ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2021
- Catholics and Protestants have the same 27 book New Testament. However, if one was to look at the Old Testament you'd notice a couple of differences. In short, Catholics have 46 books in their Old Testament while Protestants have 39. Why is this and does it matter?
![Yoshi Rinrada - 'มาทำไม' [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r41xbfRLkLs/mqdefault.jpg)
If Catholics added books. Then when did the Orthodox add the books?
It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace.
To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.
We know what the Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus -- who both list the exact same number of books (along with quotations stating the non-inspired nature of books like Maccabees (etc.).
I'd also recommend watching my video (and looking further into the subject within Septuagintal scholarship) on what the Septuagint is and isn't. With all due respect, the fact that you're referencing it as a single thing indicates that you're unaware of what the LXX is exactly. The LXX is not a single thing as much as it is an umbrella category for a body of Jewish translational literature. We might refer to the "New Testament's use of the Septuagint", but even that is somewhat of a misnomer. The LXX is only one stream of a series of streams of Jewish literature that ended up being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Many deuterocanonical books found themselves into this body of literature in the post-Christian period, but many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and *not* in Hebrew (these books having no Hebrew original is another reason cited by early Jewish writers as to why they did not carry authoritative status as scripture).
@@WesHuff You said: “We know what *THE* Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus”
Q(1): Did all Jews in the first century unanimously agree on which books were canonical?
Q(2): If not then which Jews were correct on which books were canonical?
You said: “many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and not in Hebrew”
Q(3): Which of the Deuterocanonical writings are originally Greek compositions?
Q(4): Why were the New Testament writings recognized as canonical even though they are originally Greek compositions?
Jews were not in 100% agreement.
@@WesHuffJosephus’ canon does not inform us at all what books were accepted., Your conflating one individual (a Pharisee) as if they spoke for all of Judaism (Which includes Essenes and Sadducees).
Josephus does not provide a “canon list”, he provides an enumeration on the books. He lists twenty two books, but does not describe what those books are. Did he include Jeremiah? Does he merge Baruch with Jeremiah? Did he remove Esther? Did he include Wisdom?
Your reading into the text, not lifting out of it.
@@WesHuffHebrew and Aramaic fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Qumran from before the 1st century AD would also debunk the idea that they all did not have Hebrew originals.
Thanks Wes,
Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.
No he can’t. The Catholics codified the canon several times going back to 382 if I got the year right. Every Bible ever printed had 73 books from the Catholic Church. There were competing canons at the time of Christs life you have the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon. The books weren’t in dispute and he’s misleading you on this
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Do you have a video or collection of videos that goes deeper into this subject? I just watched you video, "The books that didnt make Bible" but it is more geared towards New Testament
This fascinating!
Do you have a video explaining/comparing the history of the Ethiopian Bible's 88 books?
81, actually. It's great that you know that, though.
Just ran across this video - really appreciate the information and moreso because of the manner in which you relay the information. Very helpful! Thanks!
I think Taylor Marshall has a video on this. If the seven books are not important, the apostles would not have used it in their preaching.
I say they’re important in the video. However, they’re not inspired Scripture. Don’t forget that Paul quotes the Stoic Mernander and Euripides in 1. Cor. 15:33, Epimenides in Titus 1:12, as well as Seneca in Acts 17. I don’t think anyone thinks that his usefulness of relevant literature means that those pagan philosophers should be included in the canon.
It's either they're scripture or not. This compromise of "not as authoritative" is patronising and lame.
whatever happened with "all scripture is God-breathed" (inspired)?
@@WesHuff excellent brief summary & defense of the Hebrew Bible/Protestant OT canon! I just had a brief discussion on the Gospel Simplicity channel defending the historicity of the Protestant OT canon if you want to check it out. I also wrote a book on it: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," as well as debated Roman Catholics, such as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, Gary Michuta, Dr. Robert Sungenis, & Tim Gordon. Blessings! Steve Christie.
@georgelee3267 I addressed Dr. Marshall's arguments in the comments section below his video. He had no answer.
Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?
He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism.
❤
Can you provide evidence for your claim, because the Apocrypha was never included in any Hebrew Old Testament and no New Testament writer ever referred to or quoted from the Apocrypha.
The deuterocanon are actually in the dead sea scrolls. Heretics altered the bible.
The Protestant Bible does contain the Apocryphal books, but they are under reference material. Martin Luther never 'removed' books from the traditional Bible...that is a old wives tale perpetuated by Catholic and Orthodox alike.
@@redit5332 No, he decided to remove it from it's context, with zero authority to do so. The British bible society removed it to save money in the mid 1800's. Also, with zero authority to do so. Heretics helping heretics.
@@redit5332 And who gave luther the authority to re-categorize SCRIPTURE as "reference material"? Luther was of the devil, and he did the devils bidding. He wrought chaos and division.
Let's simplify the point of contention: if you subscribe to the 39 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Pharisees who crucified Christ.
If you subscribe to the 46 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Early Church which comes from the authority of the Apostles, the new Jewish authority in the New Testament, because the Apostles themselves are Jews.
Question: to whom do you want to subscribe to?
Rather simple to me. I’d rather listen to the men and women who gave it all for Jesus rather than the people that were out for their blood
@@sharkinator7819 , oh, yeah, you’re talking about the martyrs of the early catholic church, who were instrumental for her in determining the bases for compiling the inspired sacred books that have made it to the final list of the books of the Bible, that was determined by the catholic church at the end of the 4th century.
@@voxangeli9205 yes, those people. In all reality, the things we do as Catholics is based on what the early Christians did in worship when they were underground and what they were taught by the men and women who walked with Jesus during his time on Earth
@@sharkinator7819 , you bet, I couldn’t agree more, brother.
May God continue blessing your discernment.
Peace, brother!
@@voxangeli9205 and with your spirit
the apostles cited the Septuagint (the ones with deteurocanon) much more than the Masoretic texts, and with the apostles acknowledging that "all scripture is God inspired" I'm sticking with the books of the apostles.
