(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] Second Peter, chapter number one, the Bible reads, Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our savior, Jesus Christ. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue, whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, charity. For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that you shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Be that lacketh these things is blind and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore, the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure, where if you do these things, you shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Wherefore, I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance, knowing that shortly I must put off this, my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me. Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able, after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy, where unto you do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, and to the day dawn and the day star rise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures have any private interpretation, but the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Let's pray, dear Lord God, we thank you for everything you blessed us with, thank you for the opportunity to assemble here for the preaching of your word, and just ask that you would meet with us here now this morning, please bless the pastor from here with your Holy Spirit, and please bless the preaching, in Jesus' name we pray, amen. Amen. Okay, we're in 2 Peter chapter number one this morning, and what I'm gonna preach on this morning is the writing of the New Testament, the writing of the New Testament. It's important to understand how we as Christians received our New Testament. We would consider ourselves to be Bible-believing Christians but more specifically, we're New Testament Christians, and so our faith is largely based upon the New Testament writings, and it's important for us to know how it came about, how it was constructed, how was it that we received it, and the reason for that is because today in 2024, you have a lot of false religions, cults, Christians so-called who are taking credit for giving us the New Testament, and in fact, one of the major things that you hear on the internet a lot when it comes to the subject is Catholics often saying, well, we gave you the Bible, right? This is one of the most major gaslighting statements of the Roman Catholic Church. They'll constantly say, you know, you quote scriptures refuting their beliefs, you quote scriptures refuting their doctrines, you go to what the Bible says, and they often, you know, often respond with, yeah, but we gave you the Bible. And unfortunately, you know, a lot of Christians are very much uneducated in this particular subject. They don't really know how to respond to that, you know, especially when you have Catholics constantly coming with historical evidence as to how they were the ones responsible for canonizing the Bible, how they're the ones responsible for getting a council together in the latter end of the third century to, you know, come to a conclusion of what deserves to be in the Bible, what is God's word, and so when Christians are confronted with this, they often think to themselves, well, you're not saying, you know, and it's true, and I agree with that, you know, but I will say this is that they're lying, and here's the thing is that when it comes to, you know, what is the truth when it comes to the word of God, we don't need to go to historical facts because we have the greatest historical document right here. We have the word of God. The internal evidence of the Bible is proof that it's God's word, and it's proof that we know the truth because we can all go to the word of God and prove our doctrines beyond a shadow of a doubt what the Bible is saying. We don't need to go to some council or to some Roman Catholic institution to lend veracity as to who's the person or who are the people, the church that gave us the Bible, and so often I've gotten into conversations with Catholics about this subject many a times, and honestly, at the end of the day, a lot of them don't even believe that. They're just simply repeating and parroting what other Catholic apologists say, and in fact, they're not even being 100% honest because really what they mean by we gave you the Bible, they're actually implying that they gave us the canonization of the New Testament. I don't know if you know this, but the New Testament is a smaller percentage of the Old Testament, which is also the Bible, and so the Old Testament already existed prior to the Roman Catholic Church ever coming into existence. It was already in circulation in Israel. It was being read in synagogues, being used by believers prior to the inception of Christianity in the first century AD, and so it's important for us to kind of peel through those lies and recognize how is it that we got the New Testament. Look at 2 Peter chapter one, verse 20. Probably one of the most important passages regarding this subject that says, knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Now obviously, this is referring to how we received the Old Testament scriptures. Peter's writing about the Old Testament such as the major prophets, the minor prophets, the historical books, the word of God that was given to holy men of God in Israel to pen down the scriptures, but the same exact pattern is followed in the New Testament as well, okay. Now the question is, who wrote the New Testament? Well we see there, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Now in the Old Testament, we often get names of people who wrote the Bible, but sometimes we don't. And guess what, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who gave it to us, or who wrote it, should I say. You say, why is that? Because at the end of the day, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It's profitable for doctrine, for proof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness. Men were used as instruments to pen down the scriptures, but at the end of the day, the author of the Bible is God himself, okay. Now here's the thing is that when it comes to the New Testament, you know, there's obviously indicators of who gave us the word of God, and we could say it was the apostles, right, with a few exceptions that I'll cover later on in this sermon. But let me just say this is that, you know, we don't wanna go too far into, oh man, the apostles are the ones who gave us the Bible, and therefore, you know, it's only an apostle, therefore, all the apostles have all this authority, and since they trained up these other men that end up becoming Catholic or whatever, therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate institution because it was passed out by apostles, you know, apostolic succession is what they call it. Because at the end of the day, here's the thing, folks, is that according to the Bible, the word of God is actually more authoritative than an apostle, to a certain extent. You say, well, how do you know that? Well, look at verse 16, if you would. This is the apostle Peter speaking, you know, their pope, apparently, right? It says, for we have not followed cunningly devised fables, you know, like man's tradition, by the way, when we may known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Now, that is pretty strong evidence right there, right? They were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ, they saw with their own eyes. It says in verse 17, for he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, and this voice which came from heaven we heard when we were with him in the Holy Mount. So they're there with Jesus Christ, they're hearing the voice from heaven, they're having this supernatural experience, it's a very valid indication that they know what they're talking about, but look at verse 19, if you would, he says, we have also a more sure word of prophecy, what is he talking about? The Bible, and he's saying that the word of God is more sure than even their eyewitnesses. Now, their eyewitnesses are valid, right? Because they were there and the apostles aren't lying, however, he's essentially showing us that when it comes to authority, you need to ultimately go with the word of God, okay? Because obviously you could have some person claiming to be an apostle, claiming that they