Then you don't want to be Mormon. But anyway,
the point is, so we looked at some... She said
they call us crazy. Yeah. Yeah, sometimes they
do. Actually, most Mormons probably would not
call us crazy. They would just say that we don't
have the full picture. They say, well, you just
need to know these other things. You're not buying
into the rest of it. Because they believe in
the Old Testament and the New Testament. They
just also believe in some additional stuff that
has been added, right? And then where the two
contradict, they take the additional stuff over
the Bible, and that's the problem. We're going
to see an example of that in a minute. But anyway,
so the point is, some things claim to be Christian
and are not, so don't buy into it if it's a lie,
right? If it's not right, don't buy into it.
And that would be true of Islam, too. So some
things like militant or radical Islam is actually
kind of more the traditional Islam. If you go
back in the Quran, for example, look at it. That's
militant or radical Islam. The Quran calls all
Islamic believers to destroy all non -Islamic
believers, basically. Either you convert to Islam
or die. That's what the Quran calls for. But
then an adaptation of that is much more peaceful.
So there's a Muslim people that is much more
peaceful than that. They don't follow those directions.
At least they say they don't. And they don't
go around killing people. But then... radical
Islam harvests people from regular Islam than
to become radical because they're like, well,
that is what it says. It's like if the Bible
says thou shalt not bear false witness, and in
our church we were telling everybody, well, it's
okay, you can bear false witness, it's okay.
Well, somebody would probably come along and
say, well, no, it's not okay, it says it right
there. Well, it's the same way in Islam. They
look at that and they say it says it right there
that we should be killing non -Christians. So
therefore, I mean, non -Islam. So therefore,
we should be killing non -Islam, and then they'll
leave regular Islam and go become radicalized.
So there's, in every faith, there's always people
that are kind of splinter groups, and that's
true with Christianity, too. The two largest
splinter, three largest splinter groups of Christianity
are Catholicism, which is debatably a Christian
faith. Okay, so people say it's Christian, and
the government recognizes it's Christian, but
it's debatably Christian. And then Mormonism.
and Jehovah's Witness. None of those things are
truly, purely what the Bible teaches, right?
They've got other stuff that they've added in
to make it the way that they want it. So that's
a problem. But we're not worried about what the
problems are at the moment. We're worried about
what is right. So what we're going to do is we're
going to look at those three monotheistic religions
and try to figure out which one is correct. Because
if you can get somebody to... to that first part,
come up with the 10 traits of God, and then you
take them through, well, you say you're agnostic,
but that doesn't really work because of this.
You say you're atheist, that doesn't really work
because of this. You're pantheistic, well, that
doesn't really work because of this. You're going
to get down to monotheistic, then they have to
make a choice between Islam, being a Jewish person,
or being a Christian, okay? And so the dividing
factor is the New Testament, and that's why we're
going to talk about the New Testament. If the
New Testament is accurate, only Christianity
can be accurate. The other two would be ruled
out. Because Islam says that Christians do not
have a proper understanding of the biblical teaching.
So Islam rules out the New Testament. Yeah, they
recognize him as a prophet like Muhammad. And
they would say maybe even that he was divine.
But they also say that he was that, like, for
example, I know it's going to sound weird, but
it's what they believe. Mainline Islam believes
that while he was on the cross, that God moved
the soul of Jesus out of his body and moved the
soul of Judas into his body so that it was Judas
who was crucified on a cross in Jesus' body.
So there's nothing like that in the scripture,
but that's what they teach. So anyway, the point
is they had some things that... If the New Testament
is accurate, then Christianity is right, and
the other two are wrong, because Jews don't accept
the New Testament, and Islam says the New Testament
is wrong. So what we're starting to do today
is look at, not from within the Bible yet, we'll
get there, but from outside, how can we know
that the New Testament is accurate? So that's
what we're going to talk about. So if you look
at the top of your page, it says Carthage. It
says 393 and 397. So those are ADs. And you can
take your little pen and you can write AD after
it to remind yourself. So does anybody know what
AD means? It's being replaced or they're trying
to replace it. So I'll give you a hint. What
is the actual Latin? Anno Dominus? Dominus? Whatever.
Anyway. Yeah. And it means in the day of our
Lord. Okay. So this is after Jesus' birth. Originally,
the calendar was calculated that Jesus' birth
was in 0 B .C. slash A .D. That's what they calculated.
They later figured out they got it a little bit
wrong, so that is not exactly right. But the
point is, so 393 years after the birth of Jesus.
So, first question, was Jesus alive at that time?
The answer is no. People do not live 393 years
in recent history. So he was not alive. He was
crucified at the age of between 30 and 35. But
then he was born. He came back to life. He was
resurrected on the third day, so he's alive,
but he's in heaven alive and present with believers.
Were any of the disciples alive at this time?
No. So again, people don't live 393 years anymore.