Your usage of "the Septuagint" indicates you're not actually aware of what that is. See my explanation of what the Septuagint is and isn't here: th-cam.com/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5ZbTsUBgpzxgdWzk
Saint Irenaeus wrote that the Apostles used the Septuagint. And he himself. 180 AD
Correct me if I’m wrong but up until the reformation, those books was included in the Bible that was used universally? If so, doesn’t that just basically mean that they move them?
Yes. Before the reformation, the bible today and the apocrypha were used as one collective book. Throughout those times, the bible is believed and is announced as collections of books that contain words of God. The fact that they removed some books totally confused millions if the bible really is the word of God. Although the guy in the video admits that they don't really believe so.
The Protestants used the 73 book Bible until 1825. Get a pre-1825 copy of the KJV. It has 73 books.
So if you are a hard-core "it's 66 books!" kinda guy, you are adhering to a tradition set by the English Bible Society in the 19th century.
For many Protestants that whole "following traditions" thing is going to be hard to rectify.
If you have common sense. Yes
This channel author unfortunately needs to do more research.
Luther removed seven book and tried to remove another four books, because they disagreed with his new theology.
how can he fail to remove four if you claim he already removed seven
makes no sense, you can't have it go both ways
also, really convenient how the only books from the septuagint that the catholics canonized at trent were the only ones that could be used against protestants
remind me again, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC other Protestants would not let him remove those four New Testament books
The 16th century canon of Trent was same as the original 4th century canon of Rome.
@@fantasia55 no it wasn't, previous councils included other books, trent narrowed it down to the convenient ones
@@InitialPC "The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century."
The groups of Jews in the time of Jesus did not have an agreed upon canon of 66 books. If this is wrong, please correct me and let me know where you are finding this information.
When would the individual opinions of people in the Church have more authority over an ecumenical council?
I appreciate the more open and honest delivery of your video vs. the one I just watched before. The previous one was very overly biased towards their point of view, but I like that you gave your opinion but weren't nearly as biased.
Thanks for teaching me! Really cleared up the confusion.
Brilliant. This is actually some thing that has been hitting at my heart lately. I’m very happy that there is somebody who has actually done the research bringing it all together. I think if you keep it up you could be very big. God definitely walks with me and I can tell you that what you’re showing me shows that God walks with you as well.
Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.
To think that one man, Martin Luther, decided unilaterally to exclude those seven books is one thing but for all those who used this as an excuse to believe that he alone made the right decision and accept the Bible with those omissions is amazing.
Luther never intended to create the facture within the Church that occurred he merely wanted the Church to acknowledge the issues and at least address them.
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
The Apostles preached the gospel using the Septuagint OT bible with the 7 disputed books by Luther included therein.
Were the Apostles wrong to do so?
Was Luther right to remove the 7 books and think that the apostles made a mistake?
I’d reccomend reading actual Septuagintal scholarship on that. “The Septuagint” is a modern category that includes a range of Greek translational Jewish literature. The apostles were not walking over to their bookshelf and pulling “the Septuagint” off the shelf (see here for more th-cam.com/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3xplerAJdzyXG8oF).
We have records of the books the Jews considered Scripture in Jesus’ day from people like Josephus and Philo. The “Protestant canon” for the New Testament is the ancient Jewish canon - full stop. No ancient Jew who discusses scriptural canon includes the Deuterocanonical books. Luther didn’t take them out because sure they were never scripture to begin with.
So do protestants not read the Deuterocanonical books at all? If not, could any context be missing for the interpretation of the Bible?
Yes, Protestants do (and should!) read the Deuterocanonical books.
Some dont know about them. Plenty that do dont read them. But the ones who do know think that they are historically accurate but not Scripture
What about the books of Enoch, found in Ethiopian (and Armenian) Christianity?
I have a video dedicated to Enoch. There was never any credibility to Enoch being canonical in Jewish tradition, nor Christian tradition more broadly. What we call "1st Enoch" is an amalgam of a number of writings in various languages, but it was almost certainly originally penned in Greek and then translated into Old Ethiopic much later on.
@@WesHuffThe Book of Enoch was found in the dead sea scroll..written in hebrew..
@@brainjustin5250 the only fragments from Enoch from the DSS are Aramaic. If you're looking at an image you may not realize you're looking at the same Semitic script as Hebrew but it's not Hebrew you're looking at.
Once again, what we call "1st Enoch" is a composite work of The Book of the Watchers, Book of Parables, Atronomical Book, Animal Apocalypse (aka Book of Dreams), and The Epistle of Enoch. Of the 11 fragments found within the DSS were all but the Book of Parables -- which only exists in Greek and its date of composition is almost certainly 1st/2nd century AD.
@@WesHuffSo was 1 Enoch originally a Greek or Aramaic composition?
All the Deuterocanon books were already included when the Bible was canonized. Succeeding ecumenical councils have also affirmed them. So, for about 1000 years, Christians have been reading these books. So, it is hard to believe that God would allow his people to be misled into thinking that these books are not the word of God for 1000 years. Besides, do those people who decided to remove those books from the Bible have a far superior understanding of the Christian faith compared to those in the ecumenical councils?
You didn't watch the video... did you.
The speaker left out key facts of the early church. For example he left out the fact that there were three Councils in the early church that dealt with which books made up the bible. The three councils were Rome (382), Hippo (393) and finally Carthage (397). At the Council of Carthage the Bible was finally approved with 73 books not 66! There were several attempts to change the number of books in the Bible once it was as approved including the attempt by Martin Luther. All attempts failed including Luther’s. The Catholic Bible of today contains the same 73 books as the Council of Carthage did.
Luther’s version of the bible contained 62 books. His personal interpretation of the bible necessitated the removal of the following books in the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.
In Revelation 22:18-22 deals with adding or deleting books from the bible. I guess Luther thought that if he deleted Revelation then he could add or delete as he saw fit.
The last important area is that was left out dealt with the Geneva and King James bibles. The Geneva Bible was first published the in 1565 with 80 books. The King James Bible was published in 1611 with the same 80 books. In 1881, theGeneva Bible deleted 14 books and the King James deleted the same14 books (Apocraphya) in 1885.i refer you again to Revelation, chapter 22.