were eyewitnesses, or claiming that they have the authority, right? And at that point, if you hold this position that they have authority because they're apostles, well, if they're teaching something that is extra biblical, and you think they have more authority than God's word, then at that point, the word of God is made null and void. And this is essentially what the Roman Catholic Church has done, it places the traditions of man above the word of God. Now, they won't tell you that. They're gonna say they're in conjunction one with another that they agree together, but let's just be 100% honest, my friends, when you look at the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and their beliefs, and you pair it up with the word of God, you see that there are some blatant contradictions between the two. And when you confront them with that, I say, well, these are traditions that were given to us by the apostles. Well, here's my question, which apostle? Because the apostles that wrote this agree with this, not with whatever so-called tradition they gave you, okay? And this is why we say that the word of God is our what? Final authority. Why, because it's the more sure word of prophecy. And by the way, let me just chase a rabbit here. This is why it's important that we don't just believe every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the internet that says they had a dream about some prophecy, about the end of the world, about a 50-foot Jesus, about just any type of prophetic statement, because at the end of the day, we side with the word of God, okay? Thy testimonies, O Lord, are my delight, and listen to this, my counselors. So we wanna prove all things whole fast, that which is good, we have to go to the word of God. So he says we have a more sure word of prophecy, where unto you do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, unto the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts, the Bible tells us. Turn with me, if you would, to Revelation chapter nine. Revelation chapter nine, if you would. Let me read to you from Ephesians chapter two, on the same subject of who wrote the New Testament. Obviously, we know that the vast majority of them are apostles, with maybe the exception of Luke. We don't necessarily know if he was an apostle. We know that he wrote the book of Luke. And with the exception of the latter end of the book of John, and I'll get into that later on. But at the end of the day, the Bible tells us, in Ephesians chapter two, verse 20, you don't have to turn there, that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. So if we were to summarize the entire Bible as far as who are the earthly writers responsible for it, we would say it's the apostles and the prophets, right? Prophets being the Old Testament, men who are responsible for being that instrument, New Testament being the apostles. And let me say this, but Jesus Christ though, himself, is the chief cornerstone. He's the one who's the foundation of all that. So what does that mean? That means if we find some apocryphal reading that claims to be a part of the Old Testament, but it contradicts the foundation, we throw it out. Because the apostle is authoritative. The prophet is authoritative as long as it coincides with the foundation, because it's built upon the foundation. You understand what I'm saying? We don't just say, well, you know, it's this many years old, it predates the New Testament writings, and it was found in a cave somewhere, and because it has dust on it, it's, you know, and it says it's God's word, then it must be God's word. I mean, this person, Maccabees, has to be God's word or something. But hold on a second, is it built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ? Does it contradict? Because when we look at the Old Testament scriptures, we see that they actually coincide 100% of the time with the apostles preaching in the New Testament, with Jesus Christ preaching in the New Testament. They all line up, you understand? And so we're built upon this foundation, and we're thankful for the apostles, we're thankful for the prophets, but it's because of the fact that they're in line with the foundation, which is Jesus Christ. Now, so who wrote the Bible? Well, who wrote the New Testament? The apostles, with the exception of maybe a few portions of the New Testament. But at the end of the day, the person mainly responsible for the New Testament is God himself. And it's important, folks, that we don't put too much emphasis on the man who wrote it. Well, more so on God, right? Who's the actual author. Why? Well, because then people start navel-gazing into, well, you know, we don't know if this man was even, you know, educated enough or something to even write the scriptures or what kind of background he had. Because at the end of the day, God just used holy men of God to speak, okay? Not necessarily the most educated. He used fishermen, right? To turn the world upside down. And so it doesn't necessarily mean what the conduit is to write the word of God. It's who God selects and inspires to pen those scriptures down. He said, well, how do we know that those people didn't make mistakes, though? Well, I'll tell you how. Because we believe in the preservation of scripture. And the providential hand of God over the prophets and the apostles, and the fact that God tells us that his word will abide forever. And if the Bible's telling us that man should not live by bread alone, but by everywhere that proceed out of the mouth of God, then that's the promise that we can rest upon, knowing full well that God has faithfully preserved his word throughout the ages, no matter the conduit that he used to do so. Now, the second point that I want to make in this sermon, in this regard, is in what language was the New Testament written, okay? Now, let me just break it to you real quick. It wasn't written in English. I hope you didn't think that, okay? So just, you know, let's not go too extreme to the other end and start thinking that God was speaking in King James language or something. Now, here's the thing, is that we are King James only-est, and I believe, we believe, that the King James Bible is the inspired, preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. It is the superior word of God in English, and all the modern versions fall majorly short. They're very unfaithful to the original text, okay, specifically in the New Testament. But here's the thing, it's important for us to know what language the New Testament was written in, and that is that there are various indicators, internal indicators, that tell us the New Testament was obviously written in Greek. Now, you know, it doesn't take much to see that, to know that, you know, you shouldn't struggle with that. It's not like, what, I can't, how, you know? I mean, this is pretty much widely accepted as being the truth, and you could look at this from an internal perspective, even in the English King James Bible that the original language was in Greek, but also just historically as well, if you wanna take it that far. Now, the reason that's important is because people are trying to say that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, and there's this movement where you have these Judaizers trying to promote people going back under the law and trying to claim that Jesus Christ only spoke Hebrew, and that originally the New Testament was written in Hebrew, and they're trying to get people back to this Hebrew roots-type movement, which is a false cult, teaches a false gospel, and they're attacking the language, but here's the thing is that it's just historically biblically inaccurate to say that, okay? Now, how do we know that? You say, well, you know, you're making a pretty blanket statement there, Pastor. How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was written in Greek? Well, the names of the regions and people that are being addressed are in Greek. I mean, that's pretty obvious right then and there. Are you really gonna sit there and tell me that the letter that was written to the Thessalonians was written in Hebrew? So Hebrew was just enforced in all these Greek-speaking regions? I mean, let's just be honest. The vast majority of the people and churches and regions that are being talked to, written to, are Greek regions. Church at Thessalonica, the Corinthian church, the church at Philippi. Just look at the very names of the people, Philemon. These are Greek speakers. He said, well, hold on a second. Well, what about the book of Hebrews, though? Well, another thing that people get confused about when it comes to this particular argument is that because we live in America, we think that everyone in the ancient world only spoke one language. You know, because most people in America only speak one language. Now, that's changing because us Mexicans are taking over, amen. We're speaking English and Spanish. