaks of baptism as regenerative. Is it consistent or at least not contrary to scriptures? Yes. In a number of points in scripture, it speaks of baptism forgiving sins.
So when people come along 1,500+ years after the fact and start teaching the contrary, we can be pretty sure that they are wrong.
@@charleskramer8995 what did the early church teach about the death penalty?
So many of the ECF ‘recognized’ that the dueterocanon was inspired of God. The ‘recognized’ argument doesn’t really help when it comes to a final canon.
Great topic and discussion!
Some thoughts:
Inspired writ doesn't come with a Table of Contents, true. *But* it does come with principles & rules whereby we are to evaluate if some "Thus says the Lord," is in fact the Word of the Lord. Many of these rules are contained in the foundational books of each testament, the Pentateuch and Matt&Mark's gospel.
eg. Deut18:21, And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? [And the word which the Lord hath spoken?] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Mat18:16 the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. See also Mrk14:59
Some more tests... Deut19:15, Deut13:1-4, Amos3:7, Mat11:2-6, John 10:27, there are others...
Genuine scripture is able to authenticate itself to believers: and not merely in a woo-woo manner; the tests God gives us are reasonable: they make sense.
Someone might ask, well, given these rules... do you affirm that all the words in the NT are divinely inspired?
I'd answer, I believe some parts of the NT are _divinely included._ I want to respect the authors and take serious their statements to their audience - off the top of my head I think of 1Cor7 (throughout the chapter) & Luke1:1-3. as examples...
Anyway, good topic. thanks for posting !
Kruger’s central thesis is that the canon of Scripture is "self-authenticating". His whole view is a textbook case of circular reasoning
All ultimate authorities must be self-authenticating. Otherwise, it’s not your ultimate authority-the thing you use to authenticate it is
@@mwright_boomer how do you determine which canon to use to begin "self-authenticating"? Certainly the Ethiopian church believes their canon is also "self-authenticating", ditto for mormons
@@mwright_boomer
Except for the part where the modern Bishops get their authority from apostolic succession, that is they were ordained by somebody ordained by somebody going all the way back to the 12 apostles and Paul, of whom were ordained by Christ Himself.
They're vouching for the authority of the canon. Paul would be able to say "I wrote this." Timothy and Barabbas could say "Paul wrote this." The Bishops ordained by them can say "Yes, Paul wrote these."
Sola Scriptura is saying "Paul wrote this because scripture says Paul wrote this," and that's basically it
How can one know a Tradition™️ is true when the only thing to go off of is that same Tradition™️, (unless Tradition™️ is somehow self attesting, which ends up with the same claim as Sola Scriptura, yet without a written revelation from the apostles themselves)?
@@eddardgreybeard you speak as though we're living in 75 AD.
That claim; that the canon of scripture is determined wholly by Papal Decree, is incredibly frustrating. Taken at face value it implies that possibly, the Bhagavad Gita or the Qu'ran are canon; all one needs is a papal decree declaring them to be so. But if necessarily, the Bhagavad Gita and Qu'ran are not canon, it follows that at most, Papal Decree discovers the canon of scripture.
But if Papal Decree can discover the canon of scripture, so can any Protestant.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
Yeah, Rome has her problems and her arguments are convincing either but all churches pre- reformation who all go by tradition and yet end up with different cannons, why is right and why?
Straw man argument. The sheer variety of early canon lists shows the need for guidance. Some early Christians rejected Revelation and other now accepted books, while others included now rejected texts like 1 Enoch, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas. While there was no decisive declaration back then, one can see a process of standardization by the bishops evidenced in the early synods. The bishops gradually sorted the canon out, leading to the near universal acceptance of the 73 book canon in the Middle Ages.
What is a straw man argument ?
where was their a bible before this document it please 🤦♀️
As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether.
Please be mindful of the fact that those seven books had been in Bibles used by all Christians from the very foundation of Christianity.
Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.
Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
The question of whether the Deuterocanonical books properly belonged to the Old Testament was contentious in the church right up to the Council of Trent. Even at that council the vote was divided and to my knowledged those who dissented were not excommunicated.