I hope that if the speaker updates his presentation, he includes the full story of why the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.
You're wrong on both instances.
If it was a settled issue in the 4th century than why did Pope Gregory the Great argue that Maccabees wasn't scripture in his commentary on Job? Why did the Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan agree with Luther on the non-inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books? Why did Erasmus write extensively about them not being scripture and argue for a smaller OT canon?
For the record, while Luther did have strong words regarding the text of James, the idea he wanted it removed is nonsense. All you have to do is read his sermons on James and his translation notes in his German Bible to know he thought it was fully scripturally inspired and never anywhere advocates for its removal.
@@WesHuff Neither are false. Your comment is deceptive. That was something he said well before he was Pope as a monk. It wasn’t said as Pope invoking Papal Infallibility. I would also note there are many other works of his that agree with all the books.
I want us to go back to the Latin again because I have to drive an hour to get it. There are cardinals that also think we should go back but to Latin, but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they spoke retroactively using Papal infallibility or that it was up for debate because currently it’s not.
I would also note that the Protestants had no right to add or remove anything. They didn’t have the authority.
As a protestant, I think all Christians should read the apocrypha. Regardless of whether it is authoritative, It has great and informative writings. I believe having this mindset about these books is the best way to be consistent with the early church.
Yeah, just as long as you don't hold it to a higher standard than the Bible! We need to test everything with the inspired scripture ^•^
@@g.h_-heart-_bunny😂😂😂inspired my ass
I’m glad this video admits that early Jewish writings before Jesus can be used as proof texts for purgatory and intercessory prayers
They can anachronistically and eisagetically be proof texted. There's a difference. There's a reason neither of those concepts are believed in either ancient or modern Judaism, despite the inaccurate use of said texts in the developments of extra-biblical teachings within the church.
This was great! Thank you.
You are blessed ❤❤❤❤
I think your claim about the timeline of the Jewish canon is inaccurate. There was no agreed-upon canon during the time of Christ, and it’s my understanding is that it was the Masoretes that first defined the modern Hebrew canon and started rejecting books not written in Hebrew. This would have been centuries after the time of Christ’s incarnation, and would thus be non-authoritative. It would also mean that the Catholic canon is actually older, as it’s source is the Septuagint.
I’m afraid we have Jewish canon lists as early as Josephus’ numbers in the late 1st / early 2nd century (which match both modern and Protestant books and do not include the Deuterocanonical texts). I’d also recommend my video on the Septuagint as, with all due respect, the mistake you’re making is a common one. The Septuagint is a modern category of translational texts and neither functioned as a canonical list nor was one single thing - but rather is the over arching term to refer to a single stream (there are multiple) of Greek translational documents of Hebrew documents. In the formal sense none of the Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint because they have no Hebrew originals but were penned in Greek to begin with.
Jesus would have been well aware of these extra books and sometimes referred to them in his teachings. Doesn't matter whether or not the Jewish leaders canonized the Old Testament or not. Protestants follow the teachings of an 'insane' Catholic Monk named Martin Luther.
"its source is the septuagint"
where did the septuagint come from if there was no jewish canon
and also, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC Because that is what was recognized as 'inspired' when the Bible was canonized in 382 AD. Personal opinions, such as yours, or how Jewish canon changed after that date doesn't matter.
@@WesHuffYour response is incorrect. Josephus does not include or exclude any book. He just says their books are 22 in number. That does not support the 39 book Protestant canon. Did he exclude Esther? Did he include Baruch with Jeremiah? What did he think about Wisdom?
You are reading into a number the Protestant list. Josephus’ list cannot by itself substantiate a Protestant canon. Must also acknowledge the bias of the author (Josephus) being a Pharisee. Did his canon list match up with the Essenes (who had a larger corpus)? What about the Sadducees?
This is EXTREMELY disingenuous under a very thin guise of so called "fairness." First off you flat out accuse Catholics of "worshipping" the saints, which is strictly forbidden in the Catechism and has been for 2000 years. Secondly there were different factions of Judaism in Jesus' time with different cannons of Scripture. The only faction that didn't see the Duetrocannonical books as scripture were the Pharisees because they ONLY saw the Torah as scripture. You also forgot to mention how every single one of the Church Fathers (canonized Catholic Saints) that you mentioned, conceded to the counsels and accepted the Duetrocannon! Including Saint Jerome who devoted his entire life to compiling and translating the Latin Vulgate, which is still to this day the official Bible and the text that most Bibles, both Catholic and protestant, including KJV are based on. You also neglected to mention that those weren't the only books that Martin Luther attempted to remove from the Bible. He also attempted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelation, and all the epistles of John! He even said that he wished he could throw "Jimmy" (Apostle Saint James) into the fire! He did these things for the exact same reason that he took it upon himself to remove the Duetrocannon and parts of Esther and Daniel from the original Bible. Because the beliefs of the ancient Jews and original Christians weren't what he wanted to believe, and he saw himself as a higher authority than God himself! Just read the multitude of books he published. You can start with "The Jews and Their Lies!" That'll let you know what he thought of Jewish teaching!
you read into Luther's jokes too much for your own good
@@samichjpg the only thing about Luther that's a joke is Luther himself! He was an antisemitic pervert with a weird poop obsession, who kidnapped a nun from a convent in a fish barrel and married her secretly breaking both their original vows to God, and started bloody wars just to have a religion devoted to his own personal philosophies via desecration of the Bible and the people who gave their lives for it!
@@samichjpgNot sure he was joking when he called Esther worse than the Deuterocanonicals in Table Talks. Or when he said he wouldn’t have Jude in his Bible.
I love the confused look you give in the thumbnail. Way to show off your skillful eyebrows
Really well conveyed. Very informative.
The Catholic Church does have its own Apocrypha, the 7 books in question, and other books that I believe would be beneficial to the Protestant Reformation. I'm not too sure about the Orthodox Churches, but the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Bible has more than 77 books.
Thank you boss. Im a protestant was well but not a calvinist.
Listening carefully.
Is chanukah a catholic holiday?
