The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Nice job on the copy and paste ​@@DD-bx8rb

​@@DD-bx8rbEphesians 2 20

The text you quote from Ephesians simply supports what I have posted. Christ the Cornerstone, established His church on Peter the Rock and the apostles and their successors, and promised it would teach His truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. His church gives doctrinal truth, including which books are inspired. "The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church" (1Tim3:15) and NOT individual interpretation. The Protestant heretics have ripped the Written Tradition from the Oral Tradition from where it came, and from the church from where both came and abused it for there own selfish purposes.. The practice of Sola Scriptura is simply a tradition of men. By its very nature, the practice results in each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctirnal conclusions and continual division. Clearly, Sola Scriptura is of Satan. Christ promised truth, not confusion. PAX

@@DD-bx8rb if you had 2 minutes to tell someone on their deathbed how to receive Christ and be saved, how would you give them the Gospel that saves?

I’m learning it right now. Let me give you a suggestion. Start memorizing all of the paradigms for koine Greek. Learn to write them and identify them on sight. There are songs online for them. You do this and you will be so ahead of the game when you start your Greek classes.

😆😆😆😂😂😂 Don't need it, there is a perfect translated bible in English, & BTW , WHICH modified Greek will you learn from? HOW MANY TIMES had IT been modified since 1880??

@@REVNUMANEWBERNNo one is here to argue with you, but I didn’t get into it with you KJV onlyists. The Bible is preserved within the entirety of the manuscript tradition, not in just one English translation that has been updated many times since 1611.

Did I start a argument? NO, I just made a statement "You KJV onlyists" LOL Judge much? "preserved within the entirety of the manuscript tradition" SO WHICH ONE? It's obvious they are NOT all the same and they continue to be modified, looks like you & I have a DIFFERENT definition on what preserved means @@Kyle-vb3fz

​@@REVNUMANEWBERNSo what is this 'perfect' translated you're touting? Not the KJV, surely? After all, the KJV is hardly the world's best translation. Though a commendable translation in its day, it contains many archaic words that are either no longer in use or whose meaning has changed in the 400 years since it was written, making it difficult and, sometimes, misleading for most modern readers. Furthermore, the KJV's translators drew heavily from the Tyndale Bible - about 5/6 (83%) of the KJV New Testament is Tyndale's words and about 3/4 (76%) of the KJV Old Testament is Tyndale's words. In turn, Tyndale's New Testament was translated into English using Erasmus’ 3rd printed edition of the text complied from only eight Greek manuscripts (all dated from the 11th to 16th centuries). That is the same Erasmus against whom Martin Luther wrote one of his major works. The translators of the KJV didn't examine any manuscripts for themselves. What they used was _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts produced by Erasmus, Stephanus & Bezae - and even the Latin Vulgate. Anyone who reckons the KJV is a perfect translation either hasn't read the translators' preface, or is calling them liars.

How do you figure? Examples?

😆😆

The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

@@DD-bx8rb Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12

White is wrong on every thing. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

​@DD-bx8rb you mean White is wrong according to the RCC propaganda that you have been been fed. OT 'canon' was already established by the time of Jesus.

Seems like an inference to the beat explanation. If the King of Creation is revealing Himself to His people, would He allow it to be botched by them?

@@Shane_The_ConfessorHe allows preachers to do it all the time.

@@Shane_The_ConfessorThanks for the actual answer though. I don't get many actual answers to this question.

@@chadgarber What I mean by botched is the actual scripture itself. He ensured the church would be supplied with His word. False teachers and doctrines were not only expected, but prophesied, and in response we are told to check that against the scripture, which has been miraculously preserved through something like 4k years so that we can know what the original text said.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. 1. Actually, we are also told to watch out for letters that are forgeries in 2 Thessalonians. 2. What is the source for this idea: "scripture that has been miraculousy preserved" and more speficially who says this applies to the New Testament as we have it?@@Shane_The_Confessor

So We can "let Him"‽; lol-) Naw, much LOVE In CHRIST. The FATHER Draws HIS Elect To The SON, and All Whom The FATHER Draws, Will be Raised Up on the Last Day! This Is The Promise of GOD, Purchased by the Blood of JESUS CHRIST, Sealed by The SPIRIT Of GOD.