The Council of Rome was a local and not ecumenical council and there is no contemporaneous evidence that it was recieved as infallible dogma as opposed to merely a disciplinary canon for liturgical purposes.
Furthermore contrary to what most Papists believe the inclusion of those books in the canon was not an official grievance of the Lutheran reformers and the matter is not even mentioned as a point of controversy in the Augsburg Confession. Nor did Luther attempt to promulgate the idea that they weren't in the canon as a binding doctrine.
Prior to Trent the consensus of the church was that Scripture did not come with a "table of contents" and one could not be imposed upon it. It was at Trent that a dogmatic list was promulgated for the first time, and also where it was declared for the first time that you had to subscribe to the table or else be outside the church.
This in turn prompted English Reformed Protestants to create their own binding Table of Contents which excluded the Deuterocanons, which is why so many people now believe rejection of them was a chief cause of the Lutheran Reformation even though the Lutherans had nothing to do with it. And although those books don't appear in most Lutheran bible translations today, our official stance on their canonicity remains the same as that of the Eastern churches: uncertainty that doesn't vex us any more than it did the early church.
@@RepublicofE AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written.
AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods:
Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as Scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deleted references to Jesus's Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament", the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.
AD 200: The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D..
382 --Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
393 A.D. --the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
AD 397: The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by ...
787 A.D. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
🤔AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.
AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
😁AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
@@bibleman8010 Don't know why you typed out that whole post only to conclude, like I already said, that it wasn't dogmatically defined until Trent.
Dr. Cooper did not answer the issue raised by Catholics - what he did is simply using different verbs "to recognize" in place of "to determine/decide" The verb he chose does not release him from the question: how do we know which church "recognizes" the correct canon? As he pointed out in the video The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Protestant churches do not have the same canon. Who has the right canon and how do we know? Luther himself separated James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation from the other 23 books of NT - he placed those four at the end of his NT. His criteria of "recognizing" Scripture: "That which does not teach Christ is still not apostolic; even it were the teaching of Peter or Paul. On the other hand, that which preaches Christ, that would be apostolic even if Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod did it." (Source: F. F. Bruce: The Canon of Scripture, page 244). Dr. Cooper does not have to agree with his way of "recognizing" Scripture and can create his own method of "recognizing" Scripture.
So how do we know the correct canon? Whose Tradition™️ is correct and how do we know without circular reasoning?
The answer of your question is what Dr. Cooper and others do not accept: We need infallible authority outside Scripture to determine which books and how many of them belong to Scripture.
@@justfromcatholicyou didn't answer my question though.
It will remain circular argument unless we accept authority outside Scripture who determine (or recognize) which books belong to Scripture
@@justfromcatholic so you're saying this authority can be self authenticating, but Scripture can't be self authenticating? Okie dokie.
There's no evidence that Jesus celebrates Hanukkah in the modern sense. They had a feast, but the miracle of lights associated with it is not attested to until much later than the time of Jesus' ministry. It would be like comparing traditions of Christmas today with those of a few hundred years ago, almost everything associated with Christmas today came about in the last 150 years.
Without the clarification some modern Jews might think the mention of Hanukkah refers to the menorah and miracle celebrated today.
But the basic event being celebrated is still the same.
It was Hanukkah, it’s referenced in the deuterocanonical book of 1 Maccabees. John 10:22 ~ 1 Macc 4:59
@@triggered8556 But Hanukkah wasn't about the miracle of lights as far as we know until later. There's no evidence of that aspect until around 300AD. We only know it as being a small feast to remember the cleansing and rededication of the temple. Using the name Hanukkah may imply to a Jew or a less informed Christian that Jesus confirmed the celebration of the miracle of lights.
@@litigioussociety4249 it’s called the feats of dedication aka Hanukkah. The miracle of the lights it’s related to it. Why are you being so dense? Jesus participated in Hanukkah. Hanukkah is in the Old Testament, in 1 Maccabees.
@@triggered8556 The miracle and the original purpose of the rededication were two different things. The miracle part was possibly added after the time of Christ, since it's not mentioned before that.