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of people around the world speak more than one language, more than two languages. And I personally believe that Jesus Christ probably spoke multiple languages. I would say at least three. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And to say that he didn't speak Greek because he was a Jew, he didn't speak Greek because, you know, that wasn't a part of his culture or he grew up in a Jewish home, is to say that I can't speak English because my background is Mexican or something. Oh, no, your mom is Mexican. You grew up in a Mexican home. You didn't speak English for sure, okay? It's nonsense. And here's the thing. I don't know if you know this, but historically, Greek was the lingua franca of that day. It would be considered like English today where English is the most predominant language all around the world, not just in America. Just a lot of people around the world speak English when like manner, that's what Greek was in the ancient world. It was something that was widely used, yes, even in Israel, okay? It was used in the nations surrounding it. And of course, you can look at historically, Alexander the Great, the Hellenistic era, where that was the reason why that spread. Greek culture was spreading. The Greek language was spreading. Greek literature was spreading. And so people are essentially learning Greek. And it's just not an anomaly to understand that people spoke multiple languages and that Greek was the primary language that was spoken by the vast majority of people. Now, that's not to say that people didn't speak Hebrew or that Jesus' heart language wasn't Aramaic or Hebrew. Obviously, we have instances where he does that, right? But at the end of the day, the New Testament was written in Greek and we can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, let me read to you from John chapter five, verse two, before we go to Revelation. It says in John chapter five, verse two, now there is that Jerusalem by the sheep market, a pool, which is called, listen to this, in the Hebrew tongue, but Sada having five porches. Now, people can make the argument, well, yeah, you know, the epistles and maybe the book of Acts and all these other books, yeah, maybe they're written in Greek, but for sure, the gospels were written in Hebrew because those guys were Jewish, for sure. Well, Paul was Jewish too, okay? He's a Benjamite, actually. And they'll say, you know, oh, the gospels, for sure. But here we have an example in the book of John where he's talking about the sheep market pool and he says that it's called in the Hebrew tongue, but Sada. Now, if it's written in Hebrew, why should you have to translate that? You know, it's just like now there's that Jerusalem by the sheep market, but Sada, which is called in the Hebrew tongue, but Sada. Obviously, he's translating it because it's not written in Hebrew. He's explaining what the Hebrew word for, the Greek word that's being used there, or the Greek description that's used there, he's giving the interpretation of it. Also in Acts 21, verse 40, it says, and when he, referring to Paul, excuse me, when he, referring to the soldier that's next to Paul, had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and beckoned with him the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying. So obviously, this is not written in Hebrew, as indicated by the fact that he is specifically saying that he's speaking in the Hebrew tongue. That would be completely unnecessary information if it was already in Hebrew, okay? Now look at Revelation 9, if you would, Revelation 9, and verse number 11. This should be a non-issue, but sometimes it is. People just have this misconception that the apostles were Jews, and therefore they only spoke Hebrew. But look at this, in Revelation 9, verse 11, and they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. So how could this be written in Hebrew if it's specifically telling us the Hebrew name of Apollyon? Go to Revelation 1, if you would, Revelation 1. Look at Revelation chapter 1. And what I'm gonna show you will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's written in Greek, and that Jesus Christ spoke Greek. And if you don't believe this, I just don't know what to tell you. Look at verse eight, I am Alpha and Omega. Now I don't know Hebrew, I know some Greek. I know the Greek alphabet, I can read Greek, I'm reading through the Greek New Testament. I don't know much about Hebrew, but I do know that Aleph is actually the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and I actually named, I gave my first son his middle name Aleph, so that's one of the reasons why, but it's not because of Hebrew, because I'm superstitious or something. I actually named him after the first eight verses of Psalm 119. But I know for a fact that it's not Alpha, though. And Alpha and Omega, I don't know if you know this, but these are the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet. And so number one, if this was supposedly written in Hebrew, what is this even doing here? And number two, Jesus Christ himself is utilizing the Greek alphabet to give a description to his Godhead, that he is the first and the last Alpha and Omega. The beginning and ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty. Now this should not be a controversial point, okay? It's very laid out throughout the word of God that it was obviously written in Greek, and let me just say this is that I don't believe that the English contradicts the original Greek, nor does the Greek contradict the English, nor do I think that the English is better than the Greek. It could have corrected or whatever. They both work in conjunction one with another. One was translated from the other. Both of them are the word of God. You can do your devotions in both languages if you know them. The point that I'm making here is that it wasn't written in Hebrew. Now the Old Testament was, with exceptions of Esther and portions of the Book of Daniel that are obviously written in the Aramaic, but again, it's not really a big point because of the fact that at the end of the day, it's just the word of God, and so it was written in the language, in the Greek language in Koine and Kini, actually the way you say it, Kini Greek, which is common Greek, okay? Not classical Greek, not ancient Greek that's more difficult to read, to understand. It's written in common Greek because it was written for the common man because the common man heard him gladly, okay? Very important. Now let me talk about something else here. Go to 2 Timothy 4, 2 Timothy 4 if you would. What is the chronology of when each book was written? Now if you go to the table of contents, in general, the New Testament will be given to you in your Bibles in chronological order, right? Because once we're done with Malachi, we jump right into Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are the gospels, the life of Jesus Christ, his ministry, his death, burial, and resurrection. Very just detailed information regarding those three and a half years. And then we get right into the book of Acts, which is short for the actions of the apostles, essentially talking about the inception of the New Testament churches, how they spread, and how eventually the word of God went into different regions, how the Great Commission was executed. And then you have the epistles, and of course, just chronologically speaking, it's just right to put the book of Revelation at the end, since it's the book of end times, okay? Eschatology, as people like to call it, that means just end times. But let's talk about the actual chronology of when they were written. So this isn't describing where they're supposed to be chronologically when it's actually, as far as the events are concerned, we're talking about when each book was written, okay? And this is just food for thought. It's important for us to know it's good knowledge because of the fact that automatically you