This was one of the reasons I became Catholic. I had no actual knowledge as to why or where the Bible came from. When I started looking into it you have no choice but to accept the Catholic Bible and everything else starts falling into place with Catholic teaching.
@andrewpruett3719. That has NOT been my experience at all. I’ve never steered clear of the deuterocanon, but don’t consider it a gateway to Catholicism. It’s not at all Catholic if you ask me! Ditto with the Apostolic Church and the Apostolic Fathers. There’s little or no semblance to Rome. And I really cannot even fathom how Catholics evaluate the evidence so differently.
@@ericcarlson9885 So your ok with this? Maccabees 12:39-48 in which Judah's troops found stolen idolatrous charms on the corpses of Jewish warriors slain on the battlefield. He therefore offered prayers and an expiatory sacrifice for these warriors who had died in a state of sin.
@@guardianangel3425 It’s narration. There are all kinds of treacheries in Scripture: rape, seduction, blasphemy, betrayal, apostasy, and murder. Am I ok with these stories BEING in the Bible? Yes, yes I am. Do I think they are normative? (Go thou and do likewise.) No, no I do not. If 2 Maccabees were in Scripture, would this narrative be normative? No, clearly not. Do even Catholics think it is? I don’t see how. They would have to drastically change other dogmas to fit this one in.
I’m a cradle Catholic but I’ve had a lot of journeying with Protestants, namely my wife (who will be received into the church next month, pray for her and us if you please), so I have love and respect for Protestant people, but man, the more I learn about Protestant origins, the more angry and disgusted I get. Outright lies about Christ’s church, theologies of self masquerading as presupposed “biblical” teaching. The more I hear of Luther, the more unhinged and unwell he seems to be; Calvin seemingly a wrathful dictator. Praying for unity becomes so taxing in light of all this, but I’ll keep at it. Thanks for your work Joe, this was a great explainer of the historical data, I definitely learned a few things!
I was also shocked to discover how deranged Luther really was. He personally disliked certain parts of the Bible and thought they shouldn't be taken seriously. He said he hated the book of James so much that he felt like burning it.
@@mac3441 Yes, and he was tormented by his feelings of guilt about his own sins and was constantly going to confession , which might explain why he invented a salvation doctrine where your sins could be ignored and you only needed faith.
This was so well done! Wouldn't it be nice if that protestant Todd fellow actually gave Catholics a fair shake on the matter. It's not even the 'Catholic' viewpoint, it's just simply the historical chain of events that 100% vindicate the Catholic viewpoint. Thank you Joe for your work.
I've had this discussion with protestants several times before. When I point out that the Eastern Orthodox canon contains these books while schisming centuries before Trent, I'm usually just met with "what's an orthodox?" People need to read more. Search engines are amazing things.
@@deleteduser1892this! I have to always put Catholic in the search terms to ensure I get Catholic sites otherwise you end up with just protestant ones. I learnt this after doing it a couple of times and when reading realising it just didn't add up to Catholic theology
Your channel is just awesome. The approach you make on church history and apologetics is different: Take Protestant claims and follow them to their logical conclusions…. I love it
« I know that messiah is coming. » a random not very pious Samaritan. « I can’t believe a moment when Solomon and Jeremiah knew about the messiah didn’t end up in the Bible for some peoples discenrnment. » Of course they’re in Baruch and the book of Wisdom. Like I said on Apocrypha Apocalypse’ forum, there are also christological things in Enoch. And they’re in 4th Esdras. There’s even a maryological one in 4th Esdras and I’m thinking of expositions that on the Isaak Leillhikar channel soon.
@@rhwinner Also the format of the Gospel is quite similar to the books of the Maccabes and Jeremiahs whole corpus. The books of Maccabes are roughly four books, in one case of two of the books with the same narrative told twice with different things told in it. The four gospels have a lot of similarity to that. And also, Jeremiah has a history book namely Kings, a prophecy book Jeremiah, the gospels are telling the story of Jesus before the time this is all happening and what its all about and it includes prophecies Jesus tells them about whats going to be happning as instructions, and another book with a prophecy which they have in the emperial city deportation, Baruch, like the gospel of Mark, and then, extraordinary coincidence, the prophet Jeremiah wrote an Epistle, and the Apostles epistles have similar thematic influence from the Epistle ofJermeiah, especially Peter and Johns ones. Peter talks about how theyre in dispetion in Babylone, and John talks about making sure you keep to the true spirituality and how to discern the false one you will encounter.