How do you fit evolution into your worldview?
There is zero evidence there was an established OT Canon during the time of Jesus, though.
How did they know which writings to read?
The Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint. The Sadducees only held to the books of Moses. The Church - the Pillar and Bulwark fo Truth - where the manifold wisdom of God is made known - the Jesus PROMISED to lead to ALL Truth - Led by the Holy Spirit - would decide the OT canon (46 writings) in light of Jesus Christ, at the same time declaring the NT to have 27 writings.
@@TruthHasSpoken
Christ Implores thise ge speaks to to study scripture
Rome was not formed then
How do they know which scriptuures to study
Josephus, writing in 94 AD, cites an OT canon of 22 books (which sub-divides into our 39 books)
Athanasius, writing in 367 AD, affirms the same OT canon as Josephus.
Jerome, writing in 392 AD while translating the Latin Vulgate, also affirms the same 22 book canon list as Josephus. Jerome is easily the most qualified of all 4th century church fathers to make this determination, being a Hebrew scholar himself.
Not only does the very best evidence show that the OT canon dates back to the first century and before. But simply due to the nature of the deposit of God's divine revelation, and the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. It follows that the entire OT canon must have been fully received by the original target audience, prior to any deposit of New revelation. Otherwise nothing in the New Testament would make any sense. Not just when it was written down, but when the events were actually happening, they wouldn't have made any sense. If you believe the New Testament, then it follows that you must believe that the revelation of the Old Testament was fully received before Jesus' birth.
Since we have no dispute over the NT canon, and Rome has claimed to have "infallibly" determined the whole canon, while demonstrably getting it wrong. Then Rome's entire claim of infallibility is also proven wrong. Thus, scripture has done its job perfectly, by providing the necessary reproof and correction to force humility upon those who are so swollen with pride, they would attribute to themselves that which can only be attributed to God.
Man cannot determine the canon of God's word. He can only discover it. God determines it, the moment He deposits His word through inspiration.
@@TruthHasSpoken Did Jesus read the Greek Old Testament when he went to the Synagogue and read from the prophets? Did he read from the Greek Old Testament when he went the to Temple Courts to listen to the teachers and ask questions?
Interesting video.
I’d be interested in seeing your response to 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
It seems clear to me that the scripture and the oral tradition are equal in importance and authority, and that the Holy Spirit will guide both.
Thanks ✝️🇻🇦
This assumes that the things taught by word and by mouth were different, so perhaps the burden of proof would be on those who claim as such. Perhaps it can be done, but I don't know for sure.
Also check out Mark 7:8-9: "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!"
Seems like God's written word ranks way higher in importance and authority.
I wonder if you follow that…
One of those 10 commandments was also to honor the sabbath. Although they met together on Sunday, there is no indication that a formal Sunday change was made in the New Testament. So do you follow the “way higher” written word or follow the tradition of the Church and worship on Sunday?
@nickswicegood4316 Since we don't have to follow the Jewish law anymore (see Acts 15) this isn't the dunk you seem to think it is.
@@toddthacker8258 You’re equivocating on the term ‘tradition.’
The Bible makes a distinction between human tradition and oral tradition.
‘Tradition of men’ is noted in the Greek Manuscripts as ‘παράδοσιν ἀνθρώπων.’
Whereas the ‘oral tradition’ is noted in the those very same manuscripts as ‘παραδόσεις.’ This is the term Paul used in the Corinthians.
Cooper’s argument was incredibly insufficient or complete. If you believe Jesus is God then you trust that he trusted his Apostles to establish a Church.
Jesus and the Old Testament argument , he made it clear that the Pharasis were so BOOK bound and ignored the spirit of the WORD.
“Before I leave, I have this book, because last time I gave y’all written commandments you didn’t follow them. Make copies of this too. That way I really don’t need you apostles anyway. So choosing y’all wasn’t really needed anyway either” said NOT Jesus at the acension .