Not that I’m aware of. I’m assuming you’re referring to Roman Catholic? I’m not a Roman Catholic though so I’m not the right person to comment on that particular liturgical calendar.
Excuce me but you believe in the Masoretic text which isn't the old Hebrew text because it was written the 5-6 century after Christ and was completed until 900 AD.The Septuagint was the complete translation of the Hebrew bible in Greek from 72 jew Scholars 300 Bc.If you dont except the Septuagint bible then you accept the quotations of Paul that to the Septuagint.Hebrews is one of those chapters!And many more...
What books would have been taught in Hebrew school during the time of Jesus?
The ones in Hebrew
@@InitialPC nobody spoke Hebrew at that time. The language of Judea was Aramaic
@@sharkinator7819 Hebrew was first recorded between 10th and 5th centuries BC...
@@InitialPC yes, but it wasn’t the language of the Jewish people in the 1st century
@@sharkinator7819 Yes it was, Jewish Hebrew and Samaritan Hebrew had formed by 5th century BC.
The modern Coptic Canon is almost identical to the Catholic Canon - the Coptic Canon also have Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Mannesseh. However, the Coptic interpretation of these books appears to be somewhat different from the Catholic interpretation, ie no purgatory, and the interceding for the dead, asking for the remission of unconfessed sins and for them to be accepted into heaven.
This video unfortunately reaffirms my belief that no one knows for sure
the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
So one of the key issues historically is that all we have from what was supposedly reported at the Council of Rome, particularly the statement form Damasus listing the canonical books, most likely didn't come from Damasus. The most up-to-date scholarship on the subject can only narrow Damasus's statements to a compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. Historically we have no true record that isn't under heavy debate as to its authenticy from the Council of Rome.
However, giving all of what you've said the benefit of the doubt, the Council of Rome was not a dogmatically binding ecumenical council, but rather, a local council. Even official Catholic president today recognizes that only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense. The Council of Rome does not fall under the criteria as a binding council for all. Therefore, even if Damasus's statements have authentic provenance (which I do not believe they do) the modern Roman Catholic cannot base these statements as magisterium ordinarium due to the Council of Rome being a local gathering.
@@WesHuff All recognized Orthodox Local councils are BINDING according to First Canon of the 7th Ecumenical council....
7th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , CANON 1
"we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled REGIONALLY for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. "
-----(CANON 1 , 7TH Ecumenical Council)
So, by this rule, we can now say that the Canon of Scripture with Deuterocanonical books promulgated in the Local Councils are Binding to the Whole Church....
Council of Rome(382A.D.)
councils of Hippo (393 A.D.)
Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
@@pinoysarisari7374 Not if the records of the CoR are inauthentic to the council but contrived much later - which much like other documents such as the Donation of Constantine - are used by the church to validate dogma but are in fact spurious. Which is almost certainly the case in this instance.
Likewise, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”
@@WesHuff the Pope never attacked the 7th ecumenical council...It is part of Catholic Dogma.... It is a recognized council of the Catholic church....
Second...the burden of proof is on you to prove that CANON 1 of the 7th Ecumenical council is Fake....
@@pinoysarisari7374 Im not sure we’re talking about the same thing. The statement of Demasus that supposedly came from the council of Rome can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Any connection to its provenance being earlier than that is speculation. As Bruce states in his commentary on the document:
“What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century” [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).
You explain this very well. It was both interesting and informative. Thank you for these videos!
When Satan manages to distract a soul from Holy Communion, he achieves his goal. (St. Teresa of Lisieux)
You misspoke when you stated Catholics worships saints, 6:21. Catholics venerate (honor) saints but worship is for God and God alone.
Great explanation
The Catholic Church doesn’t worship the Saints…🤦♂️
Yeah we don’t worship Mary and the Saints we venerate them and have great respect for them ,but our worship is reserved for God alone
Codex Sanaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus all have Dueterocannon books not in today’s Protestant Bible.
If you want to make that argument you should also be arguing (against the Roman Catholic Magisterium) that the Shepherd of Hermes, Epistle of Barnabas, and 1 Clement should be included as canonical. All of those books (rejected by the Roman Catholic canon) are included within Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinas.
With all due respect, as someone who has had hands-on access to work academically with some of those exact documents, what the ancient Majuscule Codecs represent are mini-libraries. Which is why they include a host of books (both canonical and apocryphal) within the contents of their bindings.
@@WesHuff Christianity does not start with a book. That’s only Protestantism. They think you read 66 books only and then go build your church based on personal interpretation of it. It’s false. God told nobody those 66 books are sole authority. Codex’s prove it. And more..The Catholic Church is not started from a bible. They made its 73 book Bible as AN authority AFTER those codex’s. Never to take away the deposit of faith in the succession of the apostles. Which is what real Christianity is Jesus established. You need to do some more “hands on” research
@@WesHuff No. Real Christianity. Catholic Church. Does not believe in ‘Bible (66 books) alone’. You are proving that when you reference the early church using books not in your bible as scripture
Amazing 🤩
The KJV and Geneva bible when originally written had 73 books.
The 66 book version of the Bible was established in 1825 by the English Bible Society (who don't have Apostolic succession and were just some dudes)
So for 300 years, Protestants used the 73 book Bible. It wasn't even subject to debate for 300 years of Protestantism.
I don't know how it's defensible to adhere to 199-year-old, wholly man-made tradition, coming from a faith tree that typically rejects any sort of man-made tradition.
With all due respect, your comment is overly simplistic to the point of being dishonest. The KJV translators wrote copious notes about the usefulness but non-inspiration and non-canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books.
There is a reason why it was always labelled "The Apocrypha" -- using the Greek word for "strange" and following the early church tradition with the official designation of non-canonical books in the Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops, and 1611 KJV. No English Bible that includes those books has them within the Old Testament, but instead, in a separated section labelled on its own and always after Malachi -- the last canonically inspired book of the Old Testament -- and before Matthew -- the first canonically inspired book of the New Testament.
If you were familiar with the history of English Bibles you'd know the long discussions translators and scribes had concerning both the reasons why they include the books and why they always section them outside of the inspired books of holy scripture with proper and needed qualification.