There was a time way back before Noah's Ark when
that happened, but it doesn't happen now. So
in 393 and 397 AD, the canon was essentially,
as we have it, the 27 books of the New Testament
were kind of named, sealed, recognized. So we're
going to be looking at the process of how that
happened. So when they looked at that in 393
and 397 AD, when they met in Carthage, which
is a city, and Hippo, which is another city,
when they met, they had some criteria. You see
the dashes right there? Those are the criteria
that they used, except for the last one, which
is an explanation. So the first one says apostolic
age. So it's apostolic origin from the apostolic
age. What's an apostle? What is an apostle? Okay,
nope, that's not the actual definition of an
apostle. That's more like the definition of disciple.
And the disciples, the apostles were disciples
too. Or is that the one where they actually were
with Jesus? Yeah, so that's what they're looking
for, people who had firsthand knowledge of Jesus'
experience. To be an apostle, that was one of
the things you had to have. The actual word apostle
means, this is for candy later, I guarantee you
I'll ask this question later, so you might want
to make a note. Are you with me, Natalie? Okay.
An apostle means a sent one. It's a person sent
by God. Okay, so the apostolic age was that time
at which they were alive, right? Does anybody
know approximately when John died? John, the
disciple, he was the last one. Want to take a
stab at it? No. No. So he was killed in the AD
90s. AD, Anno Domini, 90s. So he lived almost
to the second century, but he didn't make it.
So all of the books then that they were allowing
as the New Testament would have had to have been
written whenever he died, mid -90s, whatever
that was. Otherwise they wouldn't be from the
apostolic age. So anything that was written after
that, they would have ruled out, no matter how
good it was. If there wasn't an apostle alive
when it was written, they would rule it out.
And then you see the next dash says, had to have
been generally accepted by the church and in
continuous use in worship services. So the church
had expanded by this time to thousands of churches
all across the Middle East, into Turkey, Ethiopia,
right? All over the place, there were churches.
And the church as a whole had to recognize the
book in question, not just a little pocket. Three
or four churches in one city doing it, that wouldn't
have been enough. or even a hundred churches
in one small country, that would not have been
enough. It had to have been recognized all over,
and the churches generally accepting it and using
it in worship services. Which meant that in order
for that to be true, the teaching of the books
had to hold together. In other words, one couldn't
contradict another, or they'd question it. They'd
be like, why do we have this one? This one contradicts
the other one. And then also they had to agree
with the teachings of Scripture. And what are
the teachings of Scripture at this point in time?
What Scripture did they have? The Old Testament,
right? So everything in the New Testament had
to line up with the Old Testament in order to
make it work. Again, they would have tossed it
out. So, so far we've got, had to have been written
during the life of John. During that age, he
was the last disciple to die. It also had to
have been accepted by the church and in continuous
use in the churches throughout. And then, It
had to make sense with each other and agree to
the Old Testament. And then lastly, they were
looking for, this one's a little harder, they
were looking for it to be inspired by God. So
the books had to display self -evidencing quality.
So in other words, in the book, you should be
able to see the words of God. And the power to
transform lives. So if you've ever been reading
in the New Testament and you saw, wow, that really
speaks to me, then you know what they're talking
about, right? And so if you get into a book like
Jude, for example, and you would read that, it's
very short, just a couple of paragraphs basically,
and you go like, this is really not changing
my life. I don't see how this is going to change.
Then they would not have called that scripture,
okay? So that's what they were looking for. It's
harder because somebody might think, one person
might think it seems inspired, another person
might think it not, and they had to sort that
out. So whatever the belief for inspiration was,
whatever, why ever they wanted that, all of the
books that were named were said to have it. So
we're going to see some by the time we're done.
We're going to look at a few books that didn't
get the rubber stamp. They didn't get agreed
to. And the main reason was because it didn't
seem like they were from God. But again, these
books were written while John was still alive.
So if the books were written while John was still
alive and then put into use, so you know who
John was, right? He's one of the sons of thunder.
And so he would have said, hold up now. This
is going a way that I don't agree with. This
is not what Jesus taught while he was alive.
So then these books that met those criteria would
form the canon. Haley, do you know why they were
called the canon? Okay, it says the word means
measure or rule because all of the other books
or all other writings, everything would be measured
by that. So the 27 books that we have, if somebody
came to you tomorrow and gave you a book and
it was called the Gospel of Thomas and they said,
this is just as good as the Bible. Would you
start reading it and adding it in and believing
it just like God's word? You shouldn't. That
would be a mistake, right? And then if you picked
it apart enough, what you'd find is it's not
from God. It doesn't line up with the other books
of the New Testament. There's some weird things
in there, right? But you don't need to do that
because you have 27 books of the New Testament
that are already solid. They are the canon. Okay.
So there's a guy. I'm going to try to pronounce
that guy's name. Mike, you want to try to pronounce
that guy's name? Oh, where? It starts with a
capital A right there. Just below these form
the canon, and then he's got a gap, and then
it says a. Athenianus. That's not bad. Athenianus.
Athenianus. There's an S. You're skipping the
middle S. Athanasius. Yeah, Athanasius. So in
367 AD, he was the bishop of Alexandria. Does
anybody know what a bishop is? Like the chess
piece. Yep, and why was it? And that is correct.