But-but-but what of the Mormons and Adventists! They also think their canon is directly inspired by God but-but we think they heretics, what gives us the right, faith in God? Mormons claim the same thing :((
A lot of Catholic teachings are not ‘necessary’, but they are most ‘fitting’. And if one does not deem Sessationism true, a lot of them derive from divine revelations. Why do Protestants not get revelations that says Catholicism is true? Probably because we’ve ‘freely rejected’ Roman Catholicism.
Every time I hear the argument that, even if we accept that there is a tradition necessary, it doesn't prove which one (RC, EO, etc), I think of the atheist argument against Christianity. The one that goes, "even if I accept that there is a god, that doesn't prove Christianity. There are many groups claiming the path to divinity, from Christians to Muslims to Hindus." The (usually unsaid) implication is, "Since there are multiple groups claiming this, I can reject all such claims." The issue, of course, is if the atheist accepts that there is a God, they may not necessarily be able to jump straight to True Religion, but what they cannot honestly do is remain atheist. The question becomes sorting which religion is True.
A good point. Mr. Cooper is correct that if one can disprove sola scriptura that does not tell you which church is Christ's. But it does tell us which churches are not the original Christian Church. It takes it from thousands to only a handful.
You have to have the balls first
Saying that the church invented the canon is like saying Issac Newton invented gravity.
Exactly
We are not saying the Church invented the Canon, only that it had authority to decide the canon. Which it obviously did since you are adhering to that authority.
@@dman7668 the church doesn’t decide the canon-God does! The church has no authority over scripture whatsoever-the church must be in submission to the word of God. The church can recognize what is scripture, but it doesn’t decide what is.
The canon was a historical decision guided by the Holy Spirit. You cannot divorce it from the Church.
@@triggered8556 but you can’t give the church credit for it
During the Incarnation (2 BC to 32 AD) the Jews did not have a fixed canon (Koine Greek kanon, meaning measuring rod). What was considered authoritative Scripture varied depending upon what Jewish community or sect you were part of. To declare in any absolute sense certain books were or were not accepted as authoritative Scripture in the First Century, especially before the Destruction of the Temple in 70, is either ignorant or misleading-possibly even intentionally so.
Simply, there is no evidence that the pre-Revolt Jewish religious authority (Sanhendrin) attempted to declare a set canon even in Judea, let alone in the Jewish communities of the First Diaspora.
Pharisee Jews in Judea and Galilee largely accepted a 24 book canon, in three divisions, later called the Palestinian Canon. This was apparently the canon that only was “settled: (with some notable exceptions) by much later Jewish authorities in the mid Second Century. This makes sense as the Pharisees were the only sect to survive the two Revolts, eventually becoming the basis of Rabbinic Judaism.
The Law, the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateutch
The Prophets: 4 major and 4 minor prophets
The Writings: 11 books
The Sadducees were divided. Many believed only the Pentateutch was inspired and authoritative, others held the other books, with the exception of Daniel, had a lesser degree of inspiration and authority. Daniel was rejected not just because verse 12;2 supported the General Resurrection, which the Sadducees rejected, but also because of the “Son of Man” figure in 7:13-14
It is interesting that when quoting Scripture, Jesus only quoted from the Pentateuch when speaking to Sadducees, but from the Palestinian Canon when speaking to Pharisees. So Jesus not quoting from the 7 Deuterocanonical books only shows he was speaking to either group on their terms, not that Jesus was confirming either group’s canon.
One big exception is at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhendrin, which was majority Sadducee, including the High Priest Caiphas. In Mark 14: 60-64, when Caiphas officially commands Jesus to declare if he is the Messiah or not, Jesus paraphrases Daniel 7: 13-14 to claim he is not just the Messiah-Deliverer, but the same Son of Man who the prophet placed on equal status with “the Ancient of Days”, God.
While rejecting the authority of Daniel, Caiphas as the rest of the Sadducees knew it well enough to get exactly what Jesus was claiming, and immediately declare him guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death.
Likewise, Pharisees knew the non-Palestinian books of the Septuagint well enough to try to stump Jesus (Matt 22:23-27), drawing from Tobit a question regarding multiple marriages in the afterlife.