@@YESHUASlaveand Jesus said when He is raised up He will draw all men to Himself. Also most of the exact words you said are not in the Bible it’s just the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible. ‘For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40, NASB) Everyone who beholds and believes, didn’t really mention election there. ‘The father draws His elect to the son’-that’s not a scripture it’s just Calvinism.

@keith3362 sir, "you err, not Knowing the Scriptures or the Power of GOD". i am giving You GOD'S Word in It's Given Context; you are "leaning on your own [lack of] Understanding"! John 6 Drawing is Soteriology; It seems You do not even know the passage where you are commenting from -which is John 12, about the Jews and Gentiles! "YHWH Rebuke You" As IT IS also Written.

@@keith3362 lol WOE, unto You. Saying GOD'S Holy Word is Not in the BIBLE! Woe Woe unto You. You are a hypocrite . YESHUA Has Plenty to day to You, but can You bare It‽ i gave You GOD'S Holy Word, In HIS Given Context, and "you" attempt to rebuke me; may Your own words "which you are Judged by", "fall on your own head", as you attempt to Confemn a slave of CHRIST, for not using Scripture, using ...No Holy Scripture. Lol. Cherry-picking one verse and slamming into your sentence. Lol Ps.2 style. YHWH'S Words Conquers, Again and Again, Blessed be HIS Holy Name.

The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

The apostles jobs weren’t to create the Bible, but to establish the apostolic church. The spiritual gifts given to them in acts were to prove and validate their teachings. Everything they did was to establish the apostolic church, correct churches who strayed from their teaching. And to preach the gospel. As Christians we believe God assembled scripture. We have to have faith that everything happens according to His will and his perfect plan. We don’t have to have an answer to the why for us to believe and have faith in Gods teaching through His word. The fact that scripture doesn’t contradict itself, and the amount of cross references it has throughout its history can give us confidence that God has put together the Bible exactly how he intended it to be.

⁠@@Jacksonmontyart There are contradictions but you have to be opened to seeing them. I am a Christian and have been since 1993 and have read my Bible every day since. For the longest time I said thee were no contradictions but it was because I was coming at it every time I looked at it from a defense perspective. There are absolutely contradictions and the versions we currently have for sure. But whet they won't seem to be to you if you are defending the innerancy above all else. Quick obvious one: staff or no staff. Try to harmonize that one.

@@Jacksonmontyarthave you ever considered that we can make the Bible our god over God?

@@Jacksonmontyart And by the way, I am just as much a devoted Christian as I have ever been and I believe the Bible contains the word of God.

@@Jacksonmontyartand I am still open to whatever God wants me to believe. Maybe He will show me I'm currently wrong...always open to truth...

Watch out: MEANS is a slide....it's what text SAYS!! Bob Thiene ministries.

Ecclesiastes is wisdom. Many anecdotes about life and Jesus keeps it going.

No. The earliest New Testament canon list that we have was written by St. Athanasius in AD 367, but he wrote that he was merely reminding his readers of what had been long known. St. Athanasius lists all 27 books of the New Testament, but his Old Testament canon list disagrees with the Catholic list of books. The Catholic OT canon traces back to a mistake made (around AD 400) by St. Augustine, who did not know Hebrew and barely knew Greek. Origen lists all the authors of the New Testament around AD 250, although he doesn't list the books. He pretty clearly recognized the same New Testament books that we do today. The Muratorian Fragment, dated to AD 170, lists most of our New Testament books, and does not explicitly exclude any of the books that our NT contains. It may have originally listed all of them. I think Hebrews, Jude, and maybe the Pastorals and Philemon are missing from it, but...it's a fragment. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp) cite almost all the books of the New Testament. These men were writing in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Last, the New Testament books themselved cite other New Testament books as authoritative so many times, that one could nearly "reconstruct" an NT table of contents from the NT"s own self-citations. No, the Catholic Church did not determine on the canon of Scripture. It was known since Ephesians 2:20 was written (and before) that the canon of Scripture consists only of the writings of the Apostles and prophets.