Okay, and so why is it there in chess? To protect
the queen. That's interesting, but that's not
where I was going with that. But anyway, so the
bishop is like... A leader over multiple churches.
So it might be their senior church and they planted
ten other churches, for example, or whatever.
It is not expressly a biblical position. The
Bible doesn't command us to have bishops, but
it does make a lot of sense for organization.
We don't have bishops, but it would be one who
had authority over multiple churches. So if New
Heights planted... New Heights North and New
Heights South, and they were still running out
there somewhere or whatever, they might call
me and say, hey, what do you think about doing
this? What do you think about that? I might say,
no, I don't think that's a good idea. Or, yeah,
I think it's a good idea. But we don't really
do bishops per se. We do have a Southern Baptist
who calls himself bishop. So my pope. Say again?
My pope. Like the pope. Yeah. And so the pope
rules over the bishops who rule over multiple
churches. That's how the Catholic Church is set.
But it doesn't really, it's not biblically commanded
to be that way. But he was a bishop, meant he
had a lot of authority over a bunch of different
churches, and he was in Alexandria, so he was
the leader of the churches in Alexandria. And
he made a list of 27 books, and they are exactly
as we have them right now. So the first time
we really see the 27 books in the New Testament
was in 367 AD, 30 years roughly before they met
to decide for sure. He's also the first person
to ever use the word canon. Then in 400 AD, there
was a listing made, the canon of the New Testament.
So when they met in Carthage in 393 and Hippo
in 397 AD, remember those numbers, right? Later,
the term canon became common. So they weren't
saying, we're going to make this the canon per
se. They were saying, we're going to decide what
books work and what don't. And then somebody
coined the idea of calling it the canon, and
then now it's stuck. There's a guy named Eusebius.
There's another name for you. Does anybody know
who Constantine was? Who was Constantine? He
was a Roman emperor. What did he do that was
really significant? He built Constantinople.
Do you know why he built Constantinople? This
sounds maybe, and it might have been his real
motivation, I don't know his real motivation,
but he was trying to build a Christian capital
of the empire. So he had been converted to Christ
by his own profession. His grandmother, I think
it was, was Christian, and then he was converted
to Christ, and he said Rome will now be a Christian
nation. And its capital will be in Constantinople.
So he built the new capital. Except it didn't
work. Because after he moved to Constantinople,
they just said, we're just going to keep Rome
as our capital. So then it divided the empire,
basically, is what happened. But Constantinople
became the seat of Christianity, in a sense.
And Eusebius lived there. And he started researching
the history of the books that were being put
forward as scripture. So Constantine wanted to
know, what is our real, really, what is the Bible?
We've got the Old Testament. We know what that
is. What is the New Testament, right? So he told
Eusebius, I want you to figure out, look at all
these books and figure out which ones work and
which ones don't. So what's interesting is, so
this is 325 AD, Eusebius had access to many writings
of the Christian church fathers. So this would
be like the guys that were the first pastor of
each church. help start multiple churches in
an area, that kind of thing. And their writings
referenced the books of the Bible, the New Testament
books. So Tertullian, for example, which is a
really famous guy, you can go read some of his
stuff. It's hard to read, but it's really cool.
He quoted from 23 of the 27 books of the New
Testament. So now think like this. You're Eusebius,
you're going to the library, you're finding all
these writings, and you know... that Tertullian
is the Christian father of hundreds of churches
and everybody recognizes him with authority and
you read his writings and he's quoting from 23
of the 27 books of the New Testament, then that
adds credence to those 23 books. Does that make
sense? It makes sense that those 23 books are
solid if that guy who's been around, who met
John, who talked to all these pastors and other
disciples that lived for a little while longer
and things like that, that he quoted 23 of the
books, that means they probably were solid. In
fact, the vast majority of the New Testament
could be reconstructed on the quotes from the
church fathers alone. So, in other words, if
we did not have any copies of the New Testament,
over probably 60 -70 % of the New Testament could
still be pieced together from letters and writings
of the church fathers who were writing while
John was still alive. Are you following the logic
now? So that's really solid. That means that
they believed already that these books were solid,
and they would quote, like it says over there
in the letter to the Corinthians, in the 37th
verse, because they didn't have chapters back
then or whatever, or like it says over there
in the letter, The Acts of the Apostles, and
they were quoting whole sections of Scripture.
And so if we lost the New Testament copies, we
still would have had most of the New Testament,
even before they decided what worked and what
didn't. The vast majority of the New Testament
could be reconstructed. So Eusebius divided the
books into three categories. I'm sorry, really
four categories. The canonical, which means the
ones that are in. The widely spread. which means
the ones that were accepted all over the world
at that time. The rejected or spurious, so there's
like, eh, most people don't think this belongs
in there. And then heretical, which means it's
God -awful. It's Antichrist teaching. Don't have
anything to do with it, okay? And then this is
the list, but you don't have to memorize this
or anything, but you might need a candy later.
Under canonical, the four Gospels, Acts, the
14 letters of Paul, including Hebrews, which
is significant because we don't know if Paul
wrote Hebrews or not, right? So he included it
as Paul wrote it. 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation.