Additionally, unless it was pure coincidence, the Chief Priest, Scribes, and Elders (again, largely Sadducee) when witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus, paraphrase quote Wisdom, one of the Deuterocanon books.
Matthew 27: 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Wisdom 2:17-20 Let us see if his words are true,and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
The Samaritans, in the First Century and to this day, only accept their version of the Pentateutch as Scripture.
The Essenes at the Qumran community accepted the Palestinian Canon, minus Esther. They also held several peculiar writings, Jewish apocrypha, in high enough esteem as to be de facto Scripture.
Flavius Josephus, writing circa 90 AD, said the Jews recognized 22 books (Palestinian 24) divided into 3 divisions:
5 Books of Moses
13 Books of the Prophets
4 remaining books
Josephus did NOT name these books, so saying they were the same as the Palestinian Canon, with some books being combined and others separated, is pure speculation, perhaps even confessional bias. It is reasonable to assume, since he was of priestly descent, Josephus was a Sadducee, holding to the somewhat broader Sadducee canon-meaning he rejected Daniel..
Outside Judea and Galilee, in the Koine Greek speaking communities of the First Diaspora used the longer canon of the Septuagint, including the seven books of Tobith, Judith, Baruch (with Letter of Jerimiah), Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. It also had longer versions of Daniel and Esther.
The 7 additional books are not held by either ancient or modern Jewish scholars as “apocrypha” (obscure), which is reserved for works like Enoch. While mid 2nd Century Jews rejected the later (Deutero, hence Deuterocanon) composed books as inspired and authoritative, they were generally held in respect, unlike the true apocrypha, which contained wild apocalyptic passages, and perhaps even early Gnostic influence. The label of “Apocrypha” to the Deuterocanon was a 16th Century Protestant insult, and hence should be avoided.
The Septuagint (meaning “the 70” from the tradition 70 scholars took 70 days to translate the books) is divided into 4 divisions:
The Law
Historical Books
Poetical and Wisdom Books
Prophets
The much-cited by Protestants Council of Javneh (aka Jamnia, aka Jabneh) which supposedly excluded the Deuterocanon must be dealt with. First off, it wasn’t a Council (in Hebrew, Sanhedrin, “sitting together” , or assembly). Rather, it was an early and very influential school, or yeshiva. Javneh had no authority to make make binding decisions on Jews anywhere, per Roman dictate, When they did attempt to make a binding declaration, in saying Bar Kochba was the Messiah, leading to the Second and even more disastrous Revolt of 132-136, it was so spectacularly wrong that it simply begs the question why any Christian shouldn’t reject anything they said.
Secondly, Javneh didn’t issue any specific list of excluded books. Rather, they gave rather broad categories: No books that were not originally of Hebrew composition, No books composed after 400 BC. Must be written in Judea and Galilee. And, the rather vague, Must conform to the Pentateutch.
From start to finish, the exclusions were designed to counter Christianity. The First Century Church WAS using the Septuagint. Biblical scholars. be they Christian, Secular, or Jewish, agree at least 86% of the New Testament’s quotes or allusions of the Jewish Scriptures were from the Koine Septuagint. The Apostles and their converts, including Jewish Christians, considered the Septuagint so reliable, its Authority to the Church can be considered a given.
Far more explicitly than Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant in Wisdom 2 shows not just that the Messiah must first suffer, be humiliated, and die, but that it would occur by the command of his people’s own leaders, This chapter was constantly quoted by the Early Church, and Javneh decided to change the goal posts.Javneh’s strategy was, “if Jews don’t consider Wisdom Scripture, then they won’t be as vulnerable to conversion”. In a way, this end-run play was a tacit admission by Javneh just how dangerous Wisdom 2 was to them.
There were other issues Javneh had with the Deuterocanon, including in Maccabees, several embarrassing treaties of friendship with the Roman Republic.Ironic as that Maccabees is the textual basis for the Feast of Hanukkah.