think, well, obviously the gospels were written first. Because I just saw The Chosen. I saw an episode of The Chosen when they're just, Jesus is speaking, and then Matthew's in the corner writing it out, whatever he's saying. Because to them it's really important that these apostles are just super-accurate, so they gotta get it on hand. They don't believe 10, 20, 30, even 40 years later that God will divinely inspire them to recall those events. They think they have to write it down right then and there. Like as he's speaking, they're just like, slow down, slow down, you know, just, it's unrealistic. I saw one scene where Jesus is preaching, or he's talking to Nicodemus, and then you have John, he's just like, come on. I don't know if he's doing shorthand or whatever he's doing. He's like one of those transcribers in the courtroom that's just typing away or something like that. That's not the way it worked. Now they want it to be that way because in their fallible, finite minds, they think in order for these guys to be as accurate, they have to be there on the spot, writing it down in real time as it's happening. They don't realize that God is able to divinely inspire someone even hundreds of years later if you wanted to. And that didn't happen, but I'm saying hundreds of years later if you wanted to, to pen down those scriptures, because God is able to do that. He's God, he's the author, he knows all the events, and he can cause people to recall those events in real time, and so that's important. And so I don't believe that that's what's taking place. I don't think he's just, they're just penning down the scriptures as it's happening. I'm not saying that all of the instances are like that, I'm just saying the gospels in particular were not like that, okay? So they were not written first. He said what books of the New Testament were written first then? It's of my persuasion that the epistles of Paul are likely written first, okay? Now, how do you know that, Pastor? That's a pretty wild claim. How do you know, because he came like way after, and after all these events took place, how do you know that they were written first, excuse me? Well, let me just give you some thoughts here. Number one is the fact that when you read the epistles of Paul, none of them really have quotations from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Have you noticed that? None of them really have any quotations. So if those books were already in circulation, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were already written out, and people have copies of them, then obviously you would have the Apostle Paul saying as Jesus had said multiple times, or he's quoting Matthew, he's quoting John, he's quoting Luke, he's quoting Mark, but you don't have that in his epistles, okay? But secondly, look at 2 Timothy chapter four, verse six, it says, for I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them that love is appearing. Now obviously the strongest piece of evidence that the epistles were written first is the fact that he's not quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also we see that the epistles actually record from the time he later on began to write these letters, pretty much to the time when he's about to die, okay? Now, when is he writing these epistles? He's writing them during the events of the book of Acts. So in order for this to take place, the book of Acts would have to have been written after these events, because he's writing them during those events, you understand what I'm saying? So during those decades and years of ministry, he's writing these letters, these churches that he's addressing in the epistles are being talked about, well then thereafter is when the book of Acts obviously is written, showing us that if Paul wrote these epistles, it had to have been first, because what came before the book of Acts? The book of Luke, how do we know that? Well because Luke addressed Theophilus in the book of Luke, and then the book of Acts is a follow-up to Theophilus, so those books are attached, and since the book of Luke is part of the gospels, well that would show us that the epistles came first, and then potentially Acts, Luke, and the other gospels came after. Everyone following? So the epistles in my opinion are written first, as noted by the fact that it's void of any quotations of the gospels, but isn't it just wonderful, the fact that even though he's not quoting the gospels, that it's in conjunction with the gospels? I mean just think about this alone, right? First Thessalonians chapter four, and first Thessalonians chapter five, dealing with the rapture and the wrath of God, and how precise it is, how accurate it is to what? To Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Yeah, even the book of Revelation. Well how did he do that if he wasn't there? I'll tell you, because God wrote it. I mean I'm sure Paul would have been happy to have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but you know what, he's probably happier to have God. The one responsible for writing out the scriptures, because at the end of the day, you can't go wrong if the author's the one giving you the timeline and all the information. So when you read first Thessalonians chapter four, and first Thessalonians chapter five, and even second Thessalonians chapter two, you see wow, it actually matches up with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, even though it came first, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John came later. So the epistles of Paul are likely written first, and it's of my persuasion that James, Jude, first and second Peter are written second. Now go to second Peter chapter three if you would, second Peter chapter three, and then we will go to first Peter chapter five. Pastor, I want to know how to overcome depression. You can come back next week, okay? Right now you need to learn how you got the Bible. It's always good to just get some knowledge about the book that's in your hands that can help you overcome depression. So now you say why do you think that James, Jude, and first and second Peter are written second? Well look at second Peter chapter three verse 15. It says, an account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, also according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which some things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable rest. Listen to this, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction. Now the reason I believe this is proof that first and second Peter are written after the epistles is because of the fact that Peter is given credence to the writings of Paul, right? He says in all his epistles, and then he equates epistles with what? Scripture. Basically saying like this is the word of God, this is scripture, they twist his epistles the way they do the rest of the word of God. And so at this point, the epistles are already in circulation, the churches are already reading this because the Apostle Peter is speaking of them and he's saying this is what Paul wrote as also in all his epistles, they're twisting them the way they do the other scriptures, obviously lending credence to the authority of the epistles that are given by the Apostle Paul. Now look at first Peter chapter five, if you would. First Peter chapter five. Now let me ask you this, it is rhetorical by the way, if you know the answer. You know, when you're in the book of Acts, in general, geographically speaking, where's Peter throughout this time? In the book of Acts, he's in Jerusalem. And anybody who's read the book of Acts knows that Peter just had this inordinate affection for Jerusalem and the Jews, he just didn't wanna leave, right? But here in first Peter chapter five, look what it says, the church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so does Marcus my son. Now Babylon, I don't have time to develop this, but Babylon, what he's referring to is actually Rome. And also historically, the Apostle Peter was in Rome pastoring in that area during his ministry, okay? And he called it Babylon because geographically, spiritually even, you know, the spiritual Babylon had moved to Rome, okay? Now here's the thing is that if throughout the book of Acts he's in Jerusalem, but now he's writing from Babylon, which is Rome, this is showing us that first and second Peter are written like long, like way after when he's like left Jerusalem, long after the