So those were that early. He said, those I know
for sure. then James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3
John were widely accepted. So most of the church
are using those, he would say. And then in the
Asperius, Acts of Paul, that's not the Acts of
the Apostles, it's a different book, Acts of
Paul, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Diodice,
and the Apocalypse of Peter. So those are books
that have been around since at least 325. AD,
and he said, no, these don't line up for whatever
reason. And that's one direction of how things
really got moving to push people to decide what
the 27 books were. But there was another one.
In AD 135, Catholicism was based out of Rome.
And a man named Marcion came to Rome and he made
a huge gift to the church. He said, I'm a Christian.
I'm rich. I want to give you a bunch of money.
He gave them 200 ,000 sesterces, which is like,
I mean, 10 lifetimes worth of money for them.
Right? So it's all the money a man can earn in
10 lifetimes. Huge gift. It'd be like somebody
making a gift of like 5 billion now. You know,
it's just like, it's a ridiculous amount. Okay?
So when he did that, he right away got real popular.
And everybody thought, man, this guy, Marcion,
he's awesome. Marcion proceeded to create his
own canon. Ten of Paul's letters he used, ten
of them only, and the Gospel of Luke. But he
edited those ten letters of Paul and the Gospel
of Luke to exclude any references to the God
of Judaism. So he would say Jesus' God the Father
was not the God of the Old Testament. So you
can see that real problems began to develop.
So then that pushed the church to say, well,
we have to know what's right and we have to know
what's wrong because just because some guy gives
us $5 billion doesn't mean we're going to throw
out all of these teachings that we've been teaching
for the last 300 years. So it became a real problem.
So during the second century, most churches possessed
and acknowledged a canon that included the four
gospels. The Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, including
Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John. The seven books
still lacked general recognition. Hebrews was
borderline, so actually Hebrews was not one of
those 13 books. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,
Jude, and Revelation. So most churches everywhere
were using, but they were excluding those ones.
Even though there were, like up here at the top
you see, he included Revelation and Hebrews.
So there was a debate. In about A .D. 180, we're
almost at the bottom of the page. In about A
.D. 180, Arrhenius passed a history of the Gospels
that he had learned from Polycarp, who had in
turn learned from John. So this was a direct
source. John taught a man named Polycarp. Apparently,
what was his name? Polycarp. Right? Like, go
to the pond and catch two carp? That's Polycarp.
Or one carp that's actually two carp, like two
heads? Polycarp. Okay? Anyway, so John taught
Polycarp, and Polycarp taught Irenaeus, I think
is actually pronounced the way you see it there.
And then he passed on the history. I know some
of this stuff is a little bit tedious, but you
need to see the pattern of how this goes. So
this is what he said from the intranet. Mark,
having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote
down accurately, though not indeed in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or
done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord
nor followed him. So Mark was not a disciple
of Jesus, he says. But afterwards, as I said,
he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to
the needs of his hearers. So Peter was going
around taking the teachings of Christ and delivering
them to people as they needed, but with no intention
of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourse.
So Peter was not trying to tell everybody everything
that Jesus did. or connect everything together
that Jesus did. Peter wasn't doing that. So that
Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some
things as he remembered them. So he just wrote
down everything that Peter was saying, and he
didn't make any mistakes in doing that, because
he did it while he was with Peter. Or he was
careful of one thing, not to omit any of the
things which he had heard, and not to state any
of them falsely. So then, Matthew wrote the oracles
in the Hebrew language and everyone interpreted
them as he was able. So then later, there's another
guy who writes down a similar account and his
facts are a little bit different. And so we still
debate to this day which one was written first,
the book of Matthew or the book of Mark. We don't
know for sure. But what we got from this guy
who got it from Polycarp, who got it from John,
right? was that the book of Mark was written
on the teachings of Peter. Remember who Peter
was, right? Like Jesus' right -hand man. He made
the good profession. He's the first one who said,
you are the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus
said, upon this rock I shall build my church.
Not talking about Peter as a rock, but the profession
of faith. So Peter was the guy. Jesus handed
him the keys. He became the leader of the church
in Jerusalem. And then later... He had a guy
named Mark, and as Peter was teaching, Mark was
writing down the things that Peter talked about.
And Peter, the other guy who tells the story,
says that Peter said, this says this, I'm just
going to read a little snippet of it. And they
say that Peter, when he had learned through a
revelation of the Spirit of that which had been
done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, in
other words, that they wanted to know more, and
that the work obtained the sanction of his authority
for the purpose of being used in the churches.
So Peter said, yeah. This book is a good summation
of the teaching that I've been teaching. Take
this book, which was Mark, and give it to everybody.
Okay, this letter, stories, whatever, covers
a pretty good job. All right? So modern scholars
still think that Mark was written first and then
Matthew, which does line up with what the other
guy said. But we don't really know. We don't
have a copy of Mark in Hebrew. Okay? All right.
Now we're back on this. Yes, exactly. And I'm
sure we'll look at that probably in two weeks.