@@stephenwright4973 The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

@REVNUMANEWBERN You are spot on my friend! The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

White has his history wrong. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

616, imagine a neighborhood, next to your neighbors addy which would be 666. Corny, but I guess people take a liking to it

616 is Nero's name in numerals... The joke is Nero is the neighbor of the beast

@LightThatCigar My friend, you statement on the Canon is made with no regard to the facts of history. God didn’t simply give the Church a revelation saying, “The following books and only the following books are Scripture.” Instead, the Holy Spirit guided the Church as it conducted a process of discernment. The first 3 centuries consisterd of often fierce and heated debate over what books were inspired. Many books that we do not have in the Canon were considered to be inspried, and many books we do have in the Canon were considered to not be inspired. Many excluded Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Many included The Didache, 1 Clement, The Letter of Barnabus, The Shephard of Hermas, and The Apocalypses of Peter. But the fact the Canon was not known did not matter for these early Christians; they knew Christ promised His church would always pass on the truth taught by Him and His Apostles in it's living authoritative teaching. Early in the 300s, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote his famous Church History in which he described the state of views in his own day, dividing the books into several categories: those that orthodox Christians accepted, disputed, or rejected. By later that century, the borders of the canon were firmer. In 382, Pope Damasus I held a council at Rome that authoritatively declared the same canon that Catholics have today. Pope Innocent I affirmed this list in A.D. 405, and it was endorsed by various local councils including Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419. The traditional canon continued to be affirmed down through history, such as at the Council of Florence in 1442. It wasn't until the rise of the Protestant heresy in the 1500's, when the Protestants began a major controversy about the authority of certain books, that the need to define the canon became more urgent, and in 1546 the Council of Trent infallibly defined which books the Church holds as sacred and canonical.

@@DD-bx8rb The Roman Catholic Church was invented out of thin air by Constantine in the 4th Century. The entire bible had been tested and determined as a canon by the 2nd century. All Rome did was put it in one volume. The Catholic church never decided ANYTHING about the canon. Your RCC mythology is false and Dr. White is correct.

@@cigarlovers999 Sorry my friend, Constantine could not possibly have "invented the Church" as you post. The early Church in the first 300 years was Catholic on every point of doctrine including Grace Alone through a Faith which includes Good Works, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Representation of the Sacrifice, Confession, Confirmation, Mary the Mother of God, Interccession of the Saints, Contraception as Sinful, The Primacy of Peter, Apostolic Succession, The Church as Final Athority etc. Constantine certainly did not invent the Catholic Church, but one thing is for sure, the Protestant heretics invented the many and various Protestant sects and their heretical doctrines and practices such as Faith-Alone, Bible-Alone, as well as all their doctrines which are antithetical to the Catholic doctrines mentioned above. The Catholic Church was established by Christ Jesus.

@@cigarlovers999 It would appear you have the same disease as White. When given historical facts all you can do is express you feeling that "the Catholic Church has to be wrong". I will pray for you and I recommend the site Catholic Answers to you. Pax

Was there a denomination back then ? And how would you know

You ok?

Marcion resurrected

What are you talking about?What kind of bubble are you mouthing?l whole heartedly believe in the need for the illumination of the Holy Spirit to apprehend and understand the the reavelled Word, the scriptures. Now spiritual/of the Spirit does not mean unintelligible which is what you uttered.

What did give hints about OT written stories allegories with dark sayings parables you can believe its secular or ponder about exsperince have dead letters come alive in alive temple all MAN have a skull right or don't the story has them outside hill called skull is your choice to believe or know what parables mean about flesh your body cross of Christ all MAN have bewitched most till woke inside, good or evil have nothing advantages the waking just happens when least first when great last.@@ThembaMaselane

A white Jean jacket. Why?

@@Jasperstone43100 Considering white is public about his faith and ministry, what’s your evidence that he is an unbeliever…

His Protestant heretic uniform.

The issue is did the people that ran the council of trent knew any of this information? No they did not. The established the trentian canon solely in response to Luther and the reformers. The cardinals along with the pope did not regard any of the history you have provided thus your argument is anachronistic in trying to validate the council's claims.

@@acolytes777 are you arguing that every person involved with deciding in the council of trent was completely ignorant to the historical argument i made

Study Book of Rome and its traditions and practices vs Word of God Edward g Mccarthy ..reformed catholic.

Pope came from 1500's, Gregory asking Valentineun...nowhere in First Timothy re: church roles., however? No pope. Bishop Linus.. 340+ yrs...from the apostles. No continuity.