@@isaakleillhikar8311Tobit also is very similar to the Gospels and is packed full of christological elements, it's one of the most christological books in the whole Bible
My family are old school methodists.... I was baptized in that denomination and I remember my grandfather had a really old methodist Bible. It was amazing the size of it. The deuterocanon was there as well but had all been moved to the back of the book. I asked my grandad about them... he said they're real Bible stories but fell out of popularity. I'm like how does anything sacred just fall out of popularity? He never told me catholics still keep them, why we had moved them to the back, or why they became unpopular. For me it was just another bread crumb on the trail to rome.
@rhwinner Yeah it's really crazy. They didn't even remove them from their bibles until the 1800s I think. That Bible that belonged to my grandad was about 100 years old.
@rhwinner that really is crazy... when I was a protestant, the issue of deuterocannon never really got brought up. Shoot, the whole process of how we got our Bible was a mystery as far as I knew. The main answer I would hear is the holy spirit gave us the books. Now as a catholic, I find it sad that the church fathers that put scripture together get no credit. No credit is given for the cannon, the chapter and verse divisions, the chronology of the Bible, the titles to the books, or the accuracy of early translations. Not to mention the hundreds of extra biblical traditions that they follow without a thought like funerals rites, crosses, hymns, and imagery.
@@timboslice980 It's true, Protestants filched virtually their entire religion lock stock and barrel from from us - feasts, bible, dogmas - and then turn around and spit in our faces like ungrateful teenagers. However, we must not hold it against them. Keep loving them and do what we can to correct, reprove and encourage them.
Protestants should be ashamed they removed books from the Bible. Imagine if the Catholics wanted to remove Books from the Bible - the Prots would be outraged.
I try to be mindful that it's our sin nature & take all the hateful misunderstandings & bigoted comments towards Catholics as further evidence that Catholics are on the right path, in the true Church of Christ. --We're all here to learn to manage the sin we took upon ourselves & it requires being tested. Plus, many wouldn't feel as strongly about studying our Faith in-depth, if we weren't constantly called to defend it(so it is good). --I've always enjoyed going to other Christian denominations & their events(Christ did pray for unity among His followers); although, I deeply believe Mass is the fullness of worship. I think worship requires sacrifice & offering, so without the Eucharist it's just a celebration to honor our reasons for worship?! --We have nothing worthy of sacrifice to God; except through Christ. By taking in the body & blood of Christ we're purifying ourselves to become the sacred offering; of our trust, obedience & desire to follow Christ by denying our temptations. --I apologize for my rambling. **Recently, chatting with the pastor's wife, she mentioned a new pedo case at a church school. Naturally, it was Catholic, they're the only ones that make headlines, bcuz no one remembers how little we knew of pedos at the time all those stories broke(decades ago) & how they were followed by all kinda boys & girls clubs, preschools, nurseries, etc. No one cares that our Gov. left it to the Church, bcuz they wanted to wash their hands of it & feared backlash. --I blurted out my thoughts; that the Pope should've brought all the guilty back to Rome, held public trials & swift executions (should've hung them all publicly); in accordance with the Scripture! --BUT no matter how they'd been dealt with everyone would still be complaining about the Catholic Church & how they handled it! Either it wasn't enough or the Church thinks too highly of themselves & went too far 🤷 --Just like when ppl bring up the Old Testament to claim that God's judgement was "too severe"; having destroyed entire cities without considering that God knew all of their hearts & minds, always sent someone ahead to tell the ppl to repent & put it into context.
Wow, as a Christian/Lutheran who has been seeking to know about the Catholic religion for the past 7 months; EVERY thing has unraveled in my theology of the non denominational/Lutheran faith. Started reading the early church fathers and then listening to the Catholic apologists on TH-cam; I’m totally convinced that the Catholic Church is right. I even bought myself a new bible 7 months ago with the catholic books that aren’t in my bible before. Amazing how it all flows now.
@@colepriceguitar1153 what do you mean, "doesn't make sense"? You don't understand how it was established by Christ? You don't understand how the Church is structured? You don't understand the teachings? Or are you making a reference to the fact that God is ultimately cloaked in mysteries we have to accept we won't be able to come close to understanding on this earth?