So now we're down to thinking about why this
works. We don't have the whole picture, but let's
say you're talking with somebody. Are you with
me, Natalie? Let's say you're talking with somebody,
and you're trying to explain how we know that
the New Testament works. You now know that all
of the books that were made canonical were written
in the life while John was still alive. That
was one of the standards that they used. The
standard of had to be inspired by God, that's
a little harder, right? Had to be life -changing.
Both those things are a little challenging, right?
But had to be not just a council of people came
together to decide to do it, but had to be generally
accepted by all the churches everywhere. Now
that really resonates with me because I'm telling
you, it's the church that's in charge. It's not
the individual. It's not the pastor, right? It's
the church that's in charge. And when the church
is really being the church, God does amazing
things. And when the church just lets the pastor
do the work or just lets some self -help book
do the work or things like that, it doesn't really
work. The church is in charge. So the church
was already using the books in question by 393
and 397 AD when they set those lists. So that's
the first thing. Then another interesting argument
is... So the book of John is the book that makes
the most sense. Why do you think of the Gospels?
What are the four Gospels, Haley? Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. So of those four Gospels, if
I say John, it makes the most sense that we have
the book of John. Why would I say that? Because
it's on the page. Yeah, why is it on the page?
Because John actually walked with Jesus. Right,
and so did Matthew. But we'll come back to that
in a second. John was the guy that they described
as the beloved brother of Jesus. He's the guy
who laid back on Jesus at the Last Supper. So
he's the guy. He's right in there, right in the
thick of it. So a book or a letter, a lengthy
letter, whatever story that he wrote firsthand
of what he saw, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't
it? Who was Matthew? He's the other disciple
of Jesus who's got a book. Who was he? He was
a tax collector. a Jewish tax collector. So if
you're going to write a book talking about Jesus,
are you going to claim to be a Jewish tax collector?
Unless you actually are a Jewish tax collector,
right? You see what I'm saying? So there's no
reason. Why would they do that? They could have
picked anybody. Name the book Peter. If it was
fake, name it Peter. That would make a lot of
sense. Peter was there. Or James, the brother
of Jesus. That would make sense because he eventually
came around to Christ and became the leader of
the New Testament church. If you're going to
fake it, the point is you wouldn't pick Matthew.
See what I'm saying? So that's an argument for
how we know that that's right. So that leaves
Matthew and John. What about Mark? We already
talked about him a little bit. Was he a disciple
of Jesus? No. He was a disciple of... Peter,
right? So he was learning from Peter the teachings
of Jesus, and then he was delivering them. So
he was a disciple of Jesus as a Christian, but
he was a follower, not of Jesus directly, but
of Peter. And who else was he? Nobody. He was
literally nobody. So why would you pick Mark?
Why use a book that Mark wrote? But then we have
the church fathers saying the reason Mark wrote
the book was because he was a guy who could write
that was attached to Peter, who was attached
to Jesus. And Peter's teaching it, and Mark's
writing it down, and he had Peter to check with.
He could say, well, I wrote this. And Peter's
like, yeah, that's okay. That's fine. I wrote
this. You said this, and I wrote that down. Yeah,
that's fine. I did say that. So he had it checked
by who? By Peter, who was the guy who was with
Jesus. So that makes Mark solid. You can't get
away from calling it Mark because Mark's the
one who wrote it, right? Even though it doesn't
say he wrote it specifically in the text. I've
heard about stuff like something like that because
the guy I was listening to, he was talking about
how we have that eyewitness evidence and proof.
And he said one of the things that I've never
really thought about until he said that is the
resurrection of Christ, we have the eyewitnesses.
And he said, why back then would they use a female
as an eyewitness? Exactly. Because sexism was
so bad back then. Women weren't allowed to talk
unless they were talked to. So he's like, why
would they use a female as an eyewitness to the
resurrection of Christ? Exactly. So there you're
talking about, that's an apologetic, that's a
proof of the resurrection. So here we're talking
about a proof of the Bible, the proof of the
New Testament. And so we went through Matthew.
Matthew doesn't make a lot of sense as a Jewish
tax collector. Mark is nobody knows Mark. Like
he was nobody. He was a follower of Peter's and
he was good at writing. Basically what it comes
down to. And then you got the last one that is
Luke. Who was Luke? He was a physician. Yeah,
he was a physician. An educated man. So it makes
sense that he could do research and he could
write. He could interview people. All those things
were true. And then when did he come to Christ?
Paul led him to Christ later. No, no. So Paul
led Luke to Christ, right? And then Luke interviewed
everybody that was still alive and put the book
of Luke together. So they're firsthand accounts
of the other. They're not his firsthand accounts.
He didn't see them. They're what he interviewed.
And then Luke also wrote the book of Acts, which
is the first book of the apostles, as a history
of what happened after Jesus' death, right? So
what I'm getting at is this is one of the interesting
arguments for the authorship of the Gospels.