One thing Javneh or other Jewish yeshivas DIDN’T have an issue with was the idea of post-death purification, as demonstrated in 2 Maccabees 12 While historical and contemporary Jewish thought on the afterlife varies-from none at all to universal redemption, or even reincarnation-the idea that a human may have to suffer some period before eventual eternal bliss is at least an acceptable concept, The practice of saying the kaddish prayer for the departed supports this. The hatred of 2 Macc. 12 supporting the Catholic teaching of Purgatory is again, a 16th Century Protestant reaction and does not occur in prior Jewish examples.
It should be noted that one of the 1947 Dead Sea Scrolls was a pre First Century copy of Baruch in Hebrew. This strongly supports that Baruch was both originally composed in Hebrew and in Judea-Galilee. Scholars agree all 7 Deuterocanon books show Semitic authorship, the remaining question being was the composition originally in Hebrew or Koine? If the former, then one, possibly two of Javneh’s principles is moot.
Additionally, Javneh categorically excluded any writings by the First Century Church. It apparently was very divided on the Scriptural status of the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, none of which is quoted by any New Testament writer. It is certainly inconsistent of Protestants to respect Javneh’s authority to exclude the Deuterocanon, but then reject Javneh;s rejection of the New Testament.
As it was, per The Encyclopedia of Religion (Vol. 2, page 174) and the Encyclopedia of Judaism (page 117) Javneh was certainly NOT the last word on the Jewish Canon. Disputes on the canon continued into the late Second and even the early 3rd Century. To this day, Ethiopian Jews hold the Septuagint, minus Ecclesiasticus, as Scripture.
As it was, the Church certainly was not influenced by Javneh’s exclusions, since a yeshiva founded several decades after Christ’s Ascension, largely in opposition to Christianity, had no spiritual authority over Christians
Now, the detailed Christian listings of the Old Testament.
If we can call it a “canon” the heretic Marcion, c. 144 being at least a semi-Gnostic, excluded the entirety of the Old Testament.
Justin Martyr, 155, considered the Septuagint as Scripture
Melito, 170, recognized the Palestinian Canon, minus Esther.
Iranaeus, 180, considered Septuagint as Scripture.
Tertullian, , 200 , considered the Septuagint as Scripture, He also included Enoch as Scripture.
Origen, 230, recognized the Palestinian Canon, but also included the Letter of Jerimiah from the Septuagint.
Athanasius, 367, recognized the Palestinian Canon, included the Letter of Jerimiah, Baruch, and omitted Esther. He considered the other 6 Deterocannon books of inferior grade, which still is not an absolute exclusion from the Canon.
Council of Laodicea, 363, follows Athanasius, but Esther is included.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, 348-386, recognized the Palestinian Canon, but also included the Letter of Jerimiah from the Septuagint, and included Baruch.
Gregory of Nazianzus, 330-390, recognized the Palestinian Canon, included the Letter of Jerimiah, Baruch, and omitted Esther.
Jerome, 346-420, had doubts about the Deuterocanon, did refer them as apocrypha (he was more than a bit of a Hebrew-language snob), but obedient to Pope Damasus, translated all of Scripture, including the Deuterocanon, into the Latin Vulgate.
Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, agreed with Septuagint, and his listing of 44 books agrees with Catholic Old Testament’s 46 because he combined Lamentation and Baruch (with Letter of Jerimiah) with Jerimiah.
Synod of Rome, 383, Affirmed Austine’s list
Council of Hippo (Augustine’s See) 393 Affirmed Augustine’s list
3rd Council of Carthage, 397, and 4th Council of Carthage, 419, Affirmed Augustine’s list
The above councils and synod also reaffirmed the 27 New Testament Canon we have today.
the 4th Century:
You moved the goal post. The claim was that the prior to the Church, there was no cannon of scripture. Without the Church, there would be no scripture, or at least we wouldn’t know what constitutes inspired scripture. You concede that point.
The argument is over.
It’s a simple fact that there is nothing that says scripture is the _highest_ authority except for Protestant reformers whose statements are _not_ infallible by their own admission! It should be easy. It shouldn’t take ten minutes to explain.