1455 Gutenberg Bible. You can search the Morgan Museum online in manhattan, for the photo copies and contents. It had the dueterocannon books in the Old Testament
I have some questions, when did the Jews closed their cannon of scripture? Like at what time did they decided what was scripture and what was not? Like when did they finished the discussion of what belonged in the cannon and what not?
Edit: and if I can add, how many books did they had in their cannon when closed?
Edit 2: let's assume that the council of Jamnia existed, and the Jews decided to close the cannon early on at around 90 ce by the destruction of Jerusalem, under which authority did they closed their cannon of scripture?
Edit 3: under which authority did the Catholic Church closed the cannon by around 400 ce?
The Jews had an open ended canon -- they were waiting for the new covenant and the Messiah's coming promised in Jeremiah 31:31. The story of the Jewish scriptures was a narrative waiting for a conclusion. They expected to add books due to the connection of canon and covenant -- which is why the earliest Christians (who were Jews following the Messiah) codified a New Testament. They saw the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of the new covenant -- that's why we call them the "Old" and "New" "Testament." Testament coming from the Latin Testamentum -- the same word we'd translate as "covenant."
We know from both Josephus and Philo that by the second temple period the number was at least fixed to the 39 books used in the Protestant OT. They list 22/23, but that isn't actually a different number of books. Remember that the Jewish Tanakh had and has the exact same book as the Protestant OT but they order them differently (grouping the prophets and not splitting Chronicles and Kings into two parts like the Christians did). Same books, different order.
At least since the 1970s nobody within relevant scholarship believes there actually was a Council of Jamnia. The Shammai / Hillel debate that did take place there wasn't a council and wasn't actually about canon issues, but instead, about interpretation of particular passages. None of which held any level of binding on Judaism proper.
I would recommend my countless videos and podcast interviews on the topic of canon (this thecultishshow.com/podcast/did-constantine-decide-what-was-in-the-bible and thecultishshow.com/podcast/nicaea-and-the-lost-gospels might be a good place to start), but there was no authority that closed the canon. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't put the "Roman Catholic" church in those categories (i.e. a capital "R" and capital "C", "Roman Catholic") until probably the 9th century. Nonetheless, early Christians recognized (not chose) the book that already held authority for the church. Asking why Christians chose the 27 books of the NT is somewhat like asking "why did you choose your parents." The books held authority as being both from the time of Jesus and accepted as having divine origin.
@@WesHuff why the emphasis in "Roman Catholic" instead of just "Catholic Church"?
@@JuanRamirez-di9bl Sorry, I must have misread your original comment and thought you had written "Roman Catholic." That's my bad. I would still be uncomfortable capitalizing "Catholic" there. The word simply means "universal" in Greek, therefore it's not necessarily a proper noun and can just be left as the catholic church or, I would argue the more accurately, just putting "church".
Jews didn’t close their canon until well after Jesus Christ, thus they had no authority over their canon when they closed it, that authority had been given to the Church
@@WesHuffnobody gives two craps about what you are comfortable with.
1. The Jews did not agree on the canon. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Essenes all had different canons.
2. Jews after the time of Christ, that reject Christ, don’t have the authority to recognise the canon. Instead, that is left to the bishops who are in succession to the Apostles. Augustine makes this point.
3. Pope Damasus I makes the first official decree of what the canon is in the regional Council of Rome in 382AD. It includes the Deuterocanonical Books.
4. This same canon is reaffirmed at Hippo, Carthage, then later at the ecumenical Council of Florence.
5. It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand.
So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture. Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament.
Joe Heschmeyer has a great video on this topic:
th-cam.com/video/9udZKziHemo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
"It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture."
Well at least you can admit that the canonization of the deuterocanon was reactionary to the reformation, most catholics think it's a coincidence that the only books from the septuagint that were canonized were the ones that conveniently had arguments against the reformation.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand."
Belief =/= doctrine
Many people believed Limbo was real, doesn't mean it's official doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell.
"So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture."
Why is 3rd and 4th Maccabees not in the catholic bible? You do not need the protestants help to remove books from scripture, catholics seem just fine messing with the canon all on their own ;)
"Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament."
I don't understand, according to you Luther had the power to and did declare the deuterocanon uncanon and remove them from scripture (as far as his followers were concerned at least), but you're also saying he tried and failed to remove NT books as well?
Well which one is it?
@@InitialPC I’m not sure what your point is. Of course the Council of Trent was reactionary. All councils are. The Church calls a council to squash a heresy. In Acts 15, the Church calls the first council to combat the Judaiser heresy. Council of Trent condemned the heresy of Protestantism as well as cleaning up abuses.
The Catholic Church didn’t remove 3 and 4 Maccabees. She has never recognised them as Scripture.
I said Luther had authority to declare the canon? Not sure what you’re talking about.
Luther took it upon himself to decide what books make up Scripture. I obviously don’t think he had authority to do so.
I totally agree. Our friend in the vídeo does not refer to the Councils of the 4th century, in which the Church defined the cânon. He diminishes the authority of the Council of Florence(1442) which confirmed the cânon.
And he gives weak reasons to dismiss this important Council, saying that important Catholic figures did not accept the canon.
He misses the point. Once an article of faith is defined by a Council, it muar be accepted by all Catholics. Whether they like it or not. The Council of Florenc is abother element 8:35 that demolishes the affirmation that the Catholic was defined in Trent.
By the way, the first book printed, Gutenberg’s Bible (around 1450) conta-nos the deuterocanonical. With the Church’s express approval.
@@LuizFelipeMendoncaFilho you have not read the list of books given in each of those councils, otherwise you would have known they all have different books, one excludes baruch, each include and exclude different psalms, most of them affirm the septuagint esdras as canon, etc
actually read them, and then get back to me about "oh they knew from the beginning what was canon and it was the same the entire time"
no it wasnt
It's really very simple. The word of God decides what is the inspired word.
To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
{Isaiah 8:20}
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
{1 Corinthians 14:32}
It's hard to argue with the fact that God the Son Jesus Christ, built his Church, the Holy Catholic Church, and that satan built the Protestant Revolt to attack the Holy Catholic Church that Jesus built, to try to attack God through His Holy Catholic Church.
