In front of many of us, many of us were so encouraged by witnessing his love for the word and his seriousness that he takes the call of elder to shepherd and to oversee this church. And so this is a part of what he does. He will do that also by feeding the sheep and helping us and training us and equipping us so that we might be able to go and do the work of ministry.

And so if you don't know Elder James, you at the very least know very well his wife, Diane Hong. She has been married to him for how long? How long have you guys been married? Five years? They've been married for five years. So they have been here at Berean, especially Elder James has been here for a very long time.

And Diane, did you guys get married and then you came out, Diane? Right before? Okay. So it's not that you were coming out to Berean and then, okay. So I don't know what came first, if she loves Berean more or her husband more. So they are a great example of faith and even just the heart that they have, they pour their lives out for this church.

And they have been a constant source of encouragement to me, both of them. And so with that said, we're going to actually just be inviting Elder James to come up and he's going to be teaching. And then after a little break, we're going to be having a Q&A after that he as well will be answering.

So let's give him a round of applause as he comes on up. Is this on? Okay, sweet. So to answer that question, Diane definitely loves Berean more, but that's okay. So as we begin this seminar, I want you to know that this is a very dense topic. I'm going to do my best to break this down into elements.

I'm going to make it as elemental as possible so that it's easily digestible. But I got to tell you, I can only do so much. You are going to have to listen carefully and absorb what I'm telling you, digest it, and then at that point, you'll glean from it.

But this is not something that will be understood unless you put your thinking cap on. It's just the way it is and you'll see why. So based on that, I'm going to pray and I'm going to give you a little introduction. Father God, as we tackle this subject, Lord, we know that this is foundational, Lord, to how we view you and how we view the Word.

My prayer, Lord God, is that for every brother and sister here who hears your voice, that it will be clear that they would have conviction in your Word, that there will be an internal renewing, Lord God, and reworking of their worldview if it is contradictory to one that is of the Bible.

And so as we begin this morning, may you speak to your sheep. We pray these things in the name of your Son. Amen. So when I was in college, right, and I was once in college, a long time ago, I was a freshman in 1999. The ARC had just opened.

We had gotten T1 cable, but no Wi-Fi, so I carried a cable around. So it was a long time ago. But that's when I began to take my faith seriously. And one thing that I thought to myself was, "How do I know the Bible is true? How do I know?

Why are there certain books in the Bible and not other books? Who got to decide?" Was someone just there and said, "That's Bible, that's not?" How did this work? And I'm sure many of you guys had that same question too. And this is the thing. As we go through this material, if you have questions, I want you to write them down and ask me at the end.

Not in the middle, because I might answer some of your questions as I'm going through this. But I want your questions to be answered because I want your faith to be something that is internally held. Not because you're here and you have friends here and it's just something that we do.

I want your faith to be genuine. And God is not afraid to answer your questions. So because God is not afraid to answer your questions, you should feel free to ask questions. At the same time, like I said before, it's going to take some mental effort. This is not an easy subject.

It's not two plus two equals four. It's a little bit more like calculus. You can't just do calculus, maybe derivation. You can't do integration just lying on your bed. You got to sit up in your seat and you got to, wait, what comes second? Whatever. BC, Calc BC. Second semester.

You have to sit there and you have to do the problem. This is kind of like that. The other thing I want you guys to think about is this. Truth. Truth. All truth. All truth. By nature, an inherent quality of truth is that it withstands the test of scrutiny.

You guys know what the word scrutiny means, right? Everything that is true can withstand the test of scrutiny. Let me give you an easy, now if you're taking BCC, you've heard me give this example before, but I'll give it again. Two plus two is four. Very easy. No matter how much you scrutinize it, it will always be four.

And it's universal. Laws of logic are universal. It doesn't matter whether you're here or in Cambodia or in Senegal or in, what's another part of the world? Or in Australia, right? It doesn't, Antarctica, it doesn't matter where you are in the world. Laws of logic are universal. In the same way, truth can withstand the test of scrutiny.

And God's word is true. And because God's word is true, it can withstand the test of scrutiny. If something can withstand the test of scrutiny, you're more likely to believe it internally. You're more likely to believe it internally, right? If something is not true, you might derive some other benefit from it and you might act like you believe it, but you don't actually believe it.

But God's word is true and it withstands the test of scrutiny. The canon of scripture. An overview of BCC Lesson 4. In BCC Lesson 4, I'm contrasting this with BCC Lesson 4. In BCC Lesson 4, we tell you the word of God is true because of its textual reliability, the number of existing manuscripts, the span of time between the original and the copy, the internal consistency among existing copies.

Because of its extra-biblical witness, because of its archaeological confirmation, fulfilled prophecies, consistent witness, and because it says so. I'm not going to expand upon that because that's BCC Lesson 4, okay? So if you ever want to know, like if you ever want to refresh your course, just come to BCC Lesson 4.

But we tell you that, that this is the outline, this is the skeletal outline of BCC Lesson 4, okay? The canon of scripture is something a little different, okay? Canon is not canon, okay? C-A-N-O-N goes boom, okay? C-A-N-O-N does not go boom, okay? Canon comes from the Greek word kanon, which means rule or rod.

This was specifically used in races where runners were supposed to stay in their lanes. So in the Greek Olympics, right, the canon is the line separating the other runners. So it's kind of like the rule. Canon is the rule, okay? The rule that judges everything else. So the canon of scripture refers to the books that are the authoritative word of God.

Which books are the authoritative word of God, and that's what it's referring to, okay? Now this is easier if we go by Old Testament, and then we go by New Testament. Old Testament. Why is the Old Testament canon the canon? Why are the books that we have right now part of the Old Testament canon?

Why are the books that we have right now in the Old Testament the authoritative word of God? Because there are other books that were left out. Why is that the case? Well, Christ confirms the Old Testament canon. He confirms the Old Testament canon, right? He says, "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken," he didn't say, "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken," except for this one book you have here.

This is wrong. You shouldn't have inserted this book into the Old Testament. He doesn't say that. All he says is, "And the scripture cannot be broken," right? He also says, "Now he said to them, 'These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the prophets which are written about me in the law of Moses, prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.'" Moses, prophets, and the Psalms.

Again, he's not saying, "Hey, you know the books that you consider the Old Testament? They're right except for this book." Or he didn't say, "The law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms, but you forgot this other book. This is actually also the word of God, and you forgot to include it." He didn't do that, okay?

And he would have done that if that was the case. I don't think he's going around healing people, being the Messiah, and there's a book that actually should have been included that he doesn't tell us about. That's not how it ... He doesn't do that. In actuality, he confirms the Old Testament canon, okay?

Another example, "But Jesus answered and said to them, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the scriptures nor the power of God.'" He's again confirming the books that are part of the Old Testament canon. Matthew 5, 18, 26, 53, 256, John 53, John 5, 39 to 47 say the same thing.

Christ confirmed Old Testament events and authors, right? Here, he says Abel was real, talked about Noah and the flood, Daniel and Isaiah, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Jonah wrote Jonah, Daniel wrote Daniel. I mean, you get the picture, right? He didn't say, "Oh, that story about Noah and the flood?

All a myth. Just kidding about that." He didn't say, "Well, his name wasn't Abel. It was actually James," or ... He doesn't say that, right? He confirms all these events of the Old Testament. If they were not real, guess what he would have done? He would have told us, right?

But he doesn't do that. Instead, he calls it the very Word of God. Bible discoveries confirm the Old Testament canon. The Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Nash Papyrus, the Silver Amulets, and the Septuagint. I want to highlight two. There's more, but I want to highlight two.

The Masoretic text, okay? The Masoretes were known to faithfully preserve the Old Testament. That's who they were. They were kind of like a tribal clan that were devoted to making sure the scriptures were accurate. That is what they were known for, okay? For a long period of time, the entire Old Testament canon was derived from the Masoretes.

Faithful Jews would use the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text, though, dated back to about 1000 AD. 900 to 1000 AD, around there, okay? So kind of like instinctually you think, okay, it doesn't seem like it now. There's no reason to not have faith in that for all the reasons that I will get into.

But it spans about a thousand years from the time of Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Now in 1947, there's this farmer dude, okay? And this farmer dude went in some caves. And in caves, he found a treasure trove of scrolls dating back to the Qumran community of the Essenes, okay?

What's great about that is, what's great about that is, these manuscripts that go back to the Qumran community, they date to before the time of Christ to right around the time of Christ, okay? Which was, and that's great, because remember, Christ confirms the Old Testament canon, right? So if Christ confirms the Old Testament canon, we just need to know, what was he looking at at the time?

I hope everyone's following me with that, okay? Christ confirms the Old Testament canon. So if he confirms the Old Testament canon, what did he have at the time with respect to the Old Testament? We go to the Dead Sea Scrolls, there's about a thousand manuscripts belonging to the Qumran community, it validates the Masoretic Text.

It just completely validates the Masoretic Text. So the Masoretic Text was accurate, okay? We already knew that, but the Dead Sea Scrolls, going back to the time of Christ, confirms the Masoretic Text, okay? Now fundamentally, I want you guys to understand this, okay? I don't want to take this for granted, okay?

Whatever Christ said was true. Whatever Christ said was true. That is foundational. And Christ himself says, "If you don't believe me, at least believe because of the works." He gave a very logical argument. You don't believe I'm the son of God? Then what am I doing, right? What am I doing?

This guy couldn't hear, and now he could hear. This guy couldn't see, and now he could see. My friend Lazarus over there, the guy you know, Lazarus, he was dead, but I raised him from the dead. So if he has shown you, okay, by this arsenal of works, then you can believe him.

Let me give you another example, okay? Let me give you one that correlates to us, okay? Common day, like modern day reality, okay? If I told you that I could fly, if I told you I can fly, nobody would believe me. You wouldn't believe me? Or you would think maybe he has a Jetman Dubai pack or something, right?

The Iron Man dude, right? That's what you would think. And I say, "No, no, no, no. I could fly inherently. I could just intrinsically fly. Nobody would believe me." The first best thing would be to show you, would just fly, right? Then you might be like, "Oh, you can actually fly." But you know what else I can do that might make you believe me?

I'll go out there, and I'll lift a car with one hand. I'll lift a car with one hand. Now, that's not directly related to flying, but you'll be like, "Oh, this guy can lift a car with one hand. Maybe he can fly. Maybe he can fly." Things would start, like, loosening up to you, right?

So my point is this, right? In a similar way, in a similar way, when Jesus says, "I am the Son of God, and if you don't believe me, at least believe because of the works," his situation was even more precise because the Messiah was predicted to do what Jesus did.

The Messiah would come, and he would what? He would heal people. He would physically heal people. And it's not like miracles are happening every day in the Middle East. Just every year, there's a miracle. No, miracles never happen. Just like us today, they never happened. And so the validator, one of the validators of the Messiah was not only the fact that he was going to be born here, he was going to be of this tribe, and he was going to be some odd years after Cyrus.

