How Did the New Testament Form?

All images are in public domain

[vcrsalesman]

There’s a Bishop hat on one side of your room and a fedora in the other. Seems symbolic of your neutral analysis of the subject

[dianeauger]

You should do a video on why Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and some Oriental churches all have different old testament cannons? It'd be really interesting.

[a.i.l]

I honestly can't tell what your religious beliefs are. That's a testament to your presentation, pun intended. Great stuff!

[ilghiz]

I struggling between listening to the presentation and listening to the music. I see this vid is 7 years old. You've made an awful lot of progress, keep going. Thank you for your work :))

[GaryFerrao]

I didn't realise the background music, until i read the comments. Now i can't unhear it coz it's too loud. Moral: read YouTube comments at your own risk.

[arte]

so Star Wars fans arguing what Star Wars material is canon and what is not, was not the first time people argued about that sort of thing?

[rev.j.rogerallen]

The background music so distracting and unnecessary.

[rev.j.rogerallen]

You did not mention the council of Carthage in AD 397 but other than that this is an excellent and factual presentation. I've been studying this and other related topics for the past 48 years. I don't know had you gain this knowledge at such a young age but I'm glad you did. Please keep teaching the historical truth. Thank you.

[stellijer]

One thing I've wondered is, when did the NT first start getting billed as "the inspired, inerrant Word of God?"

It seems the earliest concept was that it was a collection of relevant writings, but only later got called "inspired, inerrant."

Such as the Epistles. Paul never made a claim to be speaking for God. He merely was writing ABOUT Christianity. Granted, they're important writings for early Christianity, but they didn't even make a claim to being of divine origin.

[MightyPursuit]

Popularity didn't have much to do with the forming of the New Testament. Some facts to back that up start with Clement 1 written in AD 95. Clement of Rome alluded to or referenced verses in 13 different New Testament books, just twenty to thirty years after they were written. That indicates they were in circulation very early on. Fast forward to 150 AD and Justin Martyr's writings will tell you that all the four gospels (and Revelation) were being read during Sunday services. We've also discovered the Muratorian fragment, dated 170 AD, which has a list of 21 of the books of the New Testament we use today. Origen later confirmed all 27 books in AD 250 in his writing Homiliae on Josuam. The two things that were the main factors in the canon, not mentioned in this video, are if the books were written by apostles and held in church tradition. Basically, were they written by eyewitnesses of Jesus and have they always been in use? This cumulative case would indicate the books were always divinely inspired, not the result of a popularity contest. Of the near 50 books that didn't make it in the Bible, none of them were written in the first century or in the lifetime of any eyewitness. What's in the New Testament today are the earliest writings we have, even agreed upon by atheist scholars.

[debbiemarquis]

Nothings change..they're still arguing...but over interpretation now....

[emotionalmodels]

You rock!!! Good stuff!
The music is a bit high, though

[EternitySoundDesign]

Music's a bit loud in the mix. interesting video none the less :) [ye, I know this is 8 years old... just binge watching all your videos, very interesting stuff]

[espositogregory]

I was skimming the search results for this topic and didn’t feel I could get an objective & thoughtful answer, until I saw yours. It cannot be expressed enough how important the work of unbiased research for humanity, or haw much your masterfuy produced content is.
Thank

[jdd]

The part people here seem to be missing is that the no one knows who wrote the gospels and the name assigned to them are just that, assigned names. They are written by unknown authors and ascribed to be the words of those apostles, but there is no proof of their association with those purported people.

[patrickf.]

As some of the previous comments have mentioned, Religion For Breakfast's production values have improved over the years (sound mixing, camera placement, and editing); the writing has remained consistently good in any event. Everybody has their own wish list for future episodes of study: mine is how the Book of Revelation got included in the New Testament. It just seems not only extremely different in terms of style and content from the rest of the NT but so much more out the mainstream than other books that did not get included in the NT. That, and it is ridiculously open to almost any kind of interpretation. It does make good fodder for certain horror films, though. Thanks again for this video.
Pat, in Chicago

[richardcheek]

Not being included in the Canon did not mean that no other book was allowed, it meant that these were indisputably holy scripture for the church, and other books could be read and taken as inspiring, but not binding on all Christians.

[wandering-wisp]

I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy this channel. I found it by chance :) My partner and I are both really interested in the history of religion, in mythology and theology. Your channel is exactly what youtube needs more of. Keep up the good work ;)

[rationaltrekker]

I am a graduate of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and I am really appreciating your videos. There are a few very minor details where you say something different, but even those are more matters of perspective than fact, and differences in perspective are to be expected. I've watched this one, and your video on Marcion and your video on the Gnostic sects.

[PADARM]

Long story short, the New Testament is a compilation of best sellers from a pre-selected collection of books made by the bishops