What do you know of the New testament?

Nailed it Tim

Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas or the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are two different books.

@Doris1888 I was using a random allusion to a writing that no one believes is legitimate but seems to get people who know nothing about Biblicall History excited when they first discover it. And while one is superior to the other as a document, neither is accepted as Canon, but I am not going to dialogue about that here. Blessings.

@@Just_a_Reflection Well the Epistle of Barnabas which was probably written late into the first century didn't make it into the Bible but was referred to often by the early church so it's history might be considered legitimate historically but not inspired. However, the Gospel of Barnabas was written about the 15th or 16th century and basically discredits Christianity in favor of the Muslim religion. Hardly a gospel about Jesus Christ.

@Doris1888 You are exactly right. Clement of Alexandria reportedly accepted the Epistle, and it is important because it gives a view of how early Jewish Christians segued from Rabbinical Judaism to Christianity, though it was later investigated and found to not be sound and not inspired, primarily due to it's Gnostic undertones, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. The Gospel of Barnabas is Gnostic garbage written in the Middle Ages with absolutely no real value. My point is that I was making an offhand allusion, which wasn't central to my offhand comment.

@@Just_a_Reflection Gotcha!👍

There was government in the 1st century church, but there is NEVER a such thing in the Bible as apostolic succession. Idc what the "church fathers" had to say about it. The Bible shows how the early church functioned, and IT is the only reliable source for what the 1st century church believed and practiced.

In the 3rd-century Church Fathers, have you noticed the influx of platonic influence & how how platonism began to influence their theology?

One church had a tendency to take people they didn't like and tie them to a bundle of sticks and fire them..... Probably safe to say they also burned a lot of paper too. So if a lot of church writings seem to support the church that liked burning things and people, there might be a reason why.

@@IndianaJoe0321 Hello! Yeah, I've seen how some were extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy ideas of that time. However, I would like to hear more of your reasoning.

....it didn't take long for Rome to be a problem to the rest of the church. Bishop Stephen in the mid second century was promoting a non-trinitaraian position, and Rome started trying to assert itself as the chief church above all the other Bishops. It would take centuries but it was the last for power that convinced the church in the East to severe ties with the church in Rome.

😂😂

That's strange as I learned Hebrew and Greek, and my professors edited the ESV. After 28 years and several translations later, it only confirmed of how accurate the King James is.

@@michelleadams5609 you're absolutely full of it😂

The longer, the better!

Apocalypse Apocrypha has a boat load of information on this.

@@andrewbrossman9902 Who Im interested in is Melissa. She clearly has been given Wisdom and an articulate mouth from God. Her view is what I want more of rather than information.

@@circle4962 Nothing against Mellisa. I like her channel. I was mentioning that you want to know more about the deutercannon, there is a KZfaq channel called the apocalypse apocrypha. The New Testament cannon is closed. The Old Testament cannon, not really.

@@andrewbrossman9902 ​ What did I say about the deutercannon or scriptural cannon? I didn't speak about it. Yet you come to me telling me to check out someone I never gave interest for. My focus has been on Melissa, not the content. My focus is on a person, not ideas. Go away and stop being a fool. Come back when Wisdom is on your lips. You do not listen to advice as is clear when you come to me and tell me what to do. You do not care to understand my words, you only care to air your opinion.

I agree, KJV is hard to understand. I prefer reading the NIV but can always refer back to the KJV if a passage is controversial etc

Yes, this would a fairly accurate assumption. I come from this background.. KJV-only-ism tends to be linked to conspiracy and mis- trust of institutions.

The KJV was an excellent and elegant, though certainly not perfect, English translation of the Bible at the time it was completed in 1611. Since the English language has continued to change over the last 4 centuries, the form of English used in the KJV is now hopelessly obsolete for the general public, as it is practically a foreign language to speakers of 21st Century English. KJV-onlyists remind me of Reformation-era Roman Catholics who opposed any form of the Bible other than the Latin Vulgate that had been used since Jerome translated it over a millennium before.

@@DamonNomad82 That's funny but it's true.

KJV is still the most accurate and that’s just a fact. It is the closest accurate word for word translation there is. Period. Other translations remove and add things that shouldn’t be there.

😊

I want to eat!.....Oh no! I forgot, I'm not supposed to want! Now I'm a sinner.....well, I guess I was already a sinner....now I'm a bigger sinner!!!! Seriously though, you pointed out a perfect example for why we need to update Bible translations. Another one I have heard is people reading "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and taking that to mean we shouldn't try to save up enough stuff to last until we are dead....... which is not what that means. Even Tyndale's translation that's 500 years old states this in a more understandable way. Clearly each day has sufficient trouble in itself so we need to stay focused on today and not be worrying about all the stuff that hasn't happened yet. New teachings are being found in the KJV after 413 years because people read it with their 2024 brain and 2024 English, which makes a magical English soup that creates new stuff never before seen!!! So exciting....