Those are all validators. But the other validator of the power of the Messiah was he was going to make the mute speak, make the dumb hear, make the blind see, and raise the dead. And who does that? Christ does that. So when Christ does that, he's exhibiting his power.

So he's making a very logical argument to the Jews of the day, "You don't believe I'm the Son of God." Okay, you don't believe I'm the Son of God. Then how am I doing all these works? Because as you know, the Messiah was going to do all these works.

And that is the same thing, the same question that he posits to every unbeliever here today. Everyone in the world, maybe even in this room. If you don't think that he has the power to do that, then what do you make of every single miracle that he's ever, ever done?

And you might say, "Well, there's a problem, Mr. James. The problem is I wasn't around at the time." But a lot of people that saw the risen Christ perform these miracles recorded them. Even those who were antagonistic to Christ the Messiah recorded that he did these miracles because it was undeniable.

People who saw the risen Christ perform these miracles were put to death because they couldn't deny that truth. Okay? So I don't want to take anything for granted, but when I say Christ confirms the Old Testament canon, there's a huge underpinning, there's a huge foundational understanding of why that's important.

That's important because of who he is. And therefore, knowing who he is, if he confirms the Old Testament canon, then all we need to do is find out what was the Old Testament at the time. This tells us, the Masoretic text and the finding of the dead sea scrolls, it tells us the Masoretic text at the time, excuse me, the Old Testament canon at the time is the Old Testament that we have today.

It is the same Old Testament the Jews use today. Okay? So that's a little dense, okay? But I wanted to do that so that I take nothing for granted, okay? That's the Old Testament canon, and I'm done with the Old Testament canon. Let's move to the New Testament canon.

And the reason the Old Testament canon is a lot easier is this, okay? The Old Testament canon is confirmed by Christ very explicitly, just like I told you, right? But Christ dies, resurrects, and then the New Testament is written. So the analysis is a little bit different, right? He doesn't resurrect, go to heaven, come back and say, "The New Testament that you have, it's legit." He doesn't do that, right?

With the Old Testament, he said, "It's legit." But he doesn't do that with the New Testament. So our analysis is a little bit different in relation to the canon from the Old Testament and the New Testament, okay? So the New Testament canon, let's talk about criterion, okay? An evaluation of the canon must have established criteria.

It must. But because the criteria is necessarily, in a sense, greater than what is being judged, the model for the canon must be self-authenticating, okay? All right. I want to take some time to break this down, okay? When you have a criteria, that criteria is usually greater than the thing being judged.

Let me give you another example, okay? When you have a show like American Idol or whatever, Masked Singer or whatever these shows, right? The people that are judging these singers are usually professional singers, right? And they're usually good professional singers, right? It would be weird if you had someone who never sang a tune, who knew nothing about singing, judging these other singers.

That wouldn't make any sense. So what do you do? You take a judge who is experienced, because that person can be a faithful judge of what good singing actually is. Now, all this is not new to you, right? But I'm trying to paint the picture. When I say this, when I make this statement, the criteria is, in a sense, greater than what is being judged, we all agree on that.

You might not cognizantly understand it, but we all kind of subtly understand it to ourselves internally, okay? So because that's the case, because that is the case, the model has to be self-authenticating, because what is greater than the Word of God? What is greater? There's nothing that's greater than the Word of God, okay?

Now in the past, a canon was validated using the following components. First, first-perception, historical origins, okay? What I mean by that is, traditionally, when we looked at the study of the canon, right, we typically looked at the early church, what did they receive, and/or historically, what book came first in time.

Now, that's not necessarily wrong, but the problem is, the early church is not greater than the Word of God. Coming first in time does not make you greater than the Word of God. I mean, if heresy sprouted up before the book of Revelation, that doesn't make, the heresy is not greater than the book of Revelation, right?

So in of itself, that's not how you judge the canon, that shouldn't be how you judge the canon, because that's not greater than the canon, okay? The following components seem to emerge, okay? Divine qualities, apostolic origins, and corporate reception. I'm gonna go over all this, okay? So when we are doing a faithful investigation of the canon of Scripture, these are the three things that you wanna look at.

I'm gonna explain each of them to you, and as I explain them to you, you're going to understand why, okay? But I wanna give you a heads up. Divine qualities, apostolic origins, and corporate reception. Before I move on to the next slide, okay? Because something is self-authenticating does not mean it is unfair or cheap.

Does not mean that. You think, "Oh, something is something because it says so." That doesn't make something cheap, okay? Let me give you an example, alright? If you were, okay, to judge whether or not this phone is actually real, your sensory perception, you wanna judge whether your sensory perception is actually real.

What would you do? You would rely on your sensory perception. You would touch this phone. You would ask someone else, "Do you see that phone?" You would employ your senses because everything that is foundational is self-authenticating. Everything that is foundational is self-authenticating, okay? You can't get more basic than elements.

Elements are what you start out with, okay? So not only with respect to the canon of scripture, anything that is true, any element that is true will be self-authenticating, okay? Prove that the number, prove that two is two. You can't do that. Two is just two. It is a foundational requirement that two is two, right?

If you're an artist in here, primary colors, right? You can mix other colors, but there are primary colors that are what they are. You can't get more basic than the primary colors. The other colors that come after the primary colors are based on the foundational colors, right? In life, things that are foundational, not just the canon of scripture, anything in life that is foundational is self-authenticating, okay?

That doesn't make it any less true, okay? You'll see why in a second. Okay, so let's go to divine qualities, okay? When I say divine qualities, when I say divine qualities, right? When I say divine, okay? I don't mean good, I don't mean great, right? I don't mean like a dessert you eat, oh my gosh, it's so divine, right?

No. When I say divine, I mean the word divine in its just pure intellectual sense, godlike, of God. So when you look at which scriptures are the authoritative word of God, they must exhibit a godlike nature to them, okay? That's what I mean when I say divine qualities. So when you look at scripture, right?

Psalm 19, 1. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. So that the natural attests to God, were not the scriptures, okay? Romans 1, 20. Since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, his eternal power, and divine nature would have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

If general revelation speaks of God, how much more would special revelation? If nature speaks of God, how much more his word, his explicit word, okay? Scripture brings wisdom. Psalm 1, 19, 98. It provides light to dark paths. Psalm 1, 19, 105. It gives joy to the heart. It gives understanding to the mind.

It gives peace and comfort. It exposes sin and guilt. It leads to prosperity and blessing, okay? Again, when you look at scripture, it does these things. There is no other work that does these things, okay? Now the early church fathers agreed on the divinity of scriptures. Now I know this might seem to have a little bit less weight, okay?

But the reason why it shouldn't is because when you look at that the early church fathers are a fancy word for saying, you know, there's the apostles and there are the people who are discipled by the apostles directly, okay? And then there are people who are discipled directly by the people right underneath them and so on, okay?

And you get to a point in time and it cuts off, but generally speaking, those are the early church fathers, okay? So for example, if you were an apostle Peter's small group, okay? You would have been an early church, well, and you met the criterion for being elder, at the very least you would need to do that and you could theoretically be an early church father.

Not that there was like a ad in the paper, that's not what I'm saying, but they're disciples, okay? These are their disciples, okay? So understanding the nature of scripture, right? And being exposed, being the first one, so to speak, to be exposed to it are some of these people.

So Jerome stated that Philemon was a document which has in it so much of the beauty of the gospel. Clement stated that no one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints as he is by the words of the Lord himself. Origen defends Hebrews on the grounds that the ideas of the epistle are magnificent and say that the gospels are accompanied with divine power.

Irenaeus said the gospels are always breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying men afresh. If you have spent time in the scriptures, then you know what I'm talking about. There is no other document, there is no other work of antiquity that speaks to your soul like the scriptures.

If you haven't, then this is just like, well, some men said so to you, okay? I mean, I can't do much about that, but if you have experienced the power of God through the scriptures, if they have brought salvation to you, if they have exposed you, right? Exposed your sin, exposed your guilt, and at the same time healing you, you should understand that no other document does that.

No man or woman could have written you a letter and have the same effect on you, okay? Moreover, if you look at the doctrinal unity of scripture, the precise doctrinal unity it gets right and is consistent with the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of sin, the authority of scripture, the nature of the church, the person of Christ, the work of Christ, the holiness, redemption.

These are topics that are not just broad in scope, but that are easy to be inconsistent with, because they are so broad in scope. And not only are they so broad in scope, but man over the course of history, especially in different time periods and different cultures, would not have doctrinal unity, okay?

What we thought in this culture, even in America, right, now in the 90s is completely different. And I know, because I was alive at the time, right? Even if you go back to the 80s, it was completely different, right? And I don't want to get into politics, like, "Oh, it's more like left," or whatever else, right?

My only point is, it is what was acceptable today is not necessarily what was acceptable in the 90s. And the same would have been true if you lived through the 90s, right? What was acceptable in the 90s is not necessarily what was acceptable in the 70s, and so forth.

The ideals and values seem to change over time, especially across cultures. The Bible, right, beginning from Genesis to Revelation, was written over a period of about 1500 years. Different men. Different time periods. Different languages. But there is this precise unity with respect to these topics. And these topics are not, they're not like mathematical equations.

They are abstract concepts, but yet there is precise unity with them. Okay? Now, redemptive historical unity. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is telling the same overarching redemptive story of God. Reconciling himself to mankind. There's structural unity, okay? The Gospels seem to correlate with the historical narratives that recount redemption.

The Epistles and the Prophets seem to have similarities in their expansion upon God's redemptive work. Revelation and Deuteronomy both speak of blessings and cursings, and the warning against editing. Okay. When I say the Gospels seem to correlate with the historical narratives that recount redemption, right? I'm going to talk about this more later, right?

But when you see the nation of Israel come out of Egypt, you have redemption, and then you have the expansion of that work, right? Via the other books. Okay? The Gospels seem to do that. Okay? You have the Gospels, and then you have the expansion of that work via the Epistles.

That's my point. Okay? Canonical structure. Moses, Elijah, David, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Plus Gospels, the Acts in General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation would be seen as a uniform seven sections. Okay? Seven is a number for completeness in the Bible. Right? Seven days in a week.

Who created that? God created that. Okay? So when you look at Moses, Elijah, David, right? Plus the New Testament structure, it adds up to seven, right? In Genesis, seven plays a key role. In Revelation, the number seven plays a key role. Seven is representative of completeness. Okay? Let me give you another example of that.

Okay? In Genesis and Revelation, right? In Genesis, you have the creation of the earth. In Revelation, you have the recreation of heaven and earth. In Genesis, you have paradise and Eden. In Revelation, you have paradise and heaven. In Genesis, you have the theme of marriage. In Revelation, you have the great wedding of the lamb.