Citing pope is spurious, there was and is no pope. Fyi

When Dr White says ‘attested’ he means we have a manuscript for that gospel. P52 is the earliest manuscript we have of a gospel and it is of the gospel of John. He is not referring to the dating of when the gospels were written.

What exactly did you not understand?

@@tearren1 if that's what he meant, that makes sense. Thanks.

Just a quick note -- p52 is the size of a credit card. Smaller then the palm of your hand. First complete work is sinaiticus. And even it has 2 apocrapha in it.

​@@zaybaligood for you bro

There "were no Protestants", because the many false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church had slowly crept in over centuries, until eventually as more people could study the scriptures for themselves, members of the church "protested" these false doctrines. Hence why they are called "Protestants". In other words, their history is the same church history as your church history. They were all Roman Catholics who discovered that Rome had badly mishandled scripture, and then protested those errors. The whole idea of the "Reformation" was to "reform" the church back to its original doctrines, or at least getting back as close to the apostolic teaching as possible, by removing the many false doctrines of Rome that are clearly contrary to what scripture, and therefore the apostles, taught. There's a reason that Rome didn't want anyone translating the Bible, and was willing to do horrific things to them for it. Speaking of translating the Bible, St. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate (which they then refused to allow to be translated, was that any infallible decree btw?), by far the most qualified biblical scholar of the early church to attest to what is the correct canon of scripture, completely refutes the so called "infallible" canon decided by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546. In his own words: "And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa...This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha." (St Jerome, Prologus Galeatus, AD 392) Or if you prefer Athanasius... "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.... ...These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them... ...But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read." (Saint Athanasius, 39th Festal Epistle, AD 367) Hmm, it looks like at least a few of the early church fathers have the same canon of scripture that you find in the "Protestant" Bibles today. I guess there were "Protestants" in the early church history after all. Or perhaps we should just start calling them all Christians, who are faithful to the word of God? We can go back further, to Josephus in AD 94, but I'll spare you the quote and just let you know that his OT (Tanakh to him) canon matches that of Jerome and Athanasius. Though I doubt that means anything to you anyway.

Weren't the majority of the early Christians Jewish? Same people different generation.

What are you even talking about?

@@craigime The theological basis that Dr white gave for the entire New Testament being inspired from God.

@@chadgarber he was saying that God was the one who preserved the Scriptures. So what basis do you have for saying the Jews were better at preserving than the Christians?

@@craigime I am just asking where it specifically says anywhere that the entire New Testament as we have it is the inspired word of God (i.e. the theological basis).

Why so jocular??

u seen the video? Great video@@jackiepowell7513

The words are what have been preserved. That’s like saying we don’t have the original moonlight sonata because we don’t have its original sheet music so we can’t know what it really sounded like

If u wanna rely on some writings from hundread years after and think we can trust it is ridiculous. The gospels were not eye witness accounts. They were written by anonymous writers. They put a name to them in the third century. Contradictions galore. Even about the resurrection sightings and the tomb. Mark was the first gospel with no resurrection appearances. Matthew came along and added things and it became more and more legend. By John he was the iam. I'm mark he was a lowly servant. If u can't see the evolution in his character u don't understand how things were portrayed in those days. Go read the summerian tablets. Read about the geek and Roman gods.

@@ryanfristik5683 Speaking of contradictions, there's about half a dozen in your first four sentences. If you are serious about your first sentence, then you can not believe any historical record written prior to the 1700s.

How ya figure?

​@@eagleclaw1179I'm not sure! I have a laughing/crying face, so I'm guessing it was a joke. I'm a huge supporter of Dr White, so it was definitely not a negative comment or slight against him. I'm relistening now to see what I referred to... 😊 His ministry is a gift to the church.