Because while John makes a lot of sense, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, if you're going to fake it, you
wouldn't choose them. So that's a good argument
for why they make sense. Interestingly enough,
those other books that we listed, and there are
a bunch of others that we didn't list, like the
Acts of Paul, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the
Deodecae, and the Apostle Peter, remember that
list? All of those books give a credation for
who wrote them. The book of Barnabas, guess who
wrote it? Allegedly Barnabas, right? At the very
beginning of the book, it says written by Barnabas,
right? But is that how people write if they're
going to write a letter to somebody or even a
book? Like you might have a byline, like it might
say by Mark, right? If you're going to have,
you might have a byline, but you don't in your
letter go, I am, and I'm writing, and this is
why, you know, you don't do that. So they believe
a lot of those books are pseudepigraphal, which
means somebody faked that somebody else wrote
them. So we have books that were supposedly written
by Peter, including that one, and they're fake.
All right, so Natalie, here's the bonus question
right here. Are you ready? So if a man wrote
a book in 150 AD and it was godly, as far as
you can tell, it didn't seem like there was anything
wrong with it, based on the standards that they
used to determine. What could be in the New Testament
and why couldn't that man's book be in the New
Testament? I'm asking you to process. Can you
come up with why? Remember the standards of what
was allowed to be in the New Testament? Apostolic
age, right? So it had to be written during the
life of John. So if it was written in 150, even
if it was called the Acts of Peter, or Gospel
of Thomas, or whatever, it couldn't be included
because it wasn't written during the apostolic
age. So if I go tomorrow and I write what appears
to be a perfectly good New Testament book, it
cannot be included because there's no apostolic
authority. John's not alive anymore, and before
him, Peter, James, they're all gone. There's
no apostolic authority anymore for them to go,
yeah, this one works. We don't have that. So
then the canon of the New Testament was sealed
at the end of the book of Revelation. You can't
add to it. So if a book is pseudepigraphal, even
if it claims to be written by Mark or claims
to be written by Luke or claims to be written
by Jesus, it all would be wrong. It's all not
allowed because it has to have apostolic authority.
So the most likely conclusion from the fact that
all these books were widely accepted everywhere
very early on while all of the apostles are still
alive is what? In other words, the apostles would
go to church on Sunday and a book would be read.
Yeah. And if they were there and the shepherd
of Hermas was read, they would say, no. This
is not Jesus' teaching. But if they were there
and say, the book of John is read, they'd be
like, this is Jesus' teaching. So the apostles
were able to, in the churches, they weren't in
every church. By the time of the 90s, only John
was the only one left. He was in Ephesus. So
he wasn't everywhere, but the point is that he
was still alive. And if somebody started teaching
out of a fake book, he would have said something.
And so the assertion is that because while they
were still alive, they accepted these teachings,
these teachings are accurate. So that's the apologetic
argument. The apologetic argument is threefold.
That last one I made, which is they were still
alive, so they could say yes or no. And not only
them, but like, so Polycarp, right? So Polycarp
would be like, no, this is not what I heard.
This doesn't work with what we learned, you know,
kind of thing. And the church fathers that were
quoting these 27 books, they would say, no, no,
no, that other thing, I'm not quoting that. I
don't quote the shepherd of Hermas because that's
crap. That's not Jesus' teaching. That's not
what we had. That's not the book that Luke wrote.
That's not the book that Mark wrote. They would
say, no, we have a limit to what we'll quote
from. And while they quoted 23 of the New Testament
books and almost to the point that you could
recreate them, they never quoted from any of
that other crap. They never quoted from it. And
so it's solid is the point. So the first one
was they accepted it in their lifetime on call
phone. They accepted it in their lifetime. The
second one was why would they use people to support,
to write the books? If they were going to lie,
they would use names of people that everyone
would naturally accept, not just the names of
the people who actually wrote them, right? And
then third. is that when the books were canonized,
when the New Testament was set, they used a very
strict set of criteria. So just simply speaking,
if there was a book that looked pretty good,
was it more likely to wind up in or out? Out,
right? Even some of the books that looked really
good wound up out. They even questioned very
thoroughly some of the books that we know that
they did determine were in. They said, well,
3 John, yes. And probably, I think with 3 John,
it was a question that's so short. Does it really
impact lives? Is it inspired by God? It's basically
a paragraph and a half. Is it really worth it?
That's the kind of thing, probably, they were
having a conversation. But they decided, yeah,
it is from God. It does change lives. It seems
to be inspired. And the church fathers accepted
it. The apostles accepted it. So we accept it.
And that's how that went. So if you're going
to, like, if you get a vast encyclopedia, There's
seven books for A and seven for B and seven for
C and seven for D and so on. And you get to fill
this whole room with an encyclopedia. You expect
that most things would be in there. But when
you have a concise encyclopedia that's like this
thick, it's one book and it's that thick. And
it's like written by 40 people that say that
they did everything they could to make sure that
only the most important stuff is included in
there. Then when you start flipping through it,
you expect to find important stuff, right? Not
anything like what's in that giant batch of books.
Just the most important stuff. Right? And that's
what we've got. We've got bodies of men that
went together to say, you know, better we err
on the side of caution. Better we kick it out.