As for the Old Testament cannon, it is clear _from scripture_ that Jesus and the Apostles quoted largely from the Septuagint. The cannon found in the Septuagint matches the Catholic OT. Even _if_ you want to say “well Jerome preferred the Hebrew texts” or “using textual criticism you can etc. etc.” even if you say that, you can’t dig yourself out of the hole that _you_ have created. _You_ say that scripture is the _highest_ authority, and yet it says _nothing_ about how to ensure which texts are canonical. That’s right. No church fathers, no historical evidence, no textual criticism, nothing. You simply don’t get to build the canon using tools that you say are _inferior_ to scripture.
Both scripture and oral tradition are of equal importance (2 Thessa 2:15; 3:6) The Catholic Church selected which books are to make up the canon of the bible. Protestants don’t have books from the Septuagint that Jesus and apostles used, Duetercanonical books, because Jesus founded only one church for our salvation
1. Those verses refer to teachings given by "we", as in Paul and the apostles. The Pope and the men who sat on the Council of Trent were are not Paul and the apostles so the verse doesn't apply.
2. Lutherans never dogmatically rejected the Deuterocanons.
“We” taught apostolic christian traditions ( 2 Thessa 2:15; 3:6)
@@gregnunan4885 Correct. And the apostolic oral traditions were later committed to writing in the Bible.
@@RepublicofE no they were not all recorded. Don’t make things up, you believe in Sola Scriptura which doesn’t say anything of the sort
“We” Also taught that the bible clearly points to the Church (only Catholic at the time before Luther came along) the church is the foundation and support of truth ( 1 Tim 3:15)
You're such a cool person, pastor Cooper. Like a guy it is impossible to dislike. All the best and thank you for your work! :)
I would say this is not your best video; this was kind of a mishmash with no clear line of argumentation, imo.
If one wants to argue for an inerrant text, which is really where this dispute plays out between Catholics and inerrantist Protestants and Evangelicals, then you need to define exactly what the biblical text is and where it exists (other than in a variety of people's imagination). Beyond the "table of contents" question, there is the issue of defining which version of a particular book is the canonical one. Which version of Jeremiah (they differ by quite a bit), which version of Daniel, which version of Esther, etc.
The simple fact is that different historical churches have had different biblical canons all along and you're correct in noting that there's nothing particular in the Catholic claim that makes it superior to, say, the Greek Orthodox claim. The various canons are the products of these churches. There's a lot of consensus, but again, if one is talking about needing an inerrant text, then that's a problem you didn't address.
As a side note, Jesus was observing the Encaenia (see the Greek text of John) in Jerusalem, which was at that time had been rolled into Sukkot, one of the required Israelite pilgrimage festivals. Hannukah, which was observed later in the year and observances around which we know almost nothing at the time of Jesus, was never a required pilgrimage festival, so there would be no reason for Jesus to go to Jerusalem to observe it. This is important because Jesus in John is actually observing Israelite law and not "the traditions of men" as you claimed in the video. That's not to say that Jesus doesn't support Jewish tradition, it's just that it's an invalid argument.
This seemed rather unorganized and all over the place, and I think the argument still works. If someone wants to try to debate this in the comments and use Jordan’s argument, maybe I’ll see the thrust of it
Agreed, I think it just boils down to: trust that the Bible you have is the one that God the Spirit guided man in eventually collating. This is essentially begging the question, no?
@@JJSaund it seems so, as well as a misunderstanding of the Catholic position as a whole. If the canon can be closed by human reasoning and guidance, it can be reopened by the same. If the canon can be closed by divine reasoning and guidance (which Catholics believe the church to be able to provide), then it can only be reopened by the same.
@@aydentrevaskis8390 1) Trust in Jesus. 2) Trust in Jesus' promises to not abandon us leaving us orphans and to send an advocate to lead us and that the gates of hell will not prevail against The Church. 3) Once closed by divine reasoning and guidance it is always closed. 4) The Holy Spirit does NOT issue erratum. That is infallibility.
Canon comes from BOTH 1) The list of books that were proclaimed at Mass in the early Church and over time through various councils became the ONLY ones authorized to be proclaimed at Mass in the Liturgy of the Word. These lists included those that eventual became what we know as the New Testament (NT) what protestants call the Old Testament (OT) and 7 missing books from protestant bibles usually called the "Deuterocanonical books" which the early church considered part of the OT. 2) As determined by the Church's judgment to be divinely inspired.