​@@eagleclaw1179either I commented on the wrong video OR the only thing I can think of was it was a joke about his Jean jacket 🤷‍♀️ 😂 Either way, it fell flat. Haha. This was an excellent message. Dr white has taught me so much about church history. Grateful for his ministry

@@Naomi_OB lol

Apparently you don't understand correctly

You must know that God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, that although He hates the sin, He loves the sinner. If they will just come to Him and repent in their heart of hearts of all their sins, and proclaim Him as their Savior, their Lord, the Son of GOD. The reason I believe in the God of the Bible, the inerrancy of Scripture and that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. We have a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report super natural events that took place in fulfilment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are via divine inspiration and not from men alone. The super natural events are important in that they show the divine nature of God. Jesus Christ cast out demons, healed the sick, blind, deaf, dumb and paralyzed, walked on water, fed thousands with little, and was resurrected all of which have eyewitness accounts. The feedings alone were witnessed by the thousands He fed on the two separate occasions that we are told of in the Gospels. John tells us that there were many more miracles than what are recorded in the Bible/Gospels and that it would have filled volumes of books upon books were he to have written them all down and that it would have taken more than one lifetime to do so. The claim that men wrote the Bible so it can not be true means that no other book ever written should be believed, no matter the topic as they're all written by man. The Bible is not just a book it is a collection of books written over a period of thousands of years of which all those books are linked together by One Divine Author. In this collection of books there are over 40 authors but only one Devine Author who links them all together via the Holy Spirit. Those authors wrote down His inspired Word given to them by God. 66 Volumes/Books in the Bible. The bulk of the New Testament was written over a period of around 50 years. It was in 49 AD to 53 AD when the Scripture writings of the New Testament are thought to have begun. With the last living Apostle John dying in 100 AD. Over a period of around 1500 years it was preserved and passed on: In 3 Languages On 3 Continents There are 66,360+ source documents that have been found for the entire Bible of which there are 24,360 and counting source documents for the New Testament alone. 5,839 in the original Greek, some 2 million pages 18,524 translations of that Greek into other languages Some of the oldest sources date to 125AD which is within decades of the completion of all the books that were canonized as the New Testament. The New Testament cannon, (Gospels of the Apostles/writings, Epistles/letters to the early Churches, all sources and eyewitness accounts that were to be included), was decided at the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Those asking for "Scientific Proof" about the Bible are either ignorant or asking with evil intent. An intelligent person knows that the scientific method can not be applied to verify the Bible. Scientific Method is: 1) Has to be observable. 2) Has to be measurable. 3) Has to be repeatable. Therefore no history can ever be proven via scientific method. You must use the historical method based on: Eyewitnesses accounts. Documents from the time or as close as possible. Make sure the story is corroborated by as many sources as possible. Look for anyone/anything that attempted to prove any of it false in that time period or as close to it as possible. Did anyone successfully prove any of it untrue? If they had/have why is there no record found anywhere of it ever being disproven? Luke = Historian A man of science, a physician, an educated and logical man who researched and gathered the accounts of eyewitnesses. He recorded the actual eyewitness accounts of our Lord and Savior, those who had heard Him speak and were present/saw the signs/miracles He performed. He did this because the life of those eyewitnesses were coming to an end due to age and he was inspired to write them down via the Holy Spirit before they could be lost or perverted by time. John = Evangelist John is organized around 7 specific events/signs/miracles all seen by eyewitnesses and corroborated by many. So he also provides proof of accuracy/truth. Mark = The shortest of the Gospels and is very direct or "Just the Facts" if you like. Mathew = Was written to the Jewish audience and that's one of the reasons for the extensive genealogy of Christ. There are also more references to the Old Testament in his gospel compared to the others. Peter = He lays out all the proof for the Bible and it's accuracy in 1 Peter Chapter 1. He makes the arguments that justify it all as truly what happened and that it all happened as recorded in the Gospels, the entire Bible. All of the Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or of the resurrected Christ. Including Paul whom Jesus came to as he was on the road traveling to Damascus to persecute more Christians. This would have been the resurrected Christ or a form of Him that came from Heaven. There were at least 300 eyewitnesses still alive when Corinthians was written who could have disputed it but no one did. Mathias became the 12th Apostles after Judas hung himself so the argument of there not being 12 Apostles comes from ignorance or evil intent. There have been over 25,000 archeological digs in which there has been absolutely no evidence found that proves anything in the entire Bible false but in those digs many things have been found that prove it true. Other cultures and non believer's historical documents show or corroborate people, places, wars and many things that are in the Bible. Yet none of them prove any of it to be false but they do strengthen it. Word for Word Translations prove just how accurate what we have is when you consider there's no way anyone could have falsified any of it, be it via intent or mistakes. Many church fathers in history have made extensive notes that include scripture throughout the centuries and no matter the time or place all those references to scripture corroborate each other. Which shows just how accurate translations have been throughout time and still are as long as they maintain a word for word ideology during the translation. To falsify any of it they would have to change every single source, do it in three languages, on three continents, over a span of thousands of years, with no one catching any of it, no one ever talking about what they'd done, leaving behind no traces that they'd done it. Not to mention they'd have to steal all of those sources to change them, changing them would be a massive undertaking considering they were hand written in those times and then put them back without ever being seen or caught during the entire process. My last statement is this: Simply put the Bible can defend itself like a lion just let it loose. (Use Scripture to defend Scripture because it is a collection of eyewitness accounts that has been proven true again and again). There's a very good movie titled "The God Who Speaks" that covers much of what I've said above. If you still have doubt I would recommend you watch it and even if you don't because it was very well made and presented. Take care and God Bless.