Even miss the other way and like say, this could
be of God, but we're just not sure. So it's out.
And that's how they were doing it. And so we
have every reason to believe that the New Testament
is solid. Okay? All right. So I'm going to ask
some questions. Are you ready? Where were the
two councils held in which they decided the 27
canonical books? Five. Four. Three. Two. Carthage
and Hippo. Okay. How much was the gift of Marcion
to the church in Rome? Stop helping now. 200k.
200k, that's right, which is a lot of stinking
money. Okay. Of the Gospels, which Gospel did
Marcion keep when he created his false canon?
Five. That is correct. Sorry. I was trying to
be nice and not hit your sister. I won't be so
nice next time. Okay. What parts, generically,
generally speaking, what parts of the Gospel
of Luke did Marcion cut out? Some of the good
ones. Go ahead. Yes. References of God as presented
in Judaism. Now I'm just throwing candy at you
because I want to. Okay, I missed that last one.
All right. Okay, so we talked about the apostles.
Which one of the writers of the four gospels
was a doctor? It's not on the paper. gonna have
to know that's right I baked it off your head
to Haley I am so good it was accidental but I
probably I'm gonna try again though I'm enjoying
helping you again you should not answer my questions
so all right okay What was the name of the guy
that Constantine asked to verify which book should
be in the New Testament? Go. I don't know what
you just said, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
Oh, no, not Tertullian, but you're close. Can
you get it, Natalie? It is, yeah, however you
pronounce it. Eusebius. Hold on. I don't know
if you can have peanut M &M's, but at least they're
not chocolate. Did it? I'm so sorry. This is
my candy. It's your kind of candy, yeah. No,
I'm pretty sure you got this from me. Oh, did
you donate it, maybe? This is all donated candy.
Okay. One of the spurious books named after a
shepherd. You didn't have to write it down. It's
on the paper. Nope. That's the Diadochi. It's
the Shepherd of Hermas. It's the one right next
to it. Okay. Yep, one or the other. What does
the word canon mean? Bow to the authority of.
No. That's why they use it, but it means measure
or rule. Because all others had to bow to the
authority. That's why they use it. Oh. Sorry.
I read a little bit of Firehead. Yep, you jumped
on it. Okay. It's a large metal tube that you
fire things at. Yeah. How many books are in the
New Testament? Today. Go. Correct. Sorry. If
you'd have left your arm down, it would have
hit your elbow. Okay. Okay. Of all of the criteria
used to determine whether or not a book could
be called part of the New Testament, which was
the hardest to determine? Yep. That's right.
I'll just be the one who really likes candy in
this room. Okay. Alright. Okay. This one's harder,
and it's only sort of on the paper. Adults can
answer too if you want. At least I'll let you
take a stab out of it. One of your friends says
that they are unsure of the certainty of the
New Testament, that the New Testament is reliable.
Make one good argument for how you know it's
reliable. RJ, go. Their eyewitness accounts.
Okay. Their eyewitness accounts used by generally
unreliable people. Or not unreliable, but...
Generally... Common people. Okay, ordinary people.
Okay. Yes. All right. Let's see. I think I've
run out of questions. Okay, I got it. So according
to the writings of the church father that I read
to you, who authenticated the book of Mark? Who
said? Yes, that's good. It's genuine. John? No,
not John. It was written during his lifetime,
however, but it was not John. Luke? Nope. I'm
going to give you a piece of candy. I like guessers
almost as much as I like people with the right
answer. Constantine? No, it was Peter, right?
Mark was Peter's master. Oh, that's right. Peter
was Mark's master. Did you say Peter? Yeah. I
apologize. I did not hear you say that. All right.
All right. I did not, but I can. What does AD
stand for? Yeah. Any adults want candy while
I'm giving away candy? Do you want some candy?
No, I'm good. You should always have some candy
in your pocket. It's always a good idea. You
can bribe them to do their chores and stuff.
Anybody else? Okay. So here's an interesting
question that's a little off topic, but a question
for discussion. Why do you think it is that the
world wants to do away with the BCAD labels for
the calendar, even though they've been that way
for 2 ,000 years? Why do you think they would
want to do away with that? Because they like
to get rid of old things? Eh, maybe. I think
it's because the calendar itself testifies that
the birth of Christ was possibly the most important
event in history. And if you just say before
the common year and the common year, then you
eliminate Jesus from the calendar. In the Greek,
it's actually Amen. But it looks like Amen. That's
why we transliterated it to Amen. So let it be.
Questions? All right. Remember, the reason we're
now authenticating the New Testament is because
We have determined that only a monotheistic faith
makes sense with the ten character qualities
of God that we picked out from our study of creation.
So if you're forgetting what the ten characteristics
are, or you need to refresh your memory, go back
to your old worksheets, or I'll text them to
you if you want me to or whatever. But the point
is, if... If a person wants to be real, if they're
going to actually be willing to think and process
and decide for themselves, then they would have
to be able to look at creation and you should
be able to lead them to get those characteristics
and say, well, this makes sense. And then you
could go through and say, well, atheism doesn't
make sense because... agnosticism doesn't make
sense because polytheism doesn't make sense.