Shall not want would mean I won’t want, not a shouldn’t want. In other words, not that we are wrong to desire things, but that our needs will be met. But yes, I was intentionally trying to point out the need to update the language-because people reading archaic language often misconstrue the meaning.

I'm sure the KJV onlyists already knew what parbar meant, because they always know everything and they are always right about everything too..... Let me know if you hear one of them admit they were wrong about something. It will be a first and should make news headlines.

How can it be comic when there are verses in scripture that reference the book of Enoch and quote from it just like how they also reference the books they decided to take away without proper permission or authority because none of them prayed for guidance from the Holy spirit who inspired the letters and also non of them asked God for confirmation they went based on their own understanding for the sake of peace and destroying the truth in the process

@@adeclipse_sa to suggest that scripture quotes from the book of enoch is to assume that the book of enoch is older than those books in scripture, which is a massive assumption. sure, its written as though it is older and the character is older, but as stated in this interview the oldest compiled book of enoch is from the 15th century. there are also things stated in enoch which are directly against scripture, so theres that

@@junk3996 , it is not scripture. Most scholars think that the first sections of 1 Enoch were written 3 centuries before Jesus ' birth. Scrolls of Enoch were found at Qumra (Dead Sea Scrolls), which are thought to be from 2 centuries BC.

@@adeclipse_sa my point is, that it is like a fantastic work of fiction like a graphic novel we would see in the realm of comic book literature today. I'm not sure to whom you are referring, when you mention books being taken out?

Enoch 🙄

Do some research on "Byzantine Priority", by Robinson. It is a discussion of the texts used by Greek speaking peoples since the time of the Apostles. Paul went to Athens to spread the Gospel.

So I'm not the only one that doesn't trust Tichendorf ? 🤨

Yes, see this happening quite a bit..." This person has this degree or that"...means nothing if the word isn't shared correctly.

What do you mean non canonized books? Those books were indeed part of the bibles canon. They only stopped being that when the reformation happens. Those books are still canonical even if protestantism rejects them. The majority of Christians in the world accept the deuterocanon.

I have never heard of it either, as a Protestant.

​​@@andrewbrossman9902 if you do some research you should hear the Catholic Counter arguments to what this man is saying.

@@dman7668 I have a little bit.

If you're referring to the mention of Enoch, Jude was speaking of a _future_ personality. He was +not_ referring to the Enoch in Genesis. Check the genealogy. He was not the seventh from Adam. Matter of fact, the "Adam" Jude refers to is not the one from Genesis either. He is talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ(1 Cor. 15:45). "The seventh from Adam" concerns a personality who prophesies about Christ's return in the 7th era of God's Church.

See my point exactly people don’t even know that the Bible directly quotes from the book of Enoch 🤦🏻‍♀️

​​@@OkKo-ux2xvNo, the Bible 'does not quote Enoch' Two writers referenced it. As you might any historic document. That doesn't infer any sort of credibility. And consider Paul's address on Mars Hill. He referenced other documents as well ..

​@@toolegittoquit_001 Wait! Does that make those poets inspired too??? LOST BIBLICAL POEMS CITED BY PAUL FOUND IN ATHENS DUMPSTER OUTSIDE MARS HILL...... Someone will start a whole new denomination from this and retire a millionaire....

No, you just got more misinformed. The Church in this video he claims merely recognized some self authenticating canon. That's just nonsense and not even what happened. He wouldn't have been able to say that without being challenged if he said that to me. The Church didn't just recognize the canon. It choose it.

Pastor Chris Rosebrough is fluent in both. I myself would start with Koine Greek simply for the reason that's the language used for our new covenant that we're currently under. But there's also starting with Hebrew to better see the poetry involved. There's the interlinear Bible that is in the original language, but has the English equivalent words written above. That has been quite interesting.

Definitely learn Koine Greek! It doesn't take long to read it phonetically and will be rewarding with less time invested into it. I think if a person listened to every single Mike Winger video he's ever made......that has to be equal or better than a bachelor's of theology degree.... I love theological books, but I have expensive taste and I don't have the budget to buy all the ones I want. That said, building a theology library is worth it!!!

In the box below the video she has RESOURCES which links to her recommended books on Amazon.

But be careful...it could also be like reading and believing the book of m ormon, or jw's book etc...inspired by possible fallen ang el.

The apocryphal books were accepted as canon for over a thousand years. That only changes with the protestant reformation. Those books do indeed belong in the Bible.

😂😂😂

Good gracious 😂

The KJVO cult is disturbing! I had no idea such a thing existed until I saw it online. Thankfully have not run into them in person.