events of the book of Acts, when he finally got right with God and started reaching out to like the Gentiles. Now we see him doing that even in Acts chapter 10, when he's reaching the Centurion, but when he's actually geographically relocates in order to reach the Gentiles, obviously he's at this point right now. Now there's other internal evidence that maybe prove that first and second Peter came after the gospels. One would be that when you read first and second Peter in the original languages, he seems to use a higher level of Greek than most others, like the Apostle Paul and the disciples and such. And in fact, he seems to use words that aren't found anywhere else in the New Testament, but are found in very high Greek literature that's found in, for example, Rome, okay? Maybe having access to that type of vocabulary and access to those types of books. He's gotten some learning, okay? He's gotten some wisdom, some knowledge, and therefore he's writing it through that filter. Now look at Jude 17, if you would, Jude 17. Jude 17, and then we'll move on from here. So the epistles of Paul are likely written first, and again, this is of my persuasion. If you disagree with this, it's perfectly fine. I'm just kind of giving you the reasons why I believe this. James, Jude, first and second Peter are written second, and I would say that first and second Peter came before Jude because when you read, for example, second Peter chapter three, it talks about scoffers in the last days, right? It's given that prophecy. Well, look at Jude 17, I'm sorry, Jude 17. It says, but beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts, implying that Jude is possibly getting this from who? From Peter, as indicated by the fact that he talks about the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as noted by the fact that he's quoting second Peter chapter number three. Now how long after he wrote it, first and second Peter? I don't know, I'm just saying chronologically, it would seem as though it came after first and second Peter. He said, what about James? I don't really know, I just kind of threw James in there. It's a good book, I believe it's God's word, and he just gets lumped up with them because Peter was always hanging out with James later on, and so, sorry James. Go to Acts chapter one if you would, Acts chapter number one. So Epistles written first, James, Jude first and second, Peter written second, and then I believe that Luke and the book of Acts were written third, okay? And I kind of already gave away some of the reasons why. We see that the book of Acts obviously chronicles the events, and it doesn't even chronicle it all the way to the end of the death of the apostle Paul, but it kind of like records the events leading up to him being arrested, going to Rome, and essentially spending the rest of his days there, okay? But it also tells us, you don't have to turn there, but Luke chapter one, it says this, for as much as many have taken into hand to set forth an order, a declaration of those things which are most assuredly believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou has been instructed. So he's writing to Theophilus, okay? And we see that he has perfect understanding of this. Now some would say, well this is proof that he was an apostle, because he has perfect understanding, meaning he was there, he saw this. But do you have to be there? No. Now he could have been an apostle, I'm not sure. But at the end of the day, I think that's neither here nor there, you know, God inspired him. The point that I'm making is that he's writing to Theophilus. Look at Acts 1 one, it says, the former treaties, what is the treaties? It's referring to the book of Luke. Have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. So we see here that this is a follow up to the book of Luke, which would indicate obviously chronology of when they're written, Luke first, then the book of Acts. Now lastly, not lastly, 1st, 2nd, 3rd John, Revelation, and pay attention here, the book of John chapter one through chapter 21 verses one through 21. Okay, I know that's a mouthful, but let me just explain what I mean by this. So I believe Matthew and Mark were written forth. Okay, now there's something out there called the Marking Priority, and you can just tune me out for the next couple seconds if you want, because it's pretty boring information. But essentially what they believe, the Marking Priority is essentially talking about the fact that people believe, you know, scholars believe that Mark was potentially written first, because when Matthew and Luke came out, there was certain information, there's certain information that, you know, Matthew and Mark had that, excuse me, Matthew and Luke had that Mark didn't. And so because they're written later, maybe they have more information, but I don't agree with that at all. I think it's just Matthew and Mark came later, and I don't think they needed one another to essentially draw conclusions, they're being inspired by God, et cetera. So Matthew and Mark are written forth, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, Revelation, and John 1 through 21 are written last. Now go to John chapter 21, if you would, John chapter 21. John chapter 21, if you would. And I actually believe that the book of John was probably written last, even after the book of Revelation, okay? And I'm gonna explain to you why, because obviously we think, oh, Revelation, obviously that's the last book of the Bible, that was written last, but it's possible that he wrote John last, and I'm gonna explain why. Look at verse 22, if you would, of John 21. Jesus saith unto him, if I will tarry that he come, excuse me, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee, follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple, who's that disciple, John, should not die, yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? So obviously now we're switching where a person is talking about John. Says in verse 24, this is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know, listen to this, that his testimony is true. So we don't exactly know what's taking place here as far as why John is not necessarily writing these last couple portions of the book of John. It might be that he died, we don't know. But based upon the internal evidence, it may seem as though John wrote up until verse 22, and then he dies and someone else takes over after him. He said, well, was it the apostle? I don't know, and it doesn't matter, because it's still God's word, okay? And this is why I believe that Revelation was not written last, but the book of John was, because Revelation has the end. Like John finished that work. You understand what I'm saying? And you know, for a time I believe that first, second, and third John were probably written towards John's later life, but I think it was actually written, they were some of the first books that were written. And there's no indication to say otherwise, because they're actually in conjunction with one with another. They don't really teach anything different than when he teaches in the book of John. They're kind of, they coincide, okay? And so that is the chronology, in my opinion, of the New Testament. And let me just say this, is that by the end of the first century, all these books are complete. By the end of the first century, the New Testament is done, okay? He said, why is that important to know? Because you have the Roman Catholic Church who comes towards the latter end of the third century saying, no, we told you, we gave you that actually. No, it was already done by then. Yeah, but we told you what was supposed to be in those books. No, the church has already had them. At the end of the first century, okay? Which leads to my last point here, point number four, and that is, well, how did Christians determine what's God's word and what isn't? Who are you to determine what's divinely inspired and what isn't, huh? How do you know? What authority do you have? We have the authority of the apostles that left the church of the Roman Catholic Church or whatever wrong, wrong. But that is a valid question, though. How did believers determine what was God's word and what wasn't? How the New Testament believers know what the Bible was, okay? Let me give you various points here. First and foremost, in this point, people probably hate the most, but it doesn't matter, it's true, and that is that we know the voice