Satan did not make the Catholic Church 💀
Copied and read as valuable by who? Who had the authority to do that? And just an interesting questions for you Protestants: If you had a similar issue today, who would have the authority to decide on something like that in your church? Oh yeah, y'all don't have ANY authority to do that... Oh only God is your authority? Fair enough, make Him come down the SECOND time to tell you exactly what to do. Oh He told us what to do the first time He came down? What was it... i can't remember... Oh yeah, something with having a Pope and Bishops and all that...
3:29 - what authority had the jews post-Jesus' time to decide what books would form the Christian Bible? NONE. Let me give you the timeline for the development of the Bible:
382 AD - Pope Damasus I holds the Council of Rome, which establishes the canon of Scripture.
393 AD - Council of Hippo reaffirms the canon.
397 AD - Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon.
405 AD - Pope Innocent I reaffirms the canon.
419 AD - Another Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon.
1142 AD - The Council of Florence reaffirms the canon.
You literally said Catholics worship saints. Unless you misspoke, your credibility is severely damaged. Why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the New Testament canon, but not the Old Testament? Please find a list identical to the Protestant canon in the early church. You won't. On the other hand, you will find the Catholic canon in the early church.
Some of the apocrypha are strange, eg Judith and Tobit, also the insert into Daniel about Daniel being a judge in defence of Susanna. In the RCC these writings are read aloud at mass as 'the word of the Lord' and the congregation thanks God for it. When I was a Catholic and read these stories, it was like reading fables I couldn't take seriously.
Hello,
Do you feel the same way about similar stories in the rest of the old and New Testament? For example, God confusing everyone’s languages, Jacobs livestock being born with stripes or spots based on what is near them while they’re mating, the bronze serpent healing people, Philip the deacon being taken away from the Ethiopian eunuch and plopped down in another city, etc?
Seems like a dangerous, subjective way to decide canonicity in my opinion.
Peace.
Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.
You lost me with “worship of the saints.” It was good up to that point.
He lost me there too. That’s not even close to what we do with saints
You can disagree with the Catholic Church, that's fine, don't lie about it though. Catholics don't worship saints.
Was there an agreed cannon of the Old Testament at the time of Jesus? ABSOLUTELY NONE.
The Jews DID see them as Scripture, as seen in the many references made in the New Testament, as well as presence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nearly all anthropologists and historians agree on this, specially since the only real "canon" Jews ever had before the Middle Ages was the Torah, only 5 books, the Tanakh was more up in the air.
It was removed from Jewish texts during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, leading to the creation of the Masoretic Text, often called the "Hebrew Bible" despite being compiled in the Middle Ages, centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple and the start of Rabbinical Talmudic Judaism.
I also have to point out the reason why some early church fathers were sceptical of those books (they never rejected them completely) was because of their scarcity in the Hebrew/Aramaic language, not because of the theological points they presented. We of course currently have Hebrew and Aramaic copies of some these books from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which would pretty much settle it for those books present in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
the deuterocanon was never quoted in the new testament nor was it entirely included in the dead sea scrolls, only a select few appeared (and none in hebrew unlike what you claim), along with enoch which unlike the deuterocanon actually is quoted in the nt, doesnt make it canon though for some reason
"jews didnt have a canon"
where did the septuagint come from
@@InitialPC
1. Sirach was found in Hebrew, and Tobit in Aramaic, both in the Dead Sea scrolls.
2. Enoch is not canon in Catholicism and (most of) Orthodoxy because it's not part of their tradition, not because they deem it completely false, unlike Protestantism which has a closed canon, creating a conflict regarding Enoch for Protestants.
3. Paraphrasing of the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament:
Luke 1:52 - "He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly."
Sirach 10:14 - “The thrones of the arrogant God overthrows, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”
------
Romans 11:24 - "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Wisdom 9:13 - “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”
------
Matthew 7:16 - "By their fruits you shall know them."...
Sirach 27:6 - "A fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree."...
Among many other references and paraphrasings.
Edit: Forgot your question about the origin of the Septuagint, the Septuagint is a "tradition" of Greek translations of mostly the Hebrew proto-Masoretic.
That's why the Septuagint and proto-Masoretic versions of Deuteronomy 32:8 read "sons of God" instead of "sons of Israel" like the later Masoretic version used by Jews and Protestants reads.
@@adrian7856 Enoch was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls over 20 times, but this means nothing about its canonicity, but because we found one fragment of Sirach (not even a full scroll, it was a fragment!) oh well of course it must mean it's canon.
@@InitialPC We found TWO scrolls of Sirach, not one, 2QSir admittedly quite damaged but 11Q5-11QPs_a in extremely good shape, you are either way misinformed or knowingly lying.
And again, you apply the Protestant notion of a closed canon for books used by denominations that don't even believe in a completely closed canon, you use false equivalence.
Even some Protestants like Anglicans use the Deuterocanonical books, the Anabaptists call them Apochrypha and they still use them.
@@adrian7856 oh wow, a whole other fragment, how spectacular
and dont bash me for believing in a closed canon when catholics do the exact same fucking thing
Worship of the saints? How ridiculous, it's called venerating👎
The real issue is this. If there is no unified and infallible Church, then there can be no complete and closed Scripture certain for all believers. Ironically, Jesus instituted a Church which in turn the Holy Spirit used to give us the Scriptures. The Scripture calls the Church the pillar of Truth, that we will be led into all Truth, to take disputes before the Church authority, and contains a promise that this Church will be able to withstand the gates of Hell. So where is this unified, authorized, singular, infallible, undying Church that Christ started today? I would assert that the only Church that meets this criteria is the same one that gave every Christian their 27 book NT. If we trusted that Church enough for the infallible NT we all share, why question their OT?
1) The Protestant Jewish canon of the Old Testament is not included in the Bible; it is merely a human-made tradition. After all, Protestant dogmatic theology asserts that only the Bible is infallible.