No he did not

That is very unfortunate. The Bible version (KJV) was done by a group of over 50 men. Doug Stoliker

Yeah, well it taught me lots of propaganda from the reformers. The Church did not merely recognize the Canon as this man tries to assert. If all it was doing was recognizing the canon and he agrees with this supposed "consensus" then why stop there? Why doesn't he accept the consensus of the Councils on apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration and Jesus Christ present in the body and blood of the Mass? The Councils recognized those things too! Yet you don't see him clamoring about how they merely "recognized" those ideas also, do you? It sounds like someone loves the Councils when he agrees with it. Also he also doesn't mention that the council that "recognized" the Bibles canon also recognized the deutercanom as well (known as the apocrypha to protestantism).

That would be interesting.

Yes, I would love hearing an apologists rebuttle some of the points he is making here that ought to he rebutted. Especially his point about the Councils merely recognizing scripture. They recognized alot of things but you don't see Protestants accepting them. I feel there is a bit of pick and choose when they agree with the Councils over the Bibles canon. Then ignore other things reached at the Councils consensus like baptismal regeneration.

True the Catholic Church defined the canon a bit later in the 4th century.

Catholic church have been build on occult basics. I know Catholicism better than the most Catholics, been one the most of my life (by my choice, nobody never pushed me into it), so i "know things"... It´s Satan´s Trojan horse.

True, he skirts over the Church recognizing books protestantism later rejects. Over 1,000yrs later. Also, saying the Church recognized the canon is one thing, but to insinuate it did not have any authority to set any canon because all it was doing was "recognizing" books is a problem. Why? Well, the Church recognized other things mainstream protestantism rejectted. Those same men on that same note "recognized" baptismal regeneration and Christ present in the Eucharist. If the Church is merely recognizing stuff, then why doesn't he accept those recognized things also?

@@dman7668 I take it that you’re probably Catholic. My authority isn’t church fathers but Christ and the apostolic writers.

There is a danger in looking up some KJV words because the dictionaries don't have the correct definition as it was used by the KJV translators in 1611. It's actually worse than that because the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops Bible, and the KJV left a lot of it the same. And some of it goes back to the 1520's Tyndale New Teatament. So in reality, you need to look up how the words were defined in the early to mid 1500's....... And no Websters dictionary (1828 included) is going to have all the correct definitions. You need something like the massive Oxford dictionary (very expensive) and other expensive resources to really figure put how all the words were used..... You can buy a KJV only cheat sheet to learn some of the definitions, but those are not exhaustive and will still be missing words that you don't know you don't know. Like when "study to be quiet" doesn't mean grab a book and figure out how not to make noise.....

It is interesting to note, @@hayfieldhermit9657 , that in 1833 Webster updated the archaic words of the KJV ("Webster's Bible") translation.

if it isn't canon, what is it useful for? useful for confusing your mind into thinking unbiblical things, or thinking about things in a way which are not spoken about in scripture. just stick with scripture. enoch is interesting, but dangerous more than useful IMO

The Enoch book is neither useful or canon. It is uninspired, Gnostic garbage. The Bible warns us in 1 Cor. 4:6 to not entertain doctrine that isn't explicitly taught or supported in scripture, and the Enoch book fails to meet either requirement. In fact, it's doctrines contradict the Bible in at least half a dozen ways.

I'm a Calvinist. That is the worst possible way to frame Calvinism, to the point where I disagree that the statement even describes Calvinism. It's simply insulting to say that's what Calvinists believe. We are dead in our sin. Dead. Kaput. Not living. Calvinists believe we are saved when God raises us spiritually from the dead and grants us a saving faith. Saying God would rather we all live, thus it's man's choice to be saved, paints God as rather helpless and trying desperately to get us to choose not being dead in our sins. Like, since when did God turn over his sovereignity? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. If anyone disagrees with that, they are a fruitcake, not a Calvinist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc... Humans want sin. It's our fallen nature, corrupted flesh, that wants it. Pharaoh wanted his slaves. People dying in sin is God turning them over to what they wanted. God is not a tyrant according to Calvinism. I'm not sitting here, sad that God saved me and now I have to go to heaven. I'm grateful. I used to be dead in my sin, unable to save myself. But God, while I was still a rotten sinner, gave me faith. Praise be to God, because the mind that is in the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law, indeed, it cannot. Romans 8:7 God is not capricious or cruel. He's not going to choose people who won't like it. God is sovereign, however, and a puny human can not thwart his plan. God is also good. Got Questions is a great source for Calvinist beliefs, seeing as they are four point Calvivists. No, your wife is not a heretic and it would probably be good for your marriage to stop assuming she's stupid.

Well, this is quite the respectful post 😬

She has some great videos that delve into both.

I didn't find it excellent. I can rebut most of these points he is making, if you like propaganda then it was great, but if you like hearing about the formation of the Bibles canon there are better sources. The Church didn't merely recognize the canon. The question is how did they do that? Spoiler. Apostolic tradition.