of the shepherd. New Testament believers know the voice of the shepherd. Jesus said that in John chapter 10, verse four, and when he put forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice, and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers. So there is a supernatural innate ability to recognize what is of God and what isn't. Based upon the divinely written scriptures, we know this is of God and this isn't. Now, that's not necessarily quantifiable, per se. However, if, I'll just be honest with you, you give me the book of Maccabees and you give me the book of Daniel, I know which one is of God. You give me the book of Jude and you give me the book of Enoch, I know which one is of God. You give me the book of Mormon and you give me the Bible, I know which one is of God and which one isn't, because that's a stranger. Now, a lot of people don't like that. They're like, oh, that's nonsense, because the Mormons think that they know the voice of the shepherd. Yeah, but you and I both know that they're wrong, though. It's like, yeah, but you know, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same thing and so do Muslims. Yeah, but at the end of the day, you and I both know that they're wrong. And there's only one truth. We know the voice of the shepherd and the Bible tells us, you don't have to turn to 1 John 2, verse 21 tells us, I have not written unto you because you know not the truth but because you know it and that no lie is of the truth. Who was a liar but he that denied that Jesus is the Christ, he is antichrist that denied the Father and the Son. Go to 2 Thessalonians, if you wouldn't, chapter two, 2 Thessalonians chapter two, and then we'll go to chapter three. How did the New Testament believers know what was God's word? Well, we know the voice of the shepherd but also fraudulent letters were warned against. So it's not like just accept any letter that comes your way. They were actually trained and instructed to watch out for fraudulent, erroneous letters. It says in 2 Thessalonians two, verse one, now we beseech your brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our gathering together unto him, that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by spirit nor by word, listen to this, nor by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand. So he says, look, if someone comes to you by spirit, meaning I have the spirit of prophecy and this is what God wants us to do in this church, the apostle Paul is like, don't let that make you nervous. Someone says they had a dream, just like, all right, whatever. I'm not really into that stuff. Stop putting so many onions on your burger at night or whatever. He says neither by spirit nor by word. And what is word? Well, I heard that the apostle Paul said this, right? Like by word of mouth. Notice that everything is just elevating the authority of God's word. So it says not by spirit, not by word, and then he says not by letter as from us. What is he telling us? What is he saying? He's saying that there's gonna be times when people claim to come with the authority of an apostle. They will claim to have writings of the apostles. And he's like, don't let that fool you, it's not me. And let me say this, the Catholic church does this all the time. They claim the apostles were Catholic. And one of the most craziest things that just, it just blows my mind that they can't seem to understand is like, why didn't they write anything about Catholicism in the Bible? If it's so Catholic, why isn't the word Catholic found in the Bible? If it promotes the Pope, why isn't there any Popes in the Bible? Why isn't, you know, I had this conversation with the Catholic earlier this week. It was a very short conversation. And it was through messages. And you know, they first, they asked this question, which I'm asked very repeatedly, and it's just, you know, they say, why do you hate the mother of God? That's a silly question. And I'm not, you know, the servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men. So I said, does God the Father have a mother? He goes, no, I meant Jesus. And I said, did I say I hate the mother of Jesus? He goes, no, but you don't pray to her. And I said, does the Bible say we should pray to her? He said, no, but, and then I said, you know, is there any example of anyone in the Bible praying to her? And he said, no, but, I don't know, I'm confused. The conversation was over. And it's not like I even tried to like, I'm just kinda like helping him to think critically. And he literally said, I'm confused, I don't know. Okay, how do you confuse a Catholic? Only use the Bible and reasoning and you're good to go. Because you don't find anybody talking to Mary in heaven in the Bible. I mean, Jesus didn't even do that. None of the apostles did that. Yeah, but it takes a certain level of spiritual maturity until the Roman Catholic Church came. Jesus Christ is the epitome of spiritual maturity. What are you talking about? He reached that. And in his apex of spiritual maturity, he didn't do any of those things. And so when he says, by letter as from us, he's saying, don't just be fooled by every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes out and says that they're an apostle of Christ, because there are false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And he said, well, how do we know that it's a fraudulent origins or it's not from God? Well, he says, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. So a really basic way to determine if it's of God, does it contradict the Bible? Does it contradict scripture? If a letter comes from the apostle John saying, hey, the day of Christ is at hand, then you have an issue. It's like, this isn't from John, because the day of Christ is not at hand. Now look at chapter three, if you would, chapter three, 2 Thessalonians chapter three. So fraudulent letters were worn against, and I don't think believers in the New Testament are just like oblivious to this. Jesus is like, no, just accept whatever letter comes through. They say they're Christian. They say they're believers. It has Christian, it has Baptist on the sign or something. Obviously there's no Baptist on the signs over there. I'm just saying like, it's not, they're not like oblivious to this. They're not being, you know, they're being vigilant about these things. Not only that, but look at 2 Thessalonians 3.17, it says the salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is the token in every epistle, so I write. So even the apostle Paul himself left the token of his own writings to kind of indicate that it was from him. So obviously he's setting up parameters and guidelines in order for people to know that these are authentic, they're divinely inspired. And even within his own writings, he tells you, this is not of the Lord, I give my, this is my opinion, so to speak, right? So even he himself is telling you what his scripture is, so it's not even when it comes to like what he's saying. What's the commandment of the Lord and what's of his persuasion or his opinion, okay? Go to 2 Corinthians chapter one, 2 Corinthians chapter one. So how did the New Testament believers know the word of God? Well, number one, they knew the voice of strangers, or excuse me, they knew the voice of the shepherd. Technically, they did know the voice of strangers by knowing the voice of the shepherd. They were knowing, they knew how to avoid them. Fraudulent letters were worn against. And then also, let me say this, is that when one epistle or book was written, it was acknowledged as being scripture, listen to me, indefinitely. So once it's given to them, it's just not like they read it and then they just hide it away in a rock or something like that. It's like this is officially God's word, and now we know indefinitely that this is the Bible. And let me just say this, they're not putting it on a shrine somewhere either. You know what they're doing? They're copying it. They're making copies for everyone. Like, no, they're not. There was no printing press. I know there was no printing press, but there's people copying the scriptures. How do you think the Ethiopian eunuch got a copy of the book of Isaiah and was taking it back home? Someone copied it. So obviously, there are people who are doing the due diligence. They come from a cultural society of transcribing and scribing letters and prophets. They know about this. They have these systems in place. So