Pantheism doesn't make sense. Anything that they
would, or they could say, well, I kind of believe
that, you know, God is everywhere. Which one
is that, by the way? God is everywhere and in
everything. It's pantheism, okay? And so that's
what I kind of believe. Everybody is kind of
God. We're all kind of God. Everything is God.
Sticks are God. Chairs are God. I kind of believe
everything is God. That's pantheism. Well, that
doesn't work. And you can show how that doesn't
work, so the traits of God is unique, individual,
powerful, engaged, intelligent. Sure, if you're
not intelligent. So you show that, and then you
ultimately get down to monotheism is the only
thing that works. Islam throws out the New Testament.
Although, here's an interesting thing. Islam
throws out the New Testament. Do you know what
the Quran teaches about Christianity, however?
The Quran says, if you want to know about God,
ask a Christian. So, there you go. That's why
we're doing this, is to be able to defend our
faith. Ultimately, you can always go to the Bible.
You can always share your testimony. But the
truth is, your testimony is a weak... form of
apologetic because you're the only one who can
know it. You can say, well, I was in a dark place
and all of a sudden, you know, God came in. I
could tell you fantastic things the day that
happened, the day that I got saved, for example,
and some of it is pretty crazy. Like if you didn't
know me, you'd be like, I don't know if that's
real, you know, but that doesn't help people
come to a saving faith. People need to be able
to ask themselves, you know, how do we know what
the Bible says is true? Not just because it's
proved itself time and time and time again, because
lost people don't feel that way. They don't think
that the Bible has proved itself true time and
time again. Do you know what archaeology exists
that disproves the Bible? Or anything about the
Bible? None. To this late date, all the archaeology
that people have found always supports what the
Bible says. In fact, there have been times where
they go like, oh, that can't be. There's a guy
where... Paul is hauled before a governor to
be sentenced, to be checked on his faith and
sentenced. And they said, well, that guy was
never governor in that part of the world. So
this proves the Bible wrong. So everything that's
in the Bible is wrong because Paul was never
governor in that part of the world. Paul could
not have been in front of that guy because that
guy was never governor in that part of the world.
And then way later, after he made that argument
for like 500 years, some guy was going through.
old inscriptions in one of the oldest libraries,
probably in the Vatican or wherever, and found
proof that that guy ruled in that region of the
earth for two years. Which meant that not only
did that support the Bible then, but on top of
that, that meant that they knew exactly when
Paul was there and before him within two years.
There's a story in the Bible where Jesus is going
into a city and elsewhere one of the disciples
says, in the other gospel, says he was coming
out of a city. And the two cities are different.
Well, there's a point at which you leave the
one city on the old Bible map. There's a point
at which you leave the one city and enter the
new city. And so because of those two writings,
we know within about 80 feet where Jesus performed
that miracle. That's amazing. Archaeology always
supports the Bible. I'm sure we'll get to that
later. But the point is we need to be able to
show people why we believe in what is written
there. More than just our personal experience.
I am absolutely convicted because God has spoken.
No one else can do that. So, okay. Well, let's
pray in closing and it will be done. And then
we have to find something. We're going to get
invaded by kids. We're going to put this away
before they think that's a snack and buy a snack.
Before they come in here all hungry and stuff.
Yeah, they'll be coming in here. We can give
them cookies, but I'm not giving them candy personally.
Father in heaven, we do thank you for the evidences
that are so prevalent. Like, exhaustive. They
are everywhere. They are everything that a person
needs. I know that Romans 1 says that people
are without excuse when they don't recognize
the God of heaven, they recognize that you are
in charge, recognize that what the Bible says
about you is true. And our job should not be
to ask whether what the Bible says about you
is true or not, but our job is simply, as Christians,
to save the Holy Spirit in us, the conviction
of the Holy Spirit, knowing who we are, Our job
should be to say, how can we apply it to our
lives? How can we live what we're told to live?
How can we, like if we see a question between
this verse and that verse, like Paul says that
we are saved by grace through faith and not of
works. And James says, faith without works is
dead. And so we have to look at those two things
and say, how do they mesh? How do they go together?
And that lets us paint a very succinct, very
tight picture of what we are supposed to be as
Christians. And I pray that we'll do more and
more of that. We'll spend more time in the Word,
more time meditating, more time praying, more
time listening to the God of the universe. 1
Corinthians 2 says that we are not just given
writings to read or experiences to have, but
we are given the mind of Christ. And if we have
the mind of Christ, we know that Jesus was all
about what you would have him do. And so, Lord,
we want to be all about what you'd have us do.
Help us do just that. Heal our hurting. Guide
us as we go. In Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you
very much. We're all done with this. We'll have
a homework assignment. We have to go win somebody
to Jesus using apologetics. Just kidding. I'm
not sure our retention percentages will be high
enough to actually count on that. It's funny.
As soon as I open the door and come in here,
the uncalled phone rings. I make that call. Hey.
If we grab the jelly, can we real quick make
a mushroom dough sandwich? I'll help.