In Genesis, you have the serpent's deception. In Revelation, you have the serpent's destruction. The curse upon the world, the curse is lifted. Tree of life, tree of life, God dwells with his people. God dwells with his people. You seem to have bookends. How interesting. The number seven plays a key role in Genesis.

The number seven plays a key role in Revelation. There is the beginning with respect to the content of Revelation. There is the redemption, the fulfillment, the end, whatever you want to call it, contained within the structure and the content of the book of Revelation. They seem to be nice bookends to each other.

How did that happen? How did that happen? Okay. Divine qualities. That was divine qualities, okay? I'm going on to apostolic origins. Apostolic origins. As I continue to speak about points number two and points number three, okay? What I'm beginning to show you is, right, the word of God is the word of God because of these three points.

And these three points are self-impressing on us, okay? They are self-authenticating. I'm going to wrap that up at the end. I'm going to wrap that up at the end. But I want to kind of get you in that mindset, okay? The word of God, if the word was God, he's going to impress it upon his people, all right?

Okay. The old covenant was accepted as having been a compilation of documents. You don't believe me? It says right here, Exodus 24, the book of the covenant. Exodus 34, he wrote the words of the covenant. Deuteronomy 29, the covenant written in this book. Paul calls the Old Testament the old covenant.

So the old covenant was a compilation of documents. That's what the old covenant was, right? So it's not like when we get to the New Testament, it's like this new strange concept. The skeletal structure for the New Testament canon is already there because in the Old Testament, they understood it as a compilation of documents.

Second Corinthians 3.14 says this, "But their minds were hardened for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains unlifted because it is removed in Christ." The Old Testament is the old covenant, and the old covenant was a compilation of documents, right? But the apostles were ministers of the new covenant, okay?

So you have the old covenant, it's a compilation of documents, and then you have the old covenant, and then you have a new covenant, okay? So if you're a Jew and you know that the Old Testament is a compilation of documents and you're waiting for this new covenant, it's not gonna be a surprise to you that the New Testament, right, the new covenant is going to be a compilation of documents, okay?

Jeremiah 31, "Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Matthew 26.28, "For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Second Corinthians 3.6, "Which also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit, for the letter kills but the spirit gives life." The old covenant is a compilation of documents.

When you hear about this new covenant, it's going to also be a compilation of documents, okay? Consider the redemption motif in the Old Testament, okay? Consider this, okay? I am the Lord your God. I bring you out of Egypt. And then what happens? He gives you books. He gives you commandments.

He tells you what to do. Well, that's interesting. So there's redemption and then there's words that are related to this redemption? Is that what happened in the Old Testament? Yes, it did. He saves you and after he saves you, he gives you instructions. He expands upon that, right? That's what happened in the Old Testament.

The promises of blessings and cursings, the copies of the covenant. Isaiah was directed to write prophecies on scrolls. The New Testament states that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, right? So there's a pattern here already, right? Once there's redemption, God tells you about this redemption. He gives you an identity.

He gives you instructions and the prophets remind them of this when they fall, okay? So this is not anything new. When we get to the New Testament, what do we have? We have redemption, right? Jesus dies on the cross. There's forgiveness of sins and then we have instructions. How do you run a church?

Who am I now in Christ? What is the power that I have in Christ? It's the same exact pattern, okay? How would this message go to the nations, right? Jesus commissioned his apostles so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons, right?

He also said to the apostles that he was sending out his apostles as Jesus was sent out by the Father. Peter stated that the apostles were chosen by God as witnesses. Why is apostolic origins important? Why? Why is it important? Yes, they were with Christ. Yes, they were with Christ as he's doing ministry.

But very specifically, Jesus is saying of his apostles that he's commissioning them and he's giving them his authority that they're gonna be chosen by God as witnesses. That's very directly what Jesus said about the apostles. That is why apostolic origins is so important. He didn't say, he didn't say that about everyone across time.

If he did, then we'd all be writing the New Testament. And guess what? We're not doing that, right? The reason we're not doing that is contained within the parameters of scripture, okay? I'm gonna go on and I'm gonna show you some more passages, okay? The apostles were likened to the Old Testament prophets, which means they have the authority to speak God's word.

Second Peter 3.2. You should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. Well, that's interesting. What did he just do here? Remember the holy prophets. Who's he referring to? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, right? Haggai, Malachi, Amos, right? They accepted them as messengers of God, right?

There's no debate there. There's absolutely no debate. Those guys were of God. But what else does Peter say? And the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. He puts the prophets on par with the apostles. You guys see that? Right here in this passage, he's putting the prophets on par with the apostles.

He didn't say, "Trust the holy prophets and everyone who has the Holy Spirit that comes after me." He doesn't say that, okay? There's a select group here, a select office here, the holy prophets, which you and I are not a part of, okay? That office is done, right? I'm talking about the Old Testament prophets, okay?

There are no more Old Testament prophets because the Old Testament is done. That is static, right? There's Old Testament prophets and they are done, okay? In the same way, and then he also says apostles. Apostles are also done. There is no such thing as I'm an apostle of Christ.

They were a select group of men. Remember your word through the prophets and through the apostles, okay? That's why apostolic origins is so important, okay? The writer of Hebrews likens the Old Testament with the message of the apostles. In Hebrews 2, 2-3, he talks about the Old Testament and then he talks about the New Testament being on equal footing.

The apostles say that the message they are conveying is really just a message of Jesus that is stated in the form of a tradition. When you and I say the word tradition, you and I mean like I have a tradition. I go to Krispy Kreme after my finals every single quarter, right?

It's not something that's like sacred. It's just something that you do. And then if you don't do it, it's not a big deal, right? When the apostles refer to something like with respect to a tradition, what they're saying is I received it from Christ and now I'm giving it to you.

It's not flippant like going to Krispy Kreme, okay? This is I got the words of Jesus and now I'm giving it to you. First Corinthians 11-23, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread." What is he saying here, right?

I received this from Jesus. Who wrote First Corinthians 11? Yeah, he wasn't there. Apostle Paul wasn't there. He got saved later. But he received this from the Lord. He received this directly from the Lord and now I'm giving it to you. Second Thessalonians 3-6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." Keep away from everyone who doesn't abide by the tradition that you received from us.

He's not saying keep away from everyone who doesn't go to Krispy Kreme with us after finals, right? What he's saying is keep away from everyone from the tradition you received because that tradition is the word of God. That tradition that I'm giving to you, I received it from the Lord Jesus, okay?

Second Corinthians 15, "I deliver it to you as a first importance which I also received." I delivered it to you and I just received it, right? The apostles had this kind of office. We don't, okay? Luke 1-2, "Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." You see this very large importance and I'm understating that, right, when he says large importance.

This heavy responsibility that the apostles were privileged with having with respect to the word of God. They were receiving direct revelation from Christ and they were giving it to us, okay? Jesus said that that would happen, alright? Let me keep going, okay? "The church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." Right?

That's Ephesians 2-20. "Therefore, the apostles were to safeguard and vault the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 3. Jude only has one chapter, so verse 3, right? In Jude verse 3, chapter 1 verse 3, Jude says, "The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude didn't say, "The faith that is ongoing and we're going to keep writing scripture." No, no, no, no.

The faith, it was once for all delivered to the saints. So this faith, it's done, okay? This is the faith, okay? Everyone else that comes after us preserves the faith that we have. You don't write like, "Oh, I got a revelation from God. You know, my name is Joseph Smith and I saw God." No, no, no, no, no, okay?

It is once for all delivered to the saints. There is no Mohammed, there is no Buddha, there is no one else. There is no guru, there is no one else. This faith is once for all delivered to the saints. The saints that come afterwards safeguard, they vault, they preserve, they get it right.

So given that the apostles were cognizant of writing the Old Testament, writing the New Testament, they made corollary claims. What am I saying here? The apostles knew that they were writing the New Testament. It wasn't like, you know, they were like walking, right? And then Peter goes, "I need to use the bathroom." And then Paul goes, "That's scripture." "Oh, did I just speak scripture?" That's not how it happened, okay?

They knew that they were speaking scripture. How do I know this? Okay, 1 Timothy 5.18, "For the scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing, and the laborer is worthy of his wages.'" That first portion, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," comes in Deuteronomy.

"The laborer is worthy of his wages," comes from Luke 10.7. So in 1 Timothy 5.18, he's quoting Luke 10.7. They already know from this point early on what is scripture, okay? Second Peter 3.16, "As also in all his letters, speaking in them of things in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of scriptures to their own destruction." You see what he did there, Peter?

He just said Paul's letters are scripture. You see that? "As they do also the rest of the scriptures." So they distort all of that. They distort God's Word, right? They're just distorting Paul's letters, just like they do the rest of scriptures. So he's just nonchalantly. For them at the time, they understood.

For the most part, they understood. So it's not like he needs to say, "Oh, this is scripture?" Not at the time, okay? So because there was an understanding, at least just generally speaking, he's saying this kind of almost offhand, "As they do the rest of scriptures." John 21.24, "This is the disciple who was testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." He's testifying to these things, and he wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

1 Thessalonians 2.13, "For this reason, we also constantly thank God that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the Word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

I am glad that when you heard what I told you, you didn't accept it as the Word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God." They were cognizant when they were writing the New Testament that this is God's Word. Or else how would they know what is God's Word and what is not?

Because again, like I told you before, it's not like they were just walking around and everything that's like, everything Apostle Paul said is God's Word, right? That is not true, right? 2 Thessalonians 2.15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." Stand firm and hold to the traditions.

Again, when he says traditions, I just showed you a whole bunch of verses, right? Which I received from the Lord Jesus, right? Not a tradition like, again, like you and me, every year we do this, every quarter we do this. But a tradition in this context is what did they receive from the Lord Jesus.

So hold on to the traditions because it is the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 14, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." So if you think you're godly, then you should recognize that what I'm saying to you is from God.

He's saying that right here. Paul's saying that right here in 1 Corinthians 14, right? 2 Corinthians 12, "Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from exalting myself.

Concerning this, I implored the Lord three times that I might leave me. And he has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'" Very specifically, Paul's saying here, "And he said to me, God said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'" He knew what Scripture was.

And all these thoughts are building upon that, okay? 1 John 1-5, "What was from the beginning? What we heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life, and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.

What we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us. And indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." These things, these things, we, apostles, we write. They were very cognizant that they were writing the new covenant.

Paul said, "We are the ministers of the new covenant." Paul said, "You accepted it not as the word of man, but as the word of God." Paul said, "You should recognize it that it's the word of God." Paul said, "This is the tradition which I got from the Lord Jesus." Paul said, "The Lord said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you.'" The apostolic office was special and different from us.

We're actually receiving words from God and preserving it, vaulting it, putting it in a safe. Revelation 1, 1-3. "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bondservants." God gave him to show to his bondservants. Who are his bondservants? You know his bondservants are. God gave him to show to his bondservants.