once one epistle or letter was given to them and they knew it was God's word, it was just that way indefinitely. Look at 2 Corinthians 1.13. It says, for we write none other things unto you that what ye read or acknowledge, listen to this, and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end. In other words, once you get this, keep it even unto the end. Not enshrine it, not put it in a cupboard somewhere. Keep it, read from it, even unto the end. Go to Colossians chapter number four, Colossians chapter four. Here's another way that they knew what was divinely inspired. Colossians chapter four. So once one epistle or book was written, it was acknowledged as being scripture indefinitely, but also, listen, a system of sharing scriptures between churches was practiced. So if we were in the first century and we got a letter from Paul, the common practice, according to the Bible, is that once it was copied, once it was given to everyone, then that letter was taken to the other church to also be read there and copied and read from and obeyed. Look what it says in Colossians chapter four, verse 15. Salute the brethren which are at Laodicea and Nymphis at the church which is in his house, and when this epistle is read among you, cause it that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. So what is he saying? Share these letters. Well, hold on a second, Pastor. It says the epistle to the Laodiceans though. Where is that in the Bible? Well, does it say that it's an epistle that was addressed to the Laodiceans? It's just referring to an epistle that the Laodiceans have. This could be referring to any epistle. You understand? So in scripture, they're sharing these one with another. And what does he tell them? Make sure you guys are sharing these. Make sure that it's read. Go to 1 Thessalonians. I know you were in 1 Thessalonians, but go back to 1 Thessalonians if you would, chapter five. So he's saying read this, and then also make sure that the other churches read this. And then whatever they have, make sure they're sharing with you. And do you really think that once they got an epistle from someone, they're just like not copying it? They're not doing anything? They're like, all right, let me just memorize this real quick. I got it. You guys don't have to worry about it. Let's send it back or something like that. Obviously, they're keeping it. Obviously, they're copying it. You say, well, how do you know they're copying it? Well, how about the fact that in the Old Testament, copying scriptures was a practice, even amongst the kings, right? God's intent for God's word was never to put it in a shrine. It's intent was for everyone to have it, okay? Now look at 1 Thessalonians 5, 27. I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. So he's referring to just all churches in general. So he's like, make sure, so keep this in mind. So for decades, until the last book is written, this is already the practice. They get the 1 and 2 Corinthians, guess what? They're sharing it with other churches. They get Galatians, they get Ephesians, they get Philippians, they get Colossians, they're getting 1 and 2 Timothy, as they're coming in, doctrine, divinely inspired, indefinitely, let's share these. They're copying them, they're reading from them, and they're giving them to the churches as they come into their hands in order to establish the fact that these are God's word. So that means the churches are already convinced, like this is God's word. It's not like, oh man, which one is it? Here we are 40 years later, we don't know what God's word is. No, God already put systems and guidelines in place for these churches to know what was God's word, okay? And look, this is without social media. This is without their postal service or social media or Instagram or Facebook or Rumble or YouTube. This is just by word of mouth, essentially like going from church to church, saying here, here's an epistle, the Lord said to have it read, and you're like, what if someone there didn't trust what was in that epistle? Would they compare it to the other epistles? So I don't know if you know this, but none of the epistles contradict. And at the end of the day, you just have to trust that you know the voice of the shepherd, okay? Now go to 1 John chapter two, if you would, 1 John chapter two. Now, one time I was talking to this Catholic and he came up with this argument, we gave you the Bible and all that stuff. And he was talking about the third century and its council of Nicaea, blah, blah, blah. And so I told him, I asked him, I said, so Christians didn't have the Bible in the first century? He says, we gave you the Bible. I said, so are you saying that Christians didn't have the Bible in the first century? He says, we gave you the Bible. I said, I'm just asking, answer the question, I'm just asking. Are you telling me that in the first century, Christians did not have the Bible? And he finally broke. And he said, yes, they did. But you don't have the authority to interpret it. That's what he said. Which is what they believe. So you have to filter through their nonsense and then they tell you what they really believe. Because what they really believe is the Bible did exist in the first century. They just think you and I were just not, we don't have the sanction of the holy church to interpret what the Bible actually means and what's God's word and what's not. And by the way, this is another thing that people tell me in that, in conjunction with that, they'll say, who gave you this authority? And it's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? It's like, well, who gave you the authority? And of course, they'll say, God gave us the authority. And so in order to determine who's right and who's wrong, we need the Bible. And if what you say contradicts the Bible, then I guess God didn't give you the authority. Now, did he? Well, here's proof beyond a shadow. I send this to people all the time and they just never have an answer and they never respond. When they ask me, who gave you the authority? Look at 1 John 2, verse 26. These things have it written unto you concerning them that seduce you, but the anointing, which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And I said, there's my authority, the Holy Spirit. And then they always come out with like, oh, so you just trust that you just know what the Bible's saying or something? I'm like, do you not believe what the Bible just said right here? Is he lying to us when he says that? Which it just kind of blows my mind also how much Catholics actually will be in opposition to just a statement from the Bible without really knowing that that's what they're doing. Like he's like, oh, yeah, this guy says, call no man father, what about these other times? Are you telling me or are you telling Jesus? Because he's actually the one who said it. Like it sounds like you're arguing against Jesus, not me. The point that I'm making here is that according to the Bible, we have the authority to determine if this is God's word or not. Why, because the anointing that I have, you know, I had someone ask me, they're like, so, you know, well, we have the Holy Spirit too. I said, no, the Holy Spirit is only given to those who believe on Jesus Christ. He goes, oh, yeah, so we have it. I said, no, the Catholics aren't saved. They don't have it. Go to 1 Corinthians chapter two, if you would, 1 Corinthians chapter two, we're almost done. 1 Corinthians chapter two, and look at verse number nine, if you would, on the same point of the authority of the Holy Spirit, it tells us, verse number nine, excuse me, but as it is written, I have not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, 1 Corinthians two, verse nine, the things which God has prepared for them that love him, but God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, for what man knoweth the things of man, save the Spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we, who is the apostle talking about? He's talking about himself in the Corinthian church. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God, which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, but the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Look at verse 16, for who hath known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct them, but we, referring to Paul and the Corinthian church, have the mind of Christ. So according to the Bible, we know what the Bible is, we have the authority, just as the Corinthians did, and so it's important for us to know that. And let me just say this, is that God didn't give the word of God to just one church either. He gave it to multiple churches at this time. Right? It's not like he gave it to one institution. It's like, oh, this one church has the truth, and from there all truth spreads. Wrong. He actually gave it to multiple churches. And in fact, you don't have to turn there, but 1 Corinthians 14, 36 says, what, came the word of God out from you, or came it unto you only? So in the Corinthians, you guys aren't the only ones who got the word of God. You're not the only one where the word of God is coming from, because there's another epistle being written to the Ephesians, another one to the church at Thessalonica, another one to the Philippians, another one to the Colossians. Different churches are getting messages that all coincide. Corinthians, you're not like a Catholic church. Sorry. You get two letters, that's great, but so does the Thessalonians, right? In fact, Timothy gets two letters. Does that make him the pope or something, you know? It's like multiple people are getting messages, so it's not coming out from you only or unto you only. Multiple churches are getting this, okay? Now, here's some other practical reasons why we know that the New Testament Christians had the word of God and knew the word of God. You don't have to turn to any of these. You can write them down if you like. 2 Timothy chapter four, verse one. God wouldn't command them to preach something they didn't have, because he says preach the word, be instant in season, out of season. Well, how do you do that if they didn't have the word already canonized? Not only that, but pastors could not receive double honor if they didn't have the word to labor in, right? Because it tells us let the elders that rule well be kind of worthy of double honor, especially if they have the labor and the word in doctrine. You know, and then you have pastors back there like, sorry, you know, God hasn't really given us the word yet. I just can't really, if I could get double honor, I'd appreciate it. The Bible says study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. How can they do that if they didn't have it? Or if they're already arguing over what's God's word or not? Obviously, he's assuming that they already know what God's word is, even to the point where he says, you know how to rightly divide the word. Yeah. And here's my last point, and that is the words, this is the last scripture to go to. Go to 1 Timothy chapter six, and that's it. Let me say this, the words of Jesus Christ, although not written down, were in circulation, okay? Because you know, you have in the book of Acts, the apostle Paul quoting Jesus Christ, it's more blessed to give than to receive, not necessarily the verse that's found in the gospels, but we know that it's scripture and Christ said it. But also, it is in circulation, it just wasn't penned down yet. How much of it was in circulation? We don't know, but enough for them to know what Jesus said. Okay? What I'm trying to get across here is that people often look at the proto-church, you know, these first churches, and think like they just didn't have much. You know, these poor people didn't have much. They had a lot. You know, obviously, knowledge increased as the decades and centuries went on, because the longer you have the truth and possession, the more organized, I mean, this is now, I mean, they had scrolls back then. You know, it would stink if I had to just come up here with all these passages, it was like scrolls. Just put them on the pulpit and said, all right, let me see what I'm gonna do here. Now we could just, you know, and this is not a lived church, but I mean, I could just bring up like an iPad here if I wanted to, but I'm just not really into that. But look, I mean, we got the Bible right here. Obviously, as the years go by, churches become more organized, more efficient. Obviously, the administration becomes more efficient in what they do. But what I'm saying is that even then, they did have the words of Jesus Christ in circulation. Here's the proof. Look at 1 Timothy 6 and verse three. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, listen to this, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine, which is according to godliness. So how can that command be executed if they didn't have the words of Jesus Christ? Obviously, it's in circulation of some sort, okay? Not only that, but when he's writing to the Colossians, what does he tell them? He tells us in Colossians 3 16, let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Obviously, the words of Christ can just be talking about all the word of God, and I'm all for that, but if it was talking about the words of Jesus Christ literally, that means that those words were in circulation, and people had them somewhat in the collective memory of people, because the apostles are existing during those times. They were there. They can say, this is what the Lord had said, and so people can say, the apostle Paul said that this is what the Lord had said, and so it's already in the collective memory of the people, and you have to understand that New Testament churches are obviously quoting and preaching from scriptures all the time, so it's not like they just have nothing to do with the Bible. They just enshrine it. The reason the Catholic church, and yet even some Protestants have trouble believing this is because they just don't read the Bible. I can see where the confusion can come. I can see where the ignorance can sprout from if you're literally taking the Bible and putting some glass case next to some rotting hand, some relic of sorts, but you're not reading it. Take your living hand and open up the Bible. Put your hand to the plow. You see, people who actually read the word of God have no issue believing the word of God. People who have read through the word of God, even in the first century, they're preaching from it. They're getting people saved by it. They're changing lives with it. The world is being turned upside down because of it. They're not gonna be like, man, is 1 Peter God's word? The only person who's gonna say that who just doesn't read it. Yeah. Folks, idolize the book, the content of the book, but don't idolize the physical book to the point where you just don't read it. You just throw holy water on it or something and give offerings to it or something like that. That does nothing. In order for us to know God's word, we have to, listen to this, know God's word. Know God's word? Know God's word. You have to know the Bible. You have to actually read it. That's what it was intended for. Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. And so the point that I'm making this morning is that we live in a day and age where just the internet is just filled with a lot of false doctrine, and it can cause Christians to think, oh man, maybe Catholics did give us the Bible or something because how did we get the New Testament, and how did Christians? They act like New Testament Christians were just a bunch of Neanderthals or something. They're just like writing on walls or something. It's not real. These were intelligent people working with what they had. And you know what? God was providentially working through each, sitting systems in place that was qualifying and giving the authority of the Bible in that first century. And by the first century, going into the second century, Christians, that which mattered, actually had the Bible already in circulation. And you know what? The Catholics simply hijacked the narrative, made the history, and took credit for it. But I'm not buying it, because when you go to a Catholic church, it's like they don't even believe the Bible. And here's the thing, if you gave us the Bible, then why don't you believe it? Let's pray. Father, we thank you so much for your word, and thank you for the word of God. We're thankful for New Testament Christians, Lord, even in the first century who did their due diligence to read it, to preach from it, to preach the gospel from it, Lord, and spread it all over the world. I pray that you'd help us as your people to esteem the words of God more than our necessary foods. And Lord, may your word be exalted in our church. And I pray you bless us as we go on our way. Lord, we love you, we thank you. Pray this in Jesus' name, amen.