2) Thus, any doubt regarding a book is sufficient reason to question its inspiration and canonicity. If this is the case, you should remove every book from Hebrews to Revelation, except for First Peter and First John, from your Bible due to historical doubts about their canonicity.
3) It was not mentioned that Protestants have disputed the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and that Luther removed these books from the Bible. Other Protestants also considered 2 Peter apocryphal. Indeed, these books challenge the concept of sola fide, prompting the Council of Trent to reaffirm the Old Testament as containing 46 books and the New Testament 27, not 23 or 22 as some Protestants claimed.
You should do a show about Martin Luther's mental health. He was a very sick man. It might also explain a lot about the reasons for the reformation. Not only was he a maniac depressive. Since the second half of his thirties, he was suffering from severe constipation, causing hemorrhoids and anal prolapse. At the beginning of his forties he had vertigo, tinnitis and headaches. He would go into the confessional and recite the previous day’s sins not for five minutes, but for two hours, three hours, sometimes even four hours-reciting in detail every sin he could remember. Luther felt the imminent wrath and judgment of God. If it was crazy to feel this imminence, then Luther was undoubtedly a crazy man. He would come back from the confessional tormented after spending hours confessing his sins. As soon as he got back to his room, he would remember a sin he had forgotten to confess. This is a neurotic preoccupation with guilt, and so they say Luther was crazy. The poor fella was a mess. Maybe the 45,000+ protestant denominations worldwide are the fruits he left as a reminder. The Catholic Church ....the most persecuted Church of all has had its issues and still does for sure, but it is still here and always will be. Sorry Luther...you should have remained a Catholic priest all your life sunbeam!
6:22 Catholics don’t worship saints. Worship is reserved for God only.
Catholics also removed books
You didn’t watch the video. Did you.
@WesHuff I've done my research lol...I don't need to...the catholic church is an indoctrination station
Some protestants should not be judiazers
But a HUGE HOLE in your argument still remains. Only the church itself had the authoity to make such decisions and not the so-called reformers who continue to fracture to this day outside of the proper framework of the Holy Church.
I think there's a lot to be said as well about the formation of the Hebrew Bible, the debates among the various Jewish communities concerning their canon, the when, how, and why of it being settled, because as you've stated, that has a direct impact on the canon that all Christians hold to.
Sidenote: "WORSHIP of the saints"? Come on Wes, you're a better scholar and apologist than that, haha!
Great video though, blessings!
Gabby! Thanks for giving it a watch.
I think a lot of the debates about the "what" of the Hebrew Bible in Jesus' day are overstated. Jesus quotes a lot of Scripture and not once did the Sadducees object on the basis of a Scriptural disagreement. Likewise Josephus's use of the "twenty-two books" that were "laid up in the temple" (Against Apion 1.18; Antiquities 3.7, 5.17) certainly provides strong evidence as to what and how many books the Jews in the 1st and 2nd century considered Scripture.
As to your side note, I think you could argue that Luther and Calvin's beef was with a worship of the saints in their day. I totally understand the distinctions between terms like "worship", "obeisance", "veneration", "latreia", and "hyperdulia" (even if I think some of them might be a distinction without a difference). Nonetheless, giving the difference the benefit of the doubt, in Luther's day there was certainly a problem with the disconnect between the theology articulated in the halls of the theology schools vs. the actual playing out of the practice of the laity (as there is in a lot of instances today in both Protestant and RC circles).
@@WesHuff I'm with you on those points for sure.
As to the first I meant more in terms of how, even based on the Josephus reference you provided, both Christians and Jews were hashing out their own Scriptures at the same time (to varying extents of course), rather than one having been closed far earlier before Christ and then rearranged by Christians centuries later.
And to the second point like you said just making distinction between official teaching and popular piety/misapplication (like the Protestant distinction between an official understanding of Sola Scriptura vs. popular protestant piety/misapplication of "all I need is my Bible"). Definitely agree that the way official doctrine plays out can often be very different to what it's actual meaning and intent are.
Thanks for your response!
Really appreciate this video and your content. Would be curious to see the outcome of a sit-down with you and John Bergsma, especially regarding his research into the Dead Sea scrolls and what he perceives as there bearing on the deutero-canonicals. Would probably be a fruitful conversation. Merry Christmas by the way!
We don’t worship saints.
But very good presentation
Luther schisms cause others to follow. By following Luther’s Logic each individual has the right to group up and make their own church. And take away any books they want you may say. “No you don’t understand the books Martin Luther took away are the non inspired books”
Then I would ask you what do you mean by non-inspired when Jesus himself quotes from them
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6
- the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19
- sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Comment for the algorithm
As a lifetime Catholic I do understand this history.
You had me until you said “worship of the saints” which is not what we do. It’s more like “I know grandma is watching over me” en masse rather than “these men are holy, worship them.”
Wess Huff, the Catholics added books that weren't in the Biblical canon.
The Old Testament Canon was completed and closed before the Catholic church added those books.
I’d really appreciate you actually watching my videos before commenting on them.
@WesHuff I was just stating the facts about the Catholic Church.
I wasn't contradicting you, unless you are a Catholic.
@@alanhales1123 I am not Roman Catholic. Once again, something you'd have known if you'd watched the video before commenting.
@@WesHuff I never said you were a Catholic.
I was just stating the facts about the Catholic Church.
@alanhales1123 you really didn't watch the video is his point. Watch it first before making a comment that he clearly states.
I did enjoy your video Wes but your small comment that Catholic worship the saints is incorrect but otherwise great fair view, even from a Catholic.
As a Protestant I can securely say the other books are good for history and others provide context on what things Jews believed in their oral history. But should they be in the Bible? No. You can literally feel the difference in the word of the Spirit and the word of men. 1st Enoch has the Holy Spirit on it also, but there’s a lot added/changed in that book and it’s really obvious. Nonetheless it’s clearly talking about Jesus Christ and we have copies from the Qumran texts older than Christ. So there’s something there, but there’s also problems that tell you someone changed it. Most notably the chamber for the dead souls of sinners that are not going to burn in the lake of fire in Chapter 22. That’s just not matching the other 66 confirmed books. Jude and Peter definitely quoted directly from Enoch which means the Holy Spirit was willing to verify at least the original untainted text. Unfortunately it was so Messianic that the Jews didn’t preserve whatever the original said.