God showed his bondservants. God didn't show it to you and me, not in this way. You and I are reading about it. You and I are obeying it, okay? But you and I are not apostles. We come after the fact. We preserve it. We fight for it. But we are not apostles.

Verse 3, "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy." How are you going to read something unless it's written down? How are you going to read something unless it's written down? Exodus 4, 11-12, okay? "The Lord said to him, 'Who has made man's mouth?

Or who makes them mute or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now then go and even I will be with your mouth.'" If God created the world, he created space, he created time, he can move mouths to make the New Testament. This is not going to be hard for him.

Right? Oh, how do we make sure that we got it right? If God wants to get it right, he will get it right, okay? Deuteronomy 18-18, 18 verse 18, "I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." This is a prophecy of Christ.

This is a prophecy of Christ. If you've never studied Deuteronomy 18, this is referring to Christ. "I'm going to raise up a prophet from among you. I'm going to put my words in his mouth." Okay? John 14, "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you, but the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14, who is Jesus speaking to?

That's right. What is he saying here? You guys are filled with sin, so you might get this wrong. You guys are unfaithful, so you might get this wrong. Apostolic origins is important not because of the greatness of the apostles, but because of what Jesus said. He is telling them, "The Holy Spirit is going to teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Now, I know when we read John 14, we think of it as individually, personally.

That's how we interpret it. We read this passage and we think, "God is going to allow me to understand all things." Right? But he didn't promise you that you're going to take an exam and you're going to remember everything that you studied. He didn't make that promise to you.

He didn't promise you that you're going to read scripture and that you're going to remember everything that you read that morning. You do your devos and then in the afternoon you totally forgot. How do I know? You probably read something about anger and then you're ticked off in the afternoon.

Right? John 14 is primarily not speaking about an individual relationship with God. Now, I'm not saying that principle isn't there. Because the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Okay? But firstly, Jesus is talking to his men and he's saying to them, "He's going to teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." The things that you forgot that are important, Holy Spirit is going to remind you of those things.

In fact, there are things that you don't know, Holy Spirit is going to teach you. John 16, "I have many more things to say to you but you cannot bear them now." I want to tell you like, you know, the qualities of an elder, the qualities of a deacon, how to run a church, but you can't bear them now because you're stressing out.

But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. Oh, this is a promise. This is a promise here. He's going to guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak and he will disclose to you what is to come.

He will glorify me for he will take of mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are mine, therefore I said that he takes of mine and will disclose it to you. Everything that the Holy Spirit teaches to you will be from me. That's what Christ is saying.

Right? That's what he's saying here. Okay? He will guide you into all the truth. Whatever he hears, he will speak and he will disclose it to you. This is a promise here. This is a promise here to his men. So you see why apostolic origins is so important here.

Right? This is not a promise to every believer through the history of time that they're going to write a New Testament. No. What he's saying here is he's saying to his men that the Holy Spirit is going to disclose to you. He's going to tell you. He's going to show you.

I want to tell you these things right now, but you can't handle it. But when the Holy Spirit comes, you'll be able to handle it. Remember, Jesus was about to die. He's going away. Right? And all they knew for the last three years was Christ. That's all they knew.

The last three years, all they knew was Christ. And as long as they're with Christ, they're victorious. How are we going to feed these people? Bam. How are we going to feed these people? Bam. Right? We're about to drown. Bam. Right? As long as they're with Christ, things are good.

But Christ is going away. So they are kind of stressed out. So Christ is saying, "I got more things I want to tell you, but you can't bear it right now. But it's okay. The Holy Spirit's going to come, and he's going to guide you, not into some truth, but into all truth." So what about the books that were not penned directly by the apostles?

Well, Luke was a close traveling companion of Paul through Acts. Okay? And verses are right there. Mark is mentioned as a son of Peter in 1 Peter 5.13. James was recognized nearly from the beginning as a leader. Judah was a brother of James and Jesus. And Hebrews was actually recognized to have Pauline authorship early on.

I know we debate about that, but at least early on, it was recognized to have Pauline authorship. Okay? So every single book in the New Testament is either penned directly by an apostle or with someone with close association to an apostle. You can consider it apostolic literature because of the closeness of their relationship.

That apostle was directly involved. Okay? Corporate reception. Corporate reception. Okay. Divine qualities, apostolic origins, and corporate reception. These have been, so far, our criteria for the canon of Scripture. Okay? They are self-authenticating. They are self-authenticating because God's Word has to be self-authenticating. The reason God's Word has to be self-authenticating is because there is nothing greater than God's Word.

There's nothing greater than God's Word. So if you're going to authenticate God's Word, it's going to come in the fashion of an attribute. Okay? So when I say the criteria of the canon, criteria for the canon of Scripture, a better word is actually attributes of a canon of Scripture.

The canon of Scripture exhibits these three qualities. Okay? These three factors here. I'm going to use the word criteria. That's fine. But I'm trying to press upon you, okay, why it has to be self-authenticating, why being self-authenticating is remarkably impressive, right? And with respect to anything, not just God's Word.

Remember, let me say it again. Anything that is fundamental. Anything that is foundational. We're not giving like a separate, "Oh, God's Word gets special treatment." We're not doing that, okay? Anything that is fundamental and anything that is foundational is going to be self-authenticating. And I just used the example of sensory perception to you, right?

I used the example of the laws of logic, okay? I hope you guys are following me here. Point number three. Point number three. Corporate reception. If God's Word has divine qualities, if it has apostolic origins, then it's going to be received as God's Word. Why is it going to be received as God's Word?

Why? Because the Holy Spirit dwells in you. If the Holy Spirit dwells in you, it's not so much you recognizing that it's Scripture, it's the Holy Spirit within you hearing Scripture and recognizing it, okay? You know what that's akin to? Sanctification, right? You're justified. Did you do that? No.

God did that, right? And then you embark on the road of sanctification. But is it really you? Well, it's the Holy Spirit within you, right? Now, don't get me wrong. You are accountable for your sins, right? But outside the power of the Holy Spirit, you would succumb to your flesh.

So it's similar in that sense where God is working all aspects. Every single aspect, He's working it by Himself, okay? So New Testament characterization, okay? And regard the patience of our Lord, 2 Peter 3.15 to 16, right? So I'm quoting this verse again. I quoted it earlier, right? But look at it within the lens of corporate reception.

And Peter says here, "As they do also the rest of the Scriptures," right? There's the angle in which it is apostolic origins because he's likening Paul, right, what he's writing to the rest of Scriptures. So there is that angle to it. But the other angle to it is that Peter's audience understands that this is Scripture.

He understands it. He's not making a defense for it. Like, by the way, Paul's letters are Scripture for these reasons. He's not doing that. He's just kind of saying it casually, like an offhand comment, right? He's just saying, "As they do the rest of Scriptures." That only works if they already received it as Scriptures.

That only works if they already received it as Scriptures, right? If I were to say to you, right, if I were to say it to you, right, yeah, like, you know, it's like, you know, like, you know, blah, blah, like, you know, blah, blah, is the goat of Tom Brady.

Just use Tom Brady, okay? Tom Brady is the goat, right? He's the goat of football. He's just the goat. He's like the Michael Jordan of football. If I were to say that to you and no one, like, pushes back, it's because we all agree that Michael Jordan is the goat.

In the same way, greatest of all time, in the same way, when he says, "The rest of the Scriptures," there's no defense here. He's not saying, "And let me give you a reason why, like, Paul's letters are--" He's not doing that, right? And the reason he doesn't have to do that is because they already accepted it as Scripture.

So you know that the audience, from this very early point on, they've already received it as Scripture, okay? Peter claims apostolic authority and calls Paul his brother, right? This will lend itself to the idea that Peter is also writing Scripture. First Timothy 5.18, I know I'm quoting the same verses again, or at least some of the same verses, but I want you to see it in a different angle, okay?

If he's just quoting Scripture, he says, "For the Scripture says," right? And there's no pushback here. "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. The labor is worthy of his wages.'" The audience must have understood this as Scripture because he's not giving a defense for it.

What that means is that from the earliest point on, from the very earliest point on, they understood this as God's Word. They understood it as Scripture. Second Peter 3.2, prophets and apostles are juxtaposed, right? There's no defense here. "Yeah, you know, you should listen to us because Jesus said so." He doesn't go on this defense here, right?

He just says, "Listen to the holy prophets and listen to us," right? So then we know that the audience must have understood that and received that because he doesn't go on a defense here. He doesn't do that here. First Corinthians 14, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." Same type of thinking.

Same exact type of thinking. Hebrews 2.2-3, "For the word spoken through the angels proved unalterable and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty." How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? "After it was at first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard." The word spoken through the angels, Old Testament.

That's another way of saying the Old Testament, okay? How are we going to neglect so great a salvation after it was first spoken through the Lord, that's Jesus, and confirmed to us by those who heard? How are you going to escape this? Because this, what the writer of Hebrews is saying is, "This is greater." If those guys didn't escape judgment, how are we going to escape judgment?

Because we heard it. So very early on, right, we know that they understood this as Scripture. First Timothy 3.15, "But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself." Right? There's no, again, there's no defense here. First Peter 2.5, "You also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house for holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Think about this here.

Corporately, you and I are being built up by the Holy Spirit. Okay? How is that going to work unless the church receives God's Word? It's not going to work. The church must receive God's Word. The church will receive God's Word because you and I are living stones. First Corinthians 12.13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." All of us, every single one of us, baptized by one Spirit.

Of course, of course the church is going to receive His Word. Of course. Because we are all living stones. all baptized into one body. Let me give you another example of corporate reception, okay? New Testament public reading can be traced to the public reading of the Old Testament texts, okay?

What do I mean by that? In the old test, in the synagogue, you know what they would do? They would kind of have, like, something like sermons. And they would read the Old Testament. They just read it. They would just read it. Boom, read, read, read, read, read. Oh, but then a special instruction came about.

Oh, what was this? Have my letter read among you. That's interesting. This began to replace the Old Testament reading of text. Colossians 4 16. When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the Church of the Laodiceans, and you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

I urge you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written, for the time is near. Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

That is significant because the Old Testament practice was to read God's Word. When you and I read this, we just think, "Hey, Paul has an update." You know like when the missionary comes up and he kind of gives you an update? No, it's not the same thing. Okay? The public reading of Scripture was reading God's Word.

But something, ouch, something is beginning to replace the reading of Old Testament texts. That ain't gonna happen unless it's the New Testament. You guys are following me, right? When public reading of Scripture, okay, it is not like you and me, missionary comes up, he gives an update, blah blah blah.

Okay? Public reading of Scripture is like, instead of Pastor Peter speaking, have someone else speak. You're gonna take that as a sermon. That's gonna be a sermon to you, right? So in here, when there was the Old Testament reading of public reading, it was of Scripture. But this began to take its place.