You can’t have Scripture without the Church and you can’t have the Church without Scripture.
In the Old Testament God first chooses a people and then the Old Testament develops out of that. The New Testament is similar too. Jesus first establishes the Church. Then the New Testament also develops out of the life of the Church. Considering the nature of how Scripture developed, it was and is necessary to have an authority to define the canon. The Apostles did not define the Canon, but they passed the authority they received from Christ to their successors.
" The Apostles did not define the Canon, but they passed the authority they received from Christ to their successors."
Can you prove this bald assertion?
@@RepublicofE There is one aspect in the office of the Apostle that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witness of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. CCC 860
The office of the Apostle also has a permanent aspect because the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them will continue to the end of time. Acts 1:15-22: In those days Peter stood up . . . and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it”; and “HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER TAKE.” ……..Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.”
“HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER TAKE." Matthias is a unique Apostle, as Jesus himself did not make his appointment personally. In the election of Matthias, we have the beginning of Apostolic Succession.
Get it right, the Church recognized what God inspired His Church to write. His Church is the Catholic Church. You can't Trust the NT if you don't Trust God's Church.
I can't read then🤡
That arguments makes Sola Scriptura even weaker. If the canon is just another tradition you can just pick and choose which canon to read.
It's arbitrary from the jump:
Agree with the New Testament Canon - this is why they never added any of the books that were rejected by the Church, or opened their canon to any that surfaced later such as the Gospels of Philip, Thomas, or Mary Magdalene.
Reject what has been considered scripture for thousands of years by literally the entirety of pre-reformation Christianity and disingenuously claim that what has been there the entire time was "added" at the council of Trent.
Reject it on the basis that the very people that deny the authority of the New Testament and that Christ is the risen Lord, also deny the deuterocanonical books.
Absolutely arbitrary.
@@eddardgreybeardwhat books were rejected by the Reformation that weren't rejected by other Fathers before?
"rejected by other Fathers before," is purely arbitrary. There were never enough of them in number to ever disqualify the books as canon. It's the textbook definition of Cherry-picking, especially when you drop a name like St. Jerome and are then faced with the awkward position of the fact the man wrote books on Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
*edit*
Interesting, it appears my initial post as been deleted. Bizarre, because I hardly said anything that violated "terms of service."
The Deuterocanon, book of James, the Apocalypse. Just to name a few.
He says that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc all make the same claim about scripture. This argument highlights his ignorance, as Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church were one and the same when scripture was canonized. The schism between East and West didn’t occur until 1054. The rest of his rebuttal is just a word salad that doesn’t refute the obvious truth, which is that scripture comes from the tradition of the church.
First, you have to show, explain, why the "redormation" and their more than 30 thousand denominations are what Jesus said, promised, and expected. Because one cant read the Bible and be part of ANY reformed, protestant denomonation...it CLEARLY contradicts what Jesus promised His Church.
The Reformation was a valid response to some serious corruption within the Church. Regardless of what you think for the result, the Church had some major issues that needed to be addressed. And I also want you to understand that the reformers did not want to splinter the Church, they just wanted to reform it. However, they were excommunicated. They did not leave on their own and their intention was not to start their own denominations. The Roman Catholic Church effectively forced these denominations into existence by excommunicating certain reformers instead of praying and working through the issues.
The Book of Enoch is an inspired text.
Nope. Neither christ nor the Apostles taught it. And tens of millions of Christians have lived and died without accepting it.
But not acceptable to be read in the congregation (outside of Ethiopia), rather to be read by those more studied and mature in their homes.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Ever read Jude?
@@j.g.4942 There is a canon for the adepts which no church has fully sanctioned.
@@Catholic-Perennialist yes I have. The Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets, that doesn't make them inspired. By the way, which organization are you a part of? Do they hold that Enoch is inspired?
0 logic or arguments presented
Wow, its Skype - blast to the past there 🥲