GOD Bless!
I think you might be thinking of the wrong non-canonical list. The Roman Catholic Bible doesn’t include Enoch. I do however have a video on Enoch though so you should check that out: th-cam.com/video/-1WUWW7ZCEc/w-d-xo.html
@@WesHuff Oh I’m aware they were not included 😉
I was just adding in other apocryphal/pseudepigraphal texts with my thought on the subject. Out of the strictly deutero-canonical texts I find the Maccabees books pretty useful to understand what Daniel Chapter 8 was forecasting. There’s some nice Jewish oral history glimpses in the other texts too, but they don’t have the Holy Spirit on them at all.
As for “Lost Scripture of the New Testament” itself, it’s such gibberish that it’s not even worth telling others to study for glimpses, they’re not even written by Jews and it’s obvious while you read them haha. But yes, the deutero-canonical texts are useful but not scripture, I agree with you.
Side note, I think the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does include 1 Enoch and I think there’s a few splinter sects in Christianity that also like to incorporate the text. I like 1 Enoch a lot, I just know there’s some very obvious changes to whatever it originally said and therefore there’s probably some less than obvious changes too and I can’t let it affect my understanding of the 66 that sing one song. 1 Enoch is a wonderful proof text that Jews were so hesitant to accept the first earthly coming of Jesus as a man and then a definitive second coming where he would be King of Kings that they rejected the text and allowed it to be dispersed amongst scribes that wouldn’t preserve the text in the same respect as the Rabbis in Jerusalem would have. There’s definitely credence to a lot of what it says in Enoch from the 66 books, possibly even some insight into why a flood was so necessary. But once again I feel it’s best left outside the Bible to study as a text you know is tampered in advance.
GOD Bless!
Feel the difference...please!
“Feel the difference” - sounds like something a Muslim or a Mormon would say.
Here’s a passage from one of the deuterocanonical texts.
Wisdom 2:12-21.
“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God.”
This passage is a clear prophecy of Christ.
Yes the Protestants removed books!
Why should we have those books that weren’t originally in the Jewish Old Testament? The Jewish OT is clearly stated in the Bible that the Jews have the authority to make it.
@palmerpiper1797 then all we need is the tora! Correct?
@@dodgeramsport01 No, but we don’t have the authority to add more books to the OT. The NT was made so we can hear about the new covenant.
@palmerpiper1797 ok then we aggree that it was the Protestants that added to and took away! Correct?
@@dodgeramsport01 The only thing the Protestants took away was the added books to the OT. Also what are you saying the Protestants added?
Misleading to the point of deception. Huff and puff trying to blow authentic history down.
What exactly is misleading and what primary historical sources would you point to to correct my “deception?”
@@WesHuff I'll get back to you, promise.
@@WesHuff Please see my latest post in answer your question
@@peipappy615 uh huh
First I would like to apologize to Mr Huff for my original derogatory “Huff and puff” comment. It is just that these arguments over the scriptural cannon and historic realities are repetitive ad nauseam and serve no real purpose except to continue to put a wedge between the Christian faithful. Nevertheless, I find I must once again provide some light of truth to this crazy revisionists history discourse.
It appears that Mr Huff is averse to “strawman” arguments as he mentions this twice; once in the beginning and again at the end of his video. I agree, however, he goes on to present a case against the inspirational efficacy of the Deuterocanonical cannon using strawman arguments.
Mr. Huff twice mentions that the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) has the same Old Testament books as the Protestant Bible. This is true, but he agrees so do Catholics. This does not support the argument in question. (strawman).
He uses Romans 3:2 to argue that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Also true, but Paul does not give a list of oracles (strawman). He then goes on to try and prove which “oracles” are canonical and which are not by providing examples to support his version of revisionist church history.
Were there disagreements over which ancient writings should be included in the canon or not? Of course. There continues to be disagreements throughout the Church to this day. For these reasons, various councils were held to settle the authoritative list of canon throughout the early years and reaffirmed in succeeding councils whenever the list was brought into question.
I cannot speak for any protestant denomination, but I can speak with confidence on Catholic issues and doctrine. Catholics do not worship saints, we have an authoritative list of 73 books in our canon since 382AD proposed at the Council of Rome and reaffirmed in councils of Hippo (393), at Carthage (397) at the Council of Florence in (1442) and lastly at ecumenical Council of Trent in 1546 after our ancient list came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including a disgruntled Catholic priest named Martin Luther.
This is the real history.
Our early Christians brethren had no bible for nearly 400 years, yet they kept the faith and were able to pass down the true Christian doctrine to us through their traditions, worship and fidelity to truth of Christ, His Apostles and their successors. We owe them our gratefulness and admiration for their sacrifice in the face of adversity and truly terrifying persecution. Unfortunately, now we see Protestants basing their faith on a Sola Scriptura that is historically and doctrinally incomplete.
I’ll let you figure out how that happened.
This isn’t even a debatable subject, Protestants removed them, end of story
THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK - Excerpt from such book from Jimmy Akin: "The Bible is an inestimable gift from God. It's his word in written form - something each of us should cherish and study regularly. Some groups of Christians try to claim the Bible for themselves. They make it sound like the Catholic Church is opposed to Scripture. Some even claim that the Church "hates" the Bible.
But as we'll see, all Christians owe an enormous debt to the Catholic Church, for it was through the Church that the Bible was given to the world. Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church. He appointed its first leaders, and they were the ones who-under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the books of the New Testament, which completed and became the capstone of all the scriptures that had come before.
The Holy Spirit then guided the Catholic Church to discern which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. This involved the crucial process of sorting the true scriptures from all of the false ones that existed.
The Catholic Church laboriously copied the scriptures in the age before the printing press, when every book-including lengthy ones like the Bible-had to be written by hand. It thus preserved these books through the centuries, unlike so many ancient works that have now been lost.
The Catholic Church is why we have the Bible today, and everyone should be grateful for the gift that, by the grace of God, it has given to the world.
The Bible is a Catholic book!