So corporately, very early on, they received it as the Word of God. Okay? The apostolic fathers acknowledge apostolic authority and the authority of the New Testament. Okay, apostolic fathers is a very fancy way of saying the people who were in the Apostle small group. Okay? So whoever was in, like, that's, okay, they're disciples.

Okay? So Apostle Peter's disciple. Apostle John's disciple. Paul's disciple. Matthew's, Nathanael's disciple. Like, they're disciples. Okay? Collectively as a group, right, were the apostolic fathers. When I say early church fathers, it's like a time period. There's like generations. Okay? And you can kind of cut it off at some point, but like, that's what I'm talking about.

The early church fathers. So apostolic fathers go within the group of the early church fathers. But the apostolic fathers are the ones who learned directly from the Apostles. Directly. Okay? So Clement says, "Take up the epistles of the blessed Apostle Paul. To be sure, he sent you a letter in the spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos.

The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent from God. The Christ, therefore, is from God and the Apostles from Christ." So very early on, they were taught that the Apostles were speaking the Word of God. And they were taught that because the Apostles taught them that.

The Apostles taught them that because Jesus said it would happen. So the power doesn't come from the Apostles. The power comes from God. So let me go back here. Okay? So I don't want anyone to miss this point. We talk about divine qualities. We talk about apostolic origins. And we talk about corporate reception.

Those three points are important because God has said so. Okay? Jesus comes on the scene. He confirms the Old Testament. Right? If the Old Testament at the time wasn't the Old Testament, he would have said, "Take Job out. Take Psalms out. Take Deuteronomy out." He doesn't do that. Okay?

And remember, this is the same man who made Lazarus rise from the dead. Do you want to know if Jesus is an actual historical figure as opposed to a myth? Everyone that saw Jesus, okay, couldn't deny who he was. Historians who hated Christians wrote that Jesus existed. Do you know why?

Because they couldn't deny who he was. Let me give you an example. If you're a hardcore Republican and you hate Barack Obama, can you deny that he was the president? No. No. You can't deny that he was a president. If you're a hardcore Democrat and you hate Donald Trump, can you deny that he's the president?

No. You can't deny it. You can say, "I don't like him," but you can't deny it. It's the same thing with Jesus. There were historians commissioned by Rome who hated Jesus, who hated Christians, but they couldn't deny that he existed. They couldn't deny it. Do you know why? Because he did everything in public, which is in direct contradiction to every single religious figure that has existed through time.

No one, not all religions are equal, not all ideas are equal. That is malarkey. All men are created equal because we're all men and women, because we're made in the image of God, but not all ideas are equal, not all religions are equal. The reason Christianity stands in stark contrast to every other single religion is because of Jesus Christ, okay?

So what happened, okay, what happened was people would see the risen Christ. He's obviously God because he's raising people from the dead. You guys can't deny it. Rome can't deny it. After the fact, they want to squash Christians, so they say, "Deny the fact that Jesus is the Christ or you die," and you know what a lot of people chose?

They chose death. These are historical facts. So a lot of people who saw the resurrected Christ said, "I'm not gonna deny him," and they just died. Some of these people were thrown into the Colosseum. Some of them were lit on fire, okay? Let me further this for you. I say the same thing in BCC Lesson 4, but let me give you this other example, okay?

If you and I saw the risen Christ, right, if you and I saw the risen Christ and we don't believe in him, there's no actual faith, okay? If you put a gun to my head and you say, "Deny Christ or I'm gonna shoot you," I don't care if it's true.

I don't care. I'm just gonna say, I'm just gonna say, "I deny him." You know why? Even though it's true, I don't want to die. I don't want to die. So I'm gonna be like, "Yeah, I saw him do all that, but I don't really care. So yeah, Jesus, yeah, he's, I don't, like, whatever they're saying, I disavow everything that they're saying." You and I are gonna do that.

But for some reason, this figure, this man, is different. For some reason, people saw him, right? People saw him. He claimed he was God. He claimed he was the Messiah. He claimed that he will give you life. He claimed that you should follow him. And after that, he rose from the dead and people said, "What do you want me to do?" The man rose from the dead.

"So I'm gonna trust him, even though you kill me. Just kill me." "Well, I'm gonna throw you and your kid into the Coliseum. I'm gonna light you on fire, and I'm gonna light your kid on fire." "Well, this is kind of hard." But I saw him rise from the dead.

I saw him rise from the dead. And he told me that you would kill me. He told me that you were gonna do this to me. I don't want to die. I don't want to see my kid burned. But I can't deny him. And so a lot of people face that.

So when I tell you Christ confirms the Old Testament canon, that's the power behind it. Okay? He's not just some other guy, "Oh, this is church, so when he says Jesus, every correct answer is Jesus." That's not what I'm saying. Okay? There's a lot that goes into Christ confirming the Old Testament canon.

Okay? If you just reduce it to, "Oh, this is church, so he can say Jesus," right? That is extremely anti-intellectual. That is extremely anti-intellectual. It is unfaithful to reason, and frankly, you just probably don't want to believe in God, and that's why you think that. But it is not because you're intellectual.

It is not because you're intellectual. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Okay? That was a little pause right there, because I felt like I had to do it. Alright? So let me go on here. Point number two. The Didache was an early Christian manual of church practice. Okay?

So the Didache, right, is like a manual. It's like an instruction guide, right? And it had all this scripture in it. It had all this scripture in it. Tons of scripture. From very early on, let me go back to something Jude said in verse 3. Chapter 1. There's only one chapter.

Verse 3. Right? It is once for all delivered to the saints. Once for all. It's not this ongoing thing, "Let's all write scripture. You write scripture. I write scripture." No. It is once for all delivered to the saints. Right? The fact that the Didache, going back to about a hundred AD, encapsulates this.

Right? Okay. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, said, he quoted various parts of the New Testament as saying, "It is written." You only say, "It is written," as if it's God's Word. Polycarp, quoted from various parts of the New Testament. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, also quoted parts of the New Testament.

Okay? You see the apostolic fathers, they quoted the Gospels and the Apollonian Epistles more frequently than any other work. They rarely quote outside of the New Testament. Rarely. Christianity was distinguished from other religions in that it was prolific in the production of manuscripts. Christianity was interesting. Okay? It was very, very bookish.

Very bookish. When you look in Acts 17, when Paul is on Mars Hill and he's like saying, "Oh, you guys are all religious," and the philosophers of that day, they love philosophizing, they love hearing new ideas, and they speak, they speak, they speak, they speak. That's what they do.

Right? Christians, for some reason, they come on the scene, this weird sect of Judaism, they come on the scene, right? And they're all about writing. Christianity was distinguished from other religions and other philosophies of that day in that sense. Other people groups noted that about Christians. Okay? So by about the fourth century, major biblical codices contain 27 books of the New Testament we have today.

Sinaiticus, Vaticus, Alexandrus. Okay? The Codex was favored among the parchment because one could contain multiple works bound together. It also allowed certain books to be grouped together and certain ones to be left out. Parchment. Right? Kind of like what you see, like in video games, like when you get a scroll, the scroll of power or whatever you get, like, you know, you get an upgrade, it's like a scroll, right?

Like it's like you roll it up. You guys have seen that before, right? But Christianity comes on the scene and it favors a codex. A codex is more like a book that we have. Think of like a photo album. Put stuff in, take stuff out, has a has a binding here.

Christianity seems to favor that. Why is that? On a parchment, you can carry so many books, right? It's not very efficient, right? Like it preserves what's inside, so that's great, right? But I mean, how are you gonna carry like, like 27 parchments? But with a codex, oh, with a codex you can do that.

With a binding, you can actually do that. For some strange reason, Christianity comes on the scene and immediately favors codices. Immediately. That is consistent with the compilation of the New Testament. That is consistent with the compilation of the New Testament. 140 AD, Marcion the Gnostic appears in the scene and states that the canon consisted of an edited version of Luke and 10 of Paul's epistles.

So this dude named Marcion, right? We'll just call him Mark the Heretic, okay? Mark the Heretic, he comes on the scene and says, "This is the Bible. This is the Bible." About 140 AD, right? So around that time, right, generally people already understood what the New Testament was. But this dude comes on the scene and says, "This is actually the Bible." So now Christianity is being challenged, right?

So because of this man's heresy, they got to prove that this man's heresy is not truth, right? So because of that, they engage Marcion, okay? By 200 AD, as a result of, probably as a result of that, the New Testament was already established and we know that in the Muratorian Fragment.

The Muratorian Fragment contains, it's like a list, right? So there's this fragment, goes to about 200 AD, and it lists all the books of the New Testament. Guess what? It validates our New Testament. And it was probably a result of Marcion's heresy. So because of this guy's heresy, someone's like, "Prove to me that this isn't the Bible.

Prove to me," right? So because of that, they're like, "Well, let's get organized and let's deal with this knucklehead," right? And so these lists start to form. In the early 300s, Origen's list also contains our New Testament, while noting that some of the epistles were debated. Around the same time as Origen, Eusebius also lists much of our New Testament.

In 367, Athanasian's letter contains our New Testament today, which is corroborated by Jerome and Augustine. Council of Hippo and Carthage also confirm the New Testament we have today. And this makes complete sense if one understands the history of the Church. The first 300 years of the Church, there was intense persecution.

It wasn't like they're doing nothing. They're just like, "Oh, like, hey, what should we do today?" There's intense persecution. The moment they get under that, you see this consensus with respect to the New Testament, okay? Now, when I say consensus, let me say that again. You see this apparent organized consensus.

The consensus already existed, okay? The consensus already existed, right? We see that with the Didache. We see that with the Apostolic Fathers. So the consensus already existed, but then the heretics, or the ones that actually had some juice to them, started to appear. And so you see this godly reaction to combat the heretics, okay?

Okay. So there's this chart that I just ripped off a book, right? So divine qualities, apostolic origins, and corporate reception, right? If you see that graphic right there, right? They represent the attributes of canonicity, right? And it is within the context of the Holy Spirit. That's why it is self-authenticating, okay?

I want you to remember something. John 1.1, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If the Word was God, what is greater than God that can authenticate God? There's nothing greater than God. That's why it has to be self-authenticating, right?

He says it another way. Hebrews 6.3, "Since he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself." Himself. What's God gonna swear by when it comes to his Word? "I swear to you that this is true." There's nothing else he could swear by. When he says something's gonna happen to give you and I comfort, he says, "I swear by who?" There's no one greater than God.

He has to swear by himself. If the Word was God, okay, the Logos, right? And he could swear by himself, of course the attributes of the Canon, of course the criteria of the Canon, of course it's going to be self-authenticating. There's nothing greater than God. Let me say this again.

It is not cheap. It is not intellectually cheap. Everything that is foundational is self-authenticating. Everything that is foundational. Everything is self-authenticating, okay? If you want to hit me up and get into a philosophical discussion about that, I will, okay? What is Scripture's position on Scripture? "For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." That is Scripture's position on Scripture.

Men didn't write it, God wrote it. "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city which are written in this book." That's four o'clock.