@@Xymage well one thing I don’t understand is what catholic teachings are supposedly infallible and which aren’t. I understand the first seven councils are thought to be infallible and ex cathedra statements are considered infallible. Is that it?
some of the best Catholic apologists I know of are former protestants who read Early and Medieval Christian philosophers as part of their conversion journey
this didn't age well. Your Pope oked transgender baptism, transgender godparents and same sex god parents. this is why the Papacy is dangerous and Catholics are leading to a wordley view
Indeed! It is so beautiful, right? So much to learn from the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, just so much truth and wisdom in it! God bless you! Enjoying it too at present! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻✝️✝️✝️
I bought a facsimile copy of the original 1611 KJV. It includes the 7 missing books in later printings of the KJV. The introduction leaves no doubt it's a protestant bible by it's anti papist comments. When I ask protestants who has the authority to remove those books given their bible alone position. It's a show stopper.
@@franciscoguzman1065 ya it's a little shocking to me as a Methodist (looking for a new church home after gay pastor/marriage affirmation), that people insist Catholic belief is not in the Bible. Sure it isn't, as the books were removed that made them Biblical. Pretty dishonest but most people I know have no idea about this.
@@Richard-e5m not a fact. Canon was translated by St Jerome in 392AD. They were included In the Septugent and in the Latin Vulgate. There is NO CHRISTIAN BIBLE, prior to the reformation that excluded these books. 4th century Jews, just like the Jews of the 4th century deny Christ as Messiah, protestants are dead wrong to align themselves with Jews who deny the Christ rather than side with the apostles.
Hi Joe! Great video. It was hilarious that Todd legitimately thinks Catholics include the deuterocanon in the New Testament rather than the Old. I think it would have been good to devote a little bit more time to the canonical lists that don’t include the entire deuterocanon. Protestants can quickly list several fathers who don’t list those books and therefore claim they didn’t view them as inspired, it deserves a larger response in my opinion.
My sister who had converted from Catholic to Evangelical Protestantism, enrolled me in a Evangelical 'boot camp'. This was during a recent separation from my wife. The 5 instructors were all ex Catholics. They explained that the reason the 7 books were removed because the Jews removed them. It follows then the Jews would know better. What they neglected to say the Jews removed it after the death of Jesus. As it many of the verses were about predictions about the coming of the Christ. The Protestants were not exactly lying but they were disingenuous in not saying the truth that during Jesus's ministry, all books were included during his time. There were so many lies propagated, and I left the bootcamp immediately. Be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Todd Friel was completely incoherent. He’s an actor trying to convince with his voice dictation, enthusiasm, etc…he was bouncing all over the place. I literally found myself chuckling at various points…that was hilarious!
I used to like his stuff even before looking into Catholicism and his brass behavior and yelling at the viewer was a major turn off for me and I had to stop watching. There was just something about him that never sat right with me (Actually now that I think about, I felt the same about Bull Nye and look what happened to him lol) and then when I started looking into Catholicism a couple months ago and seeing what other Protestants thought, he was speaking bold lies about Catholicism and I couldn’t watch him anymore period. If you’re going to argue against someone, at least understand what you’re arguing.
If I was a Protestant I would still accept the deuterocanon as scripture. Also, I guess the Orthodox Churches liked Trent so much they decided to canonize them too😂
@@soteriology400 ummm again the jewish people had no authority to know what the canon is. Jesus left that to the apostles and the church through the Holy Spirit.
@@soteriology400 1. Only 1 and 2 Maccabees are considered historical books, the rest are wisdom literature in the same vain as Proverbs or Job. 2. Sirach and Tobit are believed to have been accepted by the Essenes and some Pharisees accepted Sirach which is why it had to be declared uninspired by the leading Rabbi in the late first century. They were all accepted by Greek speaking diaspora Jews and some are still considered canonical by Ethiopian Jews. 3. The relevant question is what books did the Christians accept, not the Jews.
@@Forester- This is where you are overlooking Roman’s 3:2, and minimizing it. The majority never accepted the 7 books as canon nor inspired. It is best to stick with scripture on this one. Apostle Paul knew what he was talking about. To use a fringe element to define the norm, is intellectually dishonest. The question is, what did the people whom God entrusted His words with decide? I will not let power hungry people in the past define the standard. Will not go there,
It’s so interesting to me… which of these groups was attempting to make theological changes and which was attempting to maintain the historic practices? It seems more consistent that the group attempting to change doctrine would also be more willing to change their basis of authority, which the Protestants were clearly willing to do.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsnot just that but that he would appeal to Jewish authorities who also stated that the Gospels were not the inspired word of God! Why would any Christian take any Jewish authority formed after Our Lord walked this earth when they don't accept the Gospels
I'm Orthodox and find the Protestant lies about the Catholic church, the general Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry, very annoying, very offensive. And very ugly. The most absurd consequence of this bigotry is the habit, universal among the Evangelicals, of referring to themselves as Christians and calling all other Christians something else.