It didn't say take nothing except "a staff", but rather "staves" implying multiple, no extra "staves" (plural of staff meaning take no more than the staff you have already) the same applied to clothes, money and sandals, nothing extra than the one you have.

@@PastorwithoutaPulpit The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

@@DD-bx8rb My friend everything you've listed here is true in that you've posted a record of the "Official" councils/gatherings where the cannon of Scripture was decided/discussed. It reads like a wiki written by one who doesn't understand, (I'm not saying that is you), that if none of those councils/gatherings had happened we'd still know what the cannon of Scripture is and or should be. We have the writings of some of the earliest Church historians/believers, (some call them Church fathers as have I in the past), and these are from the 1st and 2nd centuries. Those such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias and many many others. In their writings we have what the very early Church accepted as Inspired Scripture and what they didn't. We know this either directly or indirectly by what Scripture appears throughout their writings and by what they've said about it or by what they've omitted. There's also the fact that most if not all of the books that are not included in the 66 Book cannon were written in the 2nd to 3rd centuries or later, (which is seen as to late). They have either questionable or even false claims as to who their authors were. We know from Scripture itself that it will never contradict or make false claims/predictions in the original autographs. So we know what the earliest Christians believed and accepted, which means we also can be fairly certain what they didn't accept as God's Inspired Word. I truly hope this helps you in same way in your walk with the LORD. Take care and God Bless...

Of course you did

You missed out 🤷🏽

You and lots of other pagans tuned out there

Really? Why??

@lexiteki Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, as Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

peter was also given responsibility for feeding christs lambs, tending his sheep and feeding his sheep, no other apostle is given these commands , only peter@@matthewbroderick6287

Such a misguided argument. We are built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph.2:20). Nobody is denying that we need the words of the Apostles who were Christ's chosen witnesses. What we are denying is the authority and credibility of the bishops of Rome, who claimed to be Peter's successors even though Christ and the Apostles said not a word about any successors to the Apostolic office. The qualifications of an Apostle given in 1 Cor.9:1 and Acts 1:21-22 prove that there could be NO successors to the Apostolic office, and therefore that the Catholic claims to authority are fraudulent.

nonsense jesus in mt16-13-18 establihes that and it is reaffirmed in john 20@@stephenwright4973

@stephenwright4973 I agree, YOUR post is most misguided, for Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Holy Scripture teaches even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith, ( Ephesians 4:11), and that we are to submit to those over us in the Lord! ( Hebrews 13:17). No where did the Apostles teach the man made traditions of faith alone and Scripture alone! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

The Wesscott & Hort text because they created in around 1880

​@@REVNUMANEWBERN?

Question 2: the King James translators had access to ONE document, the Latin Vulgate. The King James translators did not have access to the hundreds of scrolls, papyri, the dead sea scrolls, and all of the other documents discovered in the last 400 years. Yes, it can be proved conclusively that the King James Bible is not the verbatim reproduction of the originals: 1. That's not how translation works. There is no such thing as a verbatim reproduction of ANY document when you are TRANSLATING. 2. The originals were not used to translate the King James. Therefore the King James is not a verbatim reproduction of them.

🤡🤡

That's what is called an introduction. The lecture starts at 6:00.

One of our strongest public defenders of the Faith. Definitely doesn’t make Christianity look bad.

@@nathanserna5162 Sure and I am Danold Trump.

@@nathanserna5162 That is you're opinion. Not fact.

😆😆😆😆😂😂😂😂

The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.