John 10 27. "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me." That's what Jesus said, right? "My sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me." So wouldn't the people who are going to be Christian validate God's Word? Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me.

A stranger they simply will not follow, but will free from him because they do not know the voice of strangers. The church will receive his Word. They will be able to deduce what is not God's Word." Okay? Romans 15 4. "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction so that through perseverance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction.

We will have God's Word. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training. If all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training, would he not give it to us? Would we somehow mess this up? We're not gonna mess it up.

Not because we're great, but because Christ promised. John 14 and John chapter 16. Isaiah 55, just to reinforce this point. "So will my word be which goes forth from my mouth. It will not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but he does according to his will." You think man can stop God from giving his word to his church? I don't think so. Ephesians 1, "Also we have obtained inheritance having been predestined according to his purpose, who works all things after the counsel of his will." He works all things.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing. His word will not return void. It will succeed. With respect to the canon of Scripture. Okay? With respect to the canon of Scripture, if it has divine qualities, it will also have apostolic origins and the church will receive it as such.

With respect to the canon of Scripture, I'm pretty proud of that. If it has apostolic origins, it will have divine qualities and the church will receive it as such. Because his sheep hear his voice. Who wrote the first five books? Moses. Was Moses around when he wrote when God created the world?

No, he wasn't around. He wasn't like observing God. That's cool you like made Adam. That's cool, right? Because Adam was the first man, right? So it was given to Moses. I'm using this Old Testament example because it's not anything new in the New Testament, right? So when Christ commissions his apostles, the Holy Spirit, John chapter 14, John chapter 16, he's going to teach you all things.

He's going to guide you into all truth. He's gonna make you remember everything I said. I want to tell you more but you can't bear it now, right? But you're going to do this. The Apostle said, "I received this from Jesus." Right? You have divine qualities. You have apostolic origins.

And then the church, Jesus said what? "My sheep hear my voice. My sheep hear my voice." Who dwells in you? God dwells in you. God is going to react to his word. Divine qualities, apostolic origins, corporate reception. That's that in a nutshell, okay? Because Christ said it. Because Christ said it, right?

And if you don't believe him, this is a very logical argument from Christ. "At least believe me because of the works that I do." That's what Jesus said. You don't believe me? Then how in the world am I doing all this, right? If you don't believe him, at least believe the works.

And go read a book, take a look at history, and take a look at all the people, all the men and women that died because they saw Christ, right? Okay. That's enough of that, alright? So that's the canon of Scripture. Okay. I'm gonna answer one question here, right? What about the Catholic Bible?

What about the Catholic Bible, right? Okay. The Catholic Bible contains what is known as the Old Testament Apocrypha. There is a New Testament Apocrypha, but no one accepts the New Testament Apocrypha, okay? Just throw that out the door, okay? The Catholics have other books within the Old Testament, okay?

Tobit, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, and some others, okay? That's where they get the idea of purgatory, from the Apocrypha. But you don't see the idea of purgatory in any other book except the Apocrypha. It fails the test of doctrinal unity. Number two, did Jesus ever quote from any book of the Apocrypha?

No. No. He never quoted from the Apocrypha. Do you know why? Because it's not God's Word. Because it's not God's Word, okay? Number three, okay? Early on, they were not accepted. Now you might find, you might find, this could be God's Word, but generally speaking, they were not accepted as God's Word.

You know what else? You know what else? Even the Catholic Church, although they recognized the Apocrypha, they, the Catholic Church, I'm not talking about the, some council here, some council there, I'm talking about the Catholic Church at the time did not recognize the Apocrypha as God's Word. That happened in the 16th century, okay?

So from very early on, the Apocrypha was not counted as God's Word, from very early on, okay? And when you look at the quotations, that it is written and stuff like that, they come from our New Testament, from the early Church Fathers or whatever else, okay? The early Church, so the Apostolic Fathers, and there's ones after that.

Is there a document somewhere that says the Apocrypha is God's Word? Yes. Yes. There is documents out there, okay? But if you look at it in its totality, right, there's a lot of forgeries out there, and the way you can siphon out the forgeries from what's actually God's Word is there's, there's, there's an analysis to this, right?

Does it have doctrinal unity? How many copies are there, and how many times are they quoted as Scripture? If you do the analysis, it's the New Testament and the Old Testament that we have today. You know what's another, like the final nail in the coffin? The Old Testament that the Jews use, Israel uses, is the Old Testament that we use, not the Catholic one.

Alright? So that's, that's, that's the Apocrypha. Okay. I want to take questions. Don't be afraid. Ask me questions. Yes. Masoretic. 900 to 1000 AD. Why did the Masoretes stop reproducing it? Oh, I see, I see your question. I do know why. They were, I want to make sure I get this right, they were eventually conquered.

And I want to make, I don't want to give you fake news, and I don't want to, because there's a lot of tribes, but if I remember correctly, they were, they were conquered. And so that, and that was, that was the reason why they were eventually dispersed. So the copies that we have date to around that time.

So which manuscripts does our English Bible use? Is that the question? Yes. Let me, let me say this, okay? There are two kind of general codices, two general ones, okay? So these two general ones are slightly different, okay? So then you have the King James and the New King James kind of using this one, and then you have like nearly all the other translations using this one, okay?

Without getting into the weeds too much, they're generally identical, but the one that the King James and New King James uses, right, they have a couple more verses. One example is in 1st John chapter 5, when it talks about the Trinity, and King James and New King James, I think it's chapter 5, it directly says there are three that testify, the Father, God, and the Holy Spirit, right?

Now that's, that's like a direct statement of the Trinity, right? The, the text that we use, it doesn't have that verse, okay? So the two major codices have like a couple verses that are different, right? So then the one we use, for various reasons, that, the one we use seem to be a little bit more accurate.

And then if I, to do the analysis of that, we'll take a little bit of time, but to answer your question, yes. Yes. That, that codicy is based upon the compilation of the manuscripts that we have, also the copies of the manuscripts that we have. That makes sense. So there, there aren't any like original letter, they're all, they're all destroyed.

Like, we don't have the original Colossians. Like, we don't, we don't have that, right? But the fact that we don't have like an original copy doesn't mean that we don't have the original content. And the reason that's not true is because we know that this letter was disseminated and we know that it was copied, and when, remember, when they copied it, they knew it was the Word of God.

So there were all these copies, right? So theoretically, just keep this in mind, if you have the Word of God and they understood it to be the Word of God, and there's a hundred copies of this, but we don't have the original. But everyone's saying there's a hundred copies and they're all identical, right?

Do you think the hundred copies that are like word for word, letter for letter, identical? Is that a copy of the original? Yeah. Yeah. It definitely, it's not gonna be like a hundred different copies and they're all wrong, but the original is now gone, so we're just, we're just toast, right?

That's not the case at all. So we don't have any originals, but we have copies, right? And then copies upon copies, right? And then there's like, like the earliest ones, they have them like, they give them like P, P designations, like P52 and the fragments of John, and that's kind of getting into the weeds.

Just, just generally speaking. That's, that's how it works. The New England translation claims to use the same codices as in major translations, but then they add in their own words. They like, they're different. So they say like, we're using this codicy, right? We're using this codex, right? We're using this, and then they just add words.

It literally comes from nowhere. Like it straight up comes from nowhere. I'm not just saying that because I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I'm saying that because that's intellectually, factually correct. Like they'll, they'll like, they'll read a text and they'll just like insert a word in there and say, well that's, that's what the Bible says and that's not true.

Like it's, it's really that simple. Yeah. Yes. The Dead Sea Scrolls, right? Yeah. The Cumbrian community, so they were, they were also a, a kind of like, think of like monks. They were kind of like monks and they were all about like, we're gonna separate ourselves, we're gonna live in these caves, we're gonna have the Word of God, that, that's the community.

And so they kept all these scrolls. So they were like, we're gonna preserve God's Word, come out of the world, we're not gonna associate with them. So they're all about like, you know, keeping God's Word and obeying God's Word, except that they were kind of like, just did it in a monkish way, right?

It is from that community that we find texts that validate the, that validate the Masoretic text. Yes. I'm sorry, the what? Yeah. Yes. He wrote them because he says, because of what he says. If, if anyone thinks he's spiritual, let him recognize what I'm writing to is God's Word.

Yeah. Oh, so if you study those books, if you study those books, they speak of doctrinal disunity. Like, so like, the teaching of purgatory comes from Tobit, which is a book of the Apocrypha, right? And other books too. I'm pretty sure, but it comes from the Apocrypha, right? And so when you look at the Apocrypha and you see what they teach, it doesn't come from any other book.

You don't, you don't see a purgatory in any other book except the Apocrypha. Yeah. So so that, that's, that's one example. But that's a, that's a huge example, you know, like, because the Scripture is talking about it's once and for all. You die, there is no second chance. Like, oh I messed up and now I'm gonna be for real good.

There's nothing like that, right? But the Apocrypha speaks to a different destination than the rest of the books, right? So with the Apocrypha, you have the argument from doctrinal disunity, but you also have the argument from the fact that it's not from apostolic origins, right? And on top, well, it's all times, so prophetic origins, right?

Which is the corollary of apostolic origins. And on top of that, they didn't receive it as God's Word. The Jews didn't receive it as God's Word, right? Going back to the fact that the Jews today, they, they also don't recognize the Apocrypha as part of God's Word. The other interesting factoid about the Apocrypha is that, I think all of it, yeah, all of it was written within the intertestamental period, right?

That period after Malachi, but before John the Baptist. Malachi's the last prophet, right guys? Malachi's the last Old Testament prophet, and then there's radio silence. No one's, there's no, God doesn't send anyone, right? And then John the Baptist occurs. So the, the Apocrypha is from this time when God is silent, right?

So that's also interesting, because God is silent. What was the last thing you said? Well, it is true that there is variance, like, within, like, everyone who calls themselves a Jew, but generally speaking, they go by the same Old Testament that we have. Like, just, just, just, like, just generally speaking.

They do have other texts that are, could be seen as authoritative depending on, like, what kind of Jew you are, like, what kind of, like, like, yeah, like, kind of, like, their own, like, kind of version of, like, denominations. But as a whole, the Old Testament that we have is the one they have.

So they typically won't necessarily give credence to texts that are outside, with the caveat that there are some who, like, really uphold some, like, rabbinical writings, right? In theory, just cerebrally, they'll say that that's not God's Word, but, like, sometimes in practice, they, they treat it as such. I mean, yeah, I, I guess my approach would be, I guess my approach would be, if I were arguing, if I was talking to someone who treated a non-canonical Old Testament book as canonical, like a Jew, I would remind him that it was not spoken of by a prophet.

That's what I would do. That, I would just say it's not spoken of by a prophet. That's, that's kind of, like, how I would leave it as. And it might have been tradition that you guys accepted as such, with such high regard, but it is not spoken of, it's not in the same vein as an Isaiah or a Daniel, yeah.

