New Testament Accuracy

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.