How and when was the New Testament canon put together?

I don't know why Michael feels the need to make the point the first Christians believed in written teaching.  The earliest writer Paul in 2Thess says stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.  The earliest Christian writer--Paul, says the truth is transmitted in both oral tradition and in written tradition.  Michael real dilemma is  in explaining why he believes oral tradition dies out and at what point, and at what point the written tradition  stops, sealing a written canon.  The seed of the plant idea can apply to the church itself.  Instead of dealing with what we have he goes into the gnostic crap.  And Michael employs the church fathers when he has no authority but the Church for who and what the church fathers are.  Yet he rejects the Church that gives us that.  Then he talks about what writing finish the Old Testament narrative without crediting the tradition from which we get an OT canon.

"so then that just shows you that this idea of a of a sacred collection of writings is not a late idea it's too sort of born up within the Christian movement it grows naturally innately from within "

You are describing Sacred Tradition

"is he really true that he was only in the 4th century that the church decided we're gonna pick those four Gospels and not you know so the Gnostic Gospels like Thomas"

Actually Catholics will say that the Church accepted all four gospels by the early 2nd century. Yet there was not universal agreement on the other writings, all 27 as we have them today, no more, no less, until the late 4th century. The bible doesn't list these 27 books. Another authority, the Church, fallible men meeting together determined the canon. The only way fallible men can make no error, is if they were led in their repeated decisions by the Holy Spirit. And that is Christ's promise" : to lead his Church to *all truth. That's why we can also trust these early Christians understood the Gospel when they went to Church, attending Mass, where they all believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. Nothing symbolic only to be found in their beliefs.

"the Church Fathers make it very clear that we're using these four"

And WHO were these Church Fathers? They were all Catholic. And when they went to Church on Sunday, they all professed that the Lord's Supper was literal: the bread and wine became the resurrected body and blood of Christ. We can start early with St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John :

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Why be inconsistent and trust these Church fathers on what they believed to be canonical NT books, but distrust them in their universal belief on the Lord's Supper?

"we find and again the canonical Gospels outmatch the apocryphal ones in great numbers and so"

Have to be careful here with this criteria of determining canonicity. One would need to apply it to each and every NT book. And note, scripture itself doesn't state that this is a criteria anywhere. So there is an man-made authority that you are deferring to ultimately, that determined which is, and is not, scripture.

"which gospel is an early Christianity look like they're finishing the Old Testament story "

So too, this criteria is found nowhere in scripture. This criteria comes from another authority man. And even if a writing finished an OT story, what of that on its own, makes it "inspired" ?

St. Thomas Gospel : what authority do you defer to that says to be scripture, a writing had to be written in the 1st century? Again, this criteria is found no where in scripture.

You mention these folks below. We should be clear who there were and what else they believed, especially as you cite them as important figures in determining that there was early on, only four gospels. They both believed that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass

"St. Clement of Alexandria" - Catholic theologian in Alexandria

"Irenaeus" - Catholic Bishop of Lyon France

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

To the point at the end. Most definitely... YES. Evangelical's should study the historical development of the canon and ask these additional questions:

- WHO determined the canon ?
- WHAT else did they believe and profess ?
- WHY was the NT canon put together ?
- WHERE did they meet ?
- WHEN did they do so ?
- HOW - by criteria did they use to determine what was and was not NT scripture?

Doing so raises risks as many have learned including Francis Beckwith. This is reflected in the words of John Henry Newman:

""To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"

Bishop Melito first one.
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or the Hebrew Tanakh Bible or Dead sea scrolls...

Yeah keep lying

Thank you dear brother. God bless you.

Our Heavenly Father said love thy God with all thy strength and do not worship false gods or idols. False gods are fallen angels who wanted to be worship as gods including subliminal Santa Revelation Chapters 1 14 Old Testament and the archangel Gabriel

Mary was compromised by the archangel Gabriel of a false god mentioned in Our Heavenly Father commandments and was given the Roman's synagogues and Mary Madeleine Churchs and other branches of her own. NO one may claim his Temple of worship as their own not even his prophets

Thank you Catholic Church for compiling the canon and faithfully copying it for centuries so that these two men can have the Bible.

What is it with you guys and the letter 't'?

Athanasius put all this work into compiling a list of 27 books and giving reasons for it, and modern Catholics are like "the church says so". Sheesh people.

he just dodges. stop evading and answer

"The heresy of Orthodoxy" How can someone even spout that depraved nonsense haha. It's basically an oxymoron

He seems very comfortable citing Church acceptance of the synoptic gospels as proof of them qualifying as Scripture.

Would he be as comfortable accepting other widely held doctrines in the early Church? Such as, forgiveness of sins through baptism? Or the nature of the Eucharist?

The Authorities of church, Papa Dmaso 382

How & When NT Canon put together ?
10 minutes later........
????

He mentions Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian. Were they protestants?

It was put together, not written, by Catholics, the early church fathers. Like St. Jerome.

I read the douay rheims bible, came out in 1582 and 1609. The protestant KJV came out in 1611.

The only writings we have from Christians in the first century that were ever considered Scripture are the 27 books in the New Testament that we have today :-)

How sad to see the myriad replies and comments from those who reject the Word of God or want to add or take away. It is not men who determine the Canon. It is God, for they are God-breathed. There can be no writers led by the Holy Spirit to write scripture after the Apostles for they would not be apostles. They did not know or see the Lord Christ Jesus and therefore have the qualifications of an apostle according to scripture. It's amazing to see comments containing assertions that the scriptures do not contain this information. It does. But I glory in watching heretics and others like, speaking with such ignorance. Let it be known that if you do not recognize the 27 of the new and 39 of the Old you must go to the Lord and ask for wisdom. Otherwise you have no standard of faith and practices nor a rule by which to live or know the Truth.

Do the false Gospels quote the Old Testament like The Four?

the point about which books focus on finishing the OT is a great point...

No matter what denomination we subscribe to, we obviously owe a great debt to The Catholic (Orthodox) Church for giving us The New Testament.

❤

So now depraved men and reformed theologist use personal hypothesis to explain 2000 years of history, what a bunch of heretics and weak men.

I like how that question is answered by councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome. Protestant canon is only backed by individuals

itd be nice if he answered the question, they address everything but the topic.

All of those “Fathers of the Church” happened to believe in the Eucharist.

How far or how big the marcion gospel make an impact on the Canon back then??

I wish you would include the historical dates on the canons and a timeline. This method would help others understand when the canons were written and when organized. Even the locations in the 1st century where the sources were written and published.

Bunch of strawman arguments from Calvinists….

No one is arguing the early church did not generally accept 4 gospels (although that was contested too)

Literally dozens of other books were heavily disputed well into the 4th century. This is proven by Eusebius stating explicitly a list of books that were disputed throughout the church, many of which are in the Orthodox NT today, and many of which (Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, St Paul’s third letter, Barnabas, Ignatius’ epistles written before revelation, the didache, etc.) are not.

There is no escaping the authoritative list of books chosen by the Orthodox Catholic bishops in councils.

To say otherwise is either said in ignorance, or delusion.

What church fathers are you referring too ?