But I see your point, though. If you want to, like, argue with someone about why Christ is the Messiah, you have to look at the texts from the Old Testament that we share. So I understand why you'd ask that question, yeah. Okay. I'll take more. I'll take more. Okay, I want, okay, you know, I want to ask you guys a question.

Does anyone, and I don't want you to feel like, "Oh my gosh, I'm not a good Christian," okay? Don't feel like that, because I want you to not hide, like, if you have a question and, like, I can answer it, I want to answer it, because if you have a question, maybe someone else has the same question but they're afraid to answer.

Don't be like, "Well, you know, they're gonna think I'm not a good Christian." Don't think like that, okay? Does everyone, does everyone understand why the canon has to be self-authenticating? And if you understand why the canon has to be self-authenticating, why it is still extremely powerful that it is self-authenticating?

Is everyone with me on that? Does anyone think, "Well, it's self-authenticating so it's cheap." Does anyone, like, honestly, if you feel that way, just let me know and I want to kind of walk you through why. No one feels that way? Okay, yeah, I'll walk you through why. Thank you.

So I want to go back to foundationally, okay? Foundationally, right? We talk about Jesus Christ being the center, right? And He is the center, okay? Jesus Christ is the absolute center. What's the difference between a Jew and a Christian? If Isaiah, the prophet Isaiah, if he were alive today, if the prophet Daniel were alive today, right, he would believe in Christ because he is the Messiah.

Isaiah, Daniel, Joel, Malachi, they were all Yahweh believers. They were all God-fearers. If you are a God-fearer, you will believe in Jesus. There is no difference in philosophy with respect to Judaism and Christianity. The difference is Jesus Christ. What do you do with Jesus? Jesus is the central figure.

He explained to mankind what is good and what is evil. He explained to mankind where you are from and where you are going. He explained to mankind what is meaning in life. And He explained all of that to mankind. He paved the way. He was the way. He was God.

Jesus is the central figure. He proved that. He proved that by performing miracles. But his last miracle was he rose from the dead. You want to see power? Rise from the dead, right? That is the ultimate power. He actually rose from the dead. Nothing beats that, right? You can you can't even kill a Superman, right?

I mean, nothing beats that power, right? He actually rose from the dead, okay? So Christ rises from the dead, okay? That's the power that this man had. This man, Jesus, confirms the Old Testament that we have today. He confirmed it. I went through it. I showed you how he confirmed it.

He confirmed it. Old Testament that you have, that's the Old Testament. Give you the thumbs up, okay? So the Old Testament we have is the Old Testament, right? And then he says, "These guys are gonna write the New Testament. You're gonna write the New Testament. You're gonna write the New Testament." The guys who wrote the New Testament said, "We received it from the Lord.

We received it from the Lord. We received it from the Lord," right? And then Christ also said, "Those who receive you receive me," right? When you tell people of what I tell you, they're gonna know it's from me. And then what happened? The Apostles told the Word. The Church received it as from Christ, because my sheep hear my voice, right?

So you have Christ saying, "These guys are gonna, you guys are gonna write the New Testament," and those other guys that you tell, if they're my sheep, they're gonna hear my voice. The Apostles, what do they do? They tell. And what do the sheep do? They hear the voice.

Who does the glory go to? Jesus. Jesus. Because he's the key. He's the key to the canon. No one is greater than Jesus, so it has to be self-authenticating. It has to be. There isn't some outside source, right? And if you want to get technical here, yeah, I guess God, because he said, "This is my son in whom I'm well-pleased," right?

But Jesus is God, right? So without like splitting hairs here, right? Christ is the key to the Old Testament canon. That's why it must be self-authenticating, because no one is greater than God. And that is why, that is why it is not intellectually dishonest. It is not intellectually dishonest, because how are you going to prove sensory perception?

By employing your sensories, your sensory, your senses, excuse me. How would you, how would you define sense? You have to employ it. And by the virtue of employing it, you see if it works. That's how you do. How do you prove that two is two? It is foundational. It's just, it's foundational.

How do you prove that two is two? That you just make a point. When you use the number two as two, did it work? You were able to make a point, because it corresponds with reality. So anything that is foundational is self-authenticating. Anything. God is foundational. So the Word of God must be self-authenticating.

Okay? That's super dense, super dense, but it's in Scripture, right? God swore by himself. It's in Scripture. He doesn't say it like that. He doesn't, God doesn't say, "This is super dense, guys, so get ready." He doesn't say it like that, right? But he did tell us. Just in a different way.

Thank you. Okay. Question, yeah? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Where are contemporary commentaries rooted from? Okay. So generally, contemporary commentaries, okay, so there's like different types of commentaries, but generally speaking, what a commentator will do, and I don't want to say all commentators, but generally speaking, what a commentator will do is he will look at the language, like the original language, but he will also look at different verses that relate to this verse, right?

So for example, for example, right, a lot of what you see in Revelation, like a lot of what you see in Revelation is talked about in the book of Daniel. So they will go to the book of Daniel and try to understand it, and that helps kind of like your understanding of Revelation, right?

So you have the language, you have, you have the Scripture by Scripture comparison, analogia Scriptura. It's just Scripture by Scripture, right? And then thirdly, what you will, what they will typically do is, if it's a good commentator, is how did the audience receive it at the time? So you go to culture, right?

Like, like you and me, we say, "What's up, dog?" Like, we don't mean like an actual, like, poodle, right? We just say, like, "What's up, friend?" Right? So like, you know, like, look at the cult, like, you look at the culture, right? So a good commentator will do that, and then that's it.

The commentators, what they speak is not from God, yeah. But they can, they can give you their insight, and that's, that's really it. It's the Holy Spirit in you that helps you to understand. Great question. That's a great question. Do you have a question? Yes. The 27 books in the New Testament is because it fulfilled the criterion that we went over, or the attributes that we went over.

They had divine qualities. They had apostolic origins, and they had corporate reception. Those are the books, those are the books that have the doctrinal unity. Those are the books that have apostolic origins, right? All those books have apostolic origins. The five that were not directly penned by an apostle have close association with apostles, as if they were penned by an apostle, right?

Thirdly, thirdly, they were received as such. As, those are the books that were received as such by the audience, right? So what that means is that if they were received by such as the audience of the apostles, they were received as such because the apostles told them, right? And Jesus said, "These are the guys that are going to tell you.

These are the guys." Now you might say, "Well, well the apostles are sinful. The apostles could have gotten it wrong, right?" Yes, they're sinful. Yes, they're sinful, right? But when it comes to the canon of Scripture, you have to remember who God is, right? God said this was going to happen in this way.

So if God said it's going to happen in this way, it's going to happen in this way, no matter how sinful I am, right? If God said, "James is gonna be the one to save all you guys," and you guys are like, "Oh my gosh, why James? He's not that strong.

He's old," right? But don't look at the man. Don't look at me. Look at the person who said it. God is the one who said, "I'm gonna save you guys." So it's not James is gonna save us, is God is the one saving us. James is just the instrument.

So those are the books that fulfill all that criterion. Those are the books. There's no other books that fulfill that criterion. Correct. Lodiceans. Correct. The answer is yes. It did not fulfill the qualities that are being included. That letter is lost, okay? And the reason it was lost is because it was not a part of Scripture.

And the reason it was not a part of Scripture, the reason it's not a part of Scripture is because there were many copies of it. When you look at one of the attributes of what was Scripture, when they knew it was Scripture, they were like, "OMG, this is Scripture.

Everyone needs it. Make copies." That was what they did. That's just what they did. Like beginning with the Old Testament, it's not like we get to the New Testament, like there's this new practice, right? If it's God's Word, copy it accurately and copy a lot of it and give it to people.

That's what they did. With that letter, it didn't happen. And there were other letters too. Didn't happen, right? So that's how we know. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. That all Scripture is God's Word and that it's also spoken by men? Is that... Okay. That's a good question. I mean, I would answer it like this.

The idea of direct revelation is not new. It's not a new idea. When it comes to the New Testament, it's not like we got this new idea here, right? Prophets were already doing it. Isaiah said this, right? Jeremiah said this. Joel said this. So it's not like new. So when you get to the New Testament, it's not like, "Well, let's try this new idea of direct revelation." So that's not the case, right?

It's already been done, right? Direct revelation has already been done, right? So Paul says, "We're ministers of the new covenant." So remember, the Old Covenant, right? You have redemption. We're free from Egypt. And then after we're free from Egypt, let me tell you about salvation. Let me tell you about what you're gonna do.

Compilation of documents. Compilation of instructions. Same pattern in the New Testament. Paul says, "We're ministers of the new covenant." We're ministers of the new covenant, right? So then he gets direct revelation. Then he has to write the New Testament, and so do some of the other apostles, right? So this idea of direct revelation, I would say, kind of like the underpinning of it, the underpinning is that it is not a novel idea, right?

Once you understand that it's not a novel idea, it really helps to accept the fact that it happened in the New Testament, right? You couple that with the fact that Jesus said this was going to happen. So it hinges on Christ. The canon hinges on Christ, right? Like our salvation, I mean, everything about our salvation hinges on Christ, so does the canon, right?

And I am going to trust the guy who rose from the dead over the scholar over here, right? G.K. Chesterton said, "We need education to help us from the intellectual elite." Right? That's very interesting, right? Because you would think that the intellectual elite will give you truth, but we need education to guard ourselves from the intellectual elite, right?

I look at Christ, he rose from the dead, he said this is gonna happen. It's not anything new. I'm completely fine with it. One other thing, well one other thing. I also look at the nature of God. If God said that he can make anything happen, that's despite sinful man.

Despite sinful man, he can make anything happen. Can he form the New Testament canon? No problem. Easy peasy. Right? Well when you say exact, that could be a term of art, right? It is via the Holy Spirit. It's clear that they were cognizant when they were receiving tradition or when they were receiving direct revelation.

They were apparently cognizant of that. So that's as exact as I think we can get to. That they knew and that it was via the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Great question. Great question. Tacitus. Tacitus describes Jesus and his miracles. The record of the Christian martyrs also. Because although no one took down their testimony, it is clear that they were killed because they were Christians.

And it is clear that they wouldn't die if they denied their faith. Yet they died. So though speaking, they live. Though killed, they are conquerors. There's one other one. I forget. Lucian. Lucian. Anyone else? I love these questions. Yes. Great question. Great question. Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit. And the reason I know, the reason, one of the major reasons I know is my study of the Gospels.

After I studied Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, like there is so much design. So much like just impeccable intentionality and design with each of the Gospels. Right? You could ask me this. You could ask me this, right? How do I know that that my my iPhone 11 Pro, this is iPhone 6, I'm just saying iPhone.

My iPhone 11, how do I know that someone made this? How do I know that someone, how do I know that someone just didn't spill like a bunch of tools and then this just like popped up out of nowhere? Right? I'd be like, well let me see. I can load apps here.

Like I, you know what I mean? I mean to tell you, right, when I study Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and I study the precision and the design in which each of the Gospels are written in their respective viewpoints, I see the mark of God. It just kind of like screams it in the same way Apple designed an iPhone.

And like to me, in an even more, in an even more precise way. Yeah. So I would say firstly, Jesus said so in John 14 and John chapter 16. And secondarily, the divine qualities that I get from, that I see from studying the Scriptures. That that would be my answer to that.

Great questions, by the way. Great questions. I want you to ask me these questions because I want everyone to leave here with like, God's Word is God's Word. And I, and if you have a question about something, I guarantee you someone else has a question. Don't be afraid of man.

Don't be like, oh, like they're gonna think I'm a bad Christian. No one's gonna think you're a bad Christian, okay? If you don't ask me a question and you have a question, I'm gonna think you're a bad Christian. So just ask me that question. That's right. All right. Any other questions?

Yes. Sorry, the non-apostle what? Okay, so yes. So Hebrew was thought to have Pauline authorship from a very early point on. Like, the general consensus is now we don't know for sure. Early on, it was thought to have Pauline authorship. So that takes that out. James was the brother of Jesus.

So he was a leader, right? And when you think like apostles, when you think like, like it's not necessarily the people that were with Jesus. Like, James is the brother of Jesus, half-brother. So he was the recognized leader of Jerusalem from early on, right? So he wasn't necessarily with one of the twelve.

But then he's, depending on how you define it, he fits a definition of a canonical apostle, okay? Mark was known as a son of Peter in 1st Peter 5. So, and even if you look at the Gospel of Mark, like, there's kind of this like Peter-like domination with respect to how he's portrayed and when he's portrayed that clearly showed his association with the apostle Peter, right?

But other than that, 1st Peter 5. I mean, he calls him his son, right? Mark, James. Oh, Jude is also a brother. Jude is also a brother. So it's Mark, James, Jude. Hebrews. What am I leaving out here? Oh, Luke. Sorry, yeah, Luke. I was like, what am I leaving out?

Luke was known as a close traveling companion of Paul. That's, that's in Acts. That's, I think that's on your sheet, yeah. Colossians 4, 2nd Timothy 4, and Philemon. Yeah. So it's very well likely that, like, it doesn't have to be even that an apostle like sat there and he wrote it, right?

Even like a Jeremiah, oh gosh, he was, was it Jeremiah Baruch, right? Yeah, Jeremiah Baruch, right? It wasn't necessarily that. I don't, I won't get this wrong. Was it Isaiah or Jeremiah? Jeremiah. It was Jeremiah. Yeah, it's Jeremiah. So it wasn't necessarily that, like, he had to have sat there and then penned it.

Like, that, that, that's not necessarily what has to happen for, to have, like, an apostolic origin, right? Paul could have even dictated some of this stuff to Luke, right? Like, so, and so, like, this is, this is what happened. This is what I got received from the Lord. Could have easily had done that.

That, that wouldn't have been too hard. So, and remember, Paul was a lay convert, but he received from the Lord Jesus. He received it in the same way that, like, Moses wasn't around for the creation of the world, but he received Genesis. Like, he wasn't there to witness, oh God, you're doing all this great stuff, and there's Adam, but he received it.

He wrote about it because he received it from God, right? So you don't have to necessarily witness the event, right? You don't think this, you just need to be a part of, like, Jesus's direct, when John 14, and John chapter 14, and John chapter 16, you need to be a part of that group, right?

And obviously, the other two that I mentioned, the divine qualities and the corporate reception, because his sheep hear his voice, right? Yes. Oh. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I think you take them piece by piece. I think you take them piece by piece. So, if you want to talk about a tribe that was annihilated, the biblical definition of annihilated doesn't necessarily mean that every single one of its, every single one of the persons in the tribe is killed and murdered.

That's not necessarily the case. Annihilation means, for all intensive purposes of being a people group, you are no longer a people group. That's, that's what annihilation means. So, you can still have, like, one dude, and then he can, like, he can still propagate his DNA into, like, you know, and find it, like, way later on.

So, with respect to anything that's, like, a seeming inconsistency, like, that would be that example, and then depending on which other example that we're talking about, I would take it piece by piece. With respect to measurements or geographical regions or anything like that, there were a lot of things that, in certain points in history, that were thought to be a certain way, that turned out to be different later on, right?

One example that I can think of that I don't remember the chapter in Psalms right now, but it's, he spins the earth on its, like, a wheel, like, I'll have to find it, right? But for a long time, science thought the earth was flat. I mean, that's just all of science, that the earth was flat, right?

Psalms portrayed something differently, right? Now, later on, we learn that the earth is actually not flat, right? So, there are things like that I think the Bible has vindicated over time, that I think certain things that, when you look, like, at a static moment, oh, it seems like the Bible is incorrect, but later on, the Bible seems to outlive its pallbearers, so to speak, right?

So, the Bible has a history of kind of doing that. So, my answer to that would be, depending on, like, what we're talking about, I would tackle it differently. I, you know, it just depends on what we're talking about, so, yeah. You know, I actually would, and I actually would, because there is a communion of consciousness, and I'm not saying it's, like, the greatest factor, but I definitely think it's a good factor that, throughout time, the saints have seen these books as the authoritative Word of God, and if His sheep hear His voice, then having a communion of consciousness is consistent with Jesus saying, "My sheep hear my voice." So, yes, I would say that that is a great witness to the 27 books that we have.

Great, great witness. Sure. Not primarily. Not primarily. Correct, correct. Great question. That's a great question. Whenever you get to a passage, whenever you get to a passage, right, one of the first things that you need to do is you need to understand what Jesus is actually saying to the hearer, or the author's, like, what is actually being told to the hearer, right, first, before you pluck yourself in the situation, right?

Because if you pluck yourself in the situation, right, it's not gonna make the, you're not interpreting it correctly, right? So, before we understand something individually, the first thing that we need to understand is what is being said objectively? What is being said objectively? And objectively, Jesus is speaking to his dudes, I mean, his men, right, and he's saying, "Look, Holy Spirit's gonna come.

The better I go. Holy Spirit's gonna come. He's gonna teach you all things. He's gonna guide you into all things. He's gonna teach you all truth." That is the first thing that he's saying to his men, right? And so, that is the first interpretation. That is, that is the first thing that we need to glean off, because that is the primary thing that he's saying, right?

After that, after that, there are other verses that speak about us having the mind of Christ, us understanding all truth, us having this light. Like, there's passages then that refer to us. So, I look at those passages that refer to the individual, then when I look back at John chapter 14 and John chapter 16, ah, okay, I can see what he means.

The Holy Spirit's gonna behave this way with his men. It's gonna behave in a similar way with me, right? But I look also at Jude, who says, "The faith was once for all delivered to the saints." It's already delivered to the saints. It's already delivered, right? How does the Holy Spirit behave with me?

He doesn't write the New Testament with me. He wrote it with them. He wrote it with me. So, yeah, great question. That's a great question. Again, we're analogia scriptura, right? Scripture upon scripture upon scripture, right? Yes. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah. Yeah. So, I'm not gonna say that it's like the devil himself, because the devil is not, he can't be everywhere at once, right?

But is it his influence? Is it his influence? Yeah, because sin works best because it seems sublime. It seems morally pure. Sin seems morally pure, right? If the devil appeared to you and me, like in a pitchfork, like with horns and with like a tail, it's like, "Dude, yeah, I'm not gonna follow anything you say," right?

But if it appears as an angel of light, okay, then I might believe you. I might actually, because you, you, you, you looked the part. You looked the part, right? And that's why I go back. That's why I go back. Subjective experience is not the final criterion for what's the canon, see?

Your friend, he's not stating it in this way, but what he's saying is, subjectively, because I feel this way, it must be the Word of God. That's what he's saying. He's not, again, he's not articulating it that way, but that is essentially what he's saying. The Word of God impresses itself upon its believers, right?

And you know the Word of God is the Word of God when you go back to Christ. You go back to the person of Christ, right? He never said that Joseph Smith was gonna write New Testament. Never said that. Search all of his words. He never said, you know, 1,600 years later or whatever it is, there's gonna be some dude in like the Zion area that's gonna, I'm gonna give him like more, no, he never said that, right?

In fact, Jude says the opposite. It was once for all delivered to the saints. So what, like you and I can feel one way, but what matters is how does God feel? I mean, there are times in my life before I was a Christian where I thought certain things were okay.

I don't think they're okay anymore, right? Same, I would like, it's, it's a matter of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity. Yeah, a matter of, quite frankly, a matter of reason versus a matter of emotion. Yes. That's a great question. That's a great question. I can't deny someone's feelings, right?

So if someone were to argue with me and say, "Well, I feel this way," right? I can't deny your feelings, right? But I would ask that person, I would ask that person, given that you feel the way that you do, given that you, are there people in the world, not you, I'm not talking about you, this is what I would say to the Mormon, I'm not talking about you because you, you, you're from God and you got it, I get it, but are there people in this world who are deceived?

Yes. He would say yes, right? Okay. Are there people in this world who are deceived but who don't think they are deceived? Answer would be yes, right? And do those people think I could never be deceived? There are people who think that, like, other people are deceived but not me, right?

The Mormon guy would say yes, right? Okay. So he, other people are deceived but I'm not deceived, okay. But it's not you, right? No, no, it's not me, it's not me, okay. How do you know that? Well, because I feel this way. But this guy feels that way, right?

This guy feels that way. This girl feels that way, right? Okay, okay. So then how do we know? How do we know? You say two things, say two things, or generally two things. We don't know, then, okay, that's pretty hopeless, right? We just can't know? Like, it doesn't sound like God to me.

The God I know sounds like he would want his children to know. So this is a new God that you're preaching, so I, you know, like, if he says we don't know, then that's, that's, that's, okay, we don't know, right? The other thing he would say, the other thing that he would say is he would appeal to someone.

We know because some higher authority. Oh, we know because of some higher authority. Who is your higher authority? Joseph Smith? Who is he gonna say? Jesus? And then this applies to anyone. Buddha? Like, who is your higher authority, right? If he says Jesus, then I go down, I go down like history, right?

If he says Jesus, right? If he says Joseph Smith, okay, you believe in Joseph Smith, what can I do? Like, that's, that's fundamental to you, right? I believe in Jesus. Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead. He's dead, isn't he? He's dead, yeah. Did he make anyone else rise from the dead?

No. Okay. I mean, I don't know what to tell you, bro, like, Jesus rose from the dead, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna go with Jesus. I don't know, I'm gonna go with the guy that rose from the dead, so, I mean, it really hinges upon that. It really does hinge upon the person of Christ.

Yeah. That's how, I would roughly go about in that way. I would bring it back to Jesus. Great questions. If you think of a question, you know where I go to church. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much.