Tks for your support. The Protestant tactic of attacking Catholicism with prejudice and from ignorance of things Catholic is bewildering and unchristian
We are all Christians and God's elect are throughout all churches. On my journey I am finding truth in all different denominations. Christians should never hate on each other, that is not of Christ.
Your comment is very refreshing, thank you. Calling themselves "Christians" as opposed to "Catholics" or anyone else is strategic. Even though the rank and file of them are blind to it, it is an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church, but, in their minds, "save" those who aren't "saved." I like to respond with, why is it then, that all the Churches in the world founded by an apostle, from Jerusalem to Spain and into Africa to India, Asia Minor, and Greece, all over the known world, in apostolic times, even if, unfortunately, we're not in full communion now, hold central as did the earliest Church Fathers, that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Christ? In fact, it's what Christianity is! It always stumps them. When they say, " No one can have the Holy Spirit more than I have!" I laugh and say, really? That's what Mormons claim. It always leaves them with a blank look on their face.
My favorite version of this was walking out of the theater in 2004 after seeing the movie "Troy," and a girl behind me complaining to her friend that, while she liked the movie, "they totally ripped the plot off of Lord of the Rings."
This was interesting to watch, and it is a great example of why you shouldn't necessarily seek information from the group you belong to. You end up with confirmation bias. I've learned that in a lot of ways I was given false information on the Catholic church because I was always listening to fellow Protestants rather than going to knowledgable Catholic sources. This goes both ways of course, and I think we are always best served by being willing to hear out both sides in a respectful manner.
Very well said! When I'm preparing books, podcast episodes, etc., I try to spend time reading or listening to "the other side" of whatever issue I'm arguing, because it's really easy otherwise to argue against a strawman, or at least miss good possible rebuttals.
The gaul of that guy to get in front of a camera and edit the entire video all without checking to see if he was arguing against the correct critique shows how little he actually cares about the truth, and how little he actually cares about us. He isn't trying to bring us to the truth, he's trying to keep those who agree with him from wandering away, even if they would be wandering towards the truth
My husband and I went on a quest to personally place eyes on several pre-18th c. Bibles and Bible manuscripts--both in universities and libraries across the US and in Europe--to verify that they contained the 7 books in question. It was a lot of time and money spent, but we wanted to make certain Catholics were telling us the truth that these books REALLY were in the Bibles. We got permission to go into library archives and see originals. We spoke to various librarians when the manuscripts were unavailable to the public for various reasons. I became satisfied that even the codexes from the 4th century included at least some of the Deuterocanonicals. None were the same as the current Protestant Old Testaments. It was quite a discovery that eventually led us to Catholicism. One thing I am curious about. Many Protestant canon scholars do report that there were many books that claimed authority but that the 4/5th century Catholics scholars rejected them based on several reasons. The Shepherd of Hermas and the first book of Clement WERE considered canonical in some Christian regions and were discarded from the canon. St. Augustine and Jerome have letters they exchanged arguing what books were canonical. I've read them. I got the impression that you believed that the church did not reject certain books--as if that was a Protestant myth. But I listened twice and still wasn't sure if that is what you were saying.
*I became satisfied that even the codexes from the 4th century included at least some of the Deuterocanonicals. None were the same as the current Protestant Old Testaments.* Jerome's o.t. is 39. Hefele in his work A History of the Councils of the Church, vol 2 pp 323 gives details of the synod of Laodicea. That o.t. list doesn't have any apocryphal books in it. Athanasius' o.t. canon only has Baruch. And yes, some Codices didn't have some apocryphal books but included others. The question isn't do the old bibles or documents contain the apocrypha? But were they considered inspired? There was certainly disagreement on that in the 4th or 5th centuries. As well as the 6th.
@@Ekim1740 Jerome, Prefaces Samuel and Kings. "This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that *what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings.* Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd *are not in the canon.* " Thats Jerome in the 4th century. Was he a prot? Read a book.
Our Ethiopian Tewahedo brethren have an even larger canon of scripture that includes Clement and possibly a form of the Didache. (If memory serves). What a great journey to take with your spouse. Πάντοτε Χαίρετε.
I am a Protestant from England and found this very edifying, even though I am not yet persuaded my Protestant Bible is wrong. But thank you. I am not overly-familiar with Wretched: I have heard of it but not watched it: (stylistically I found it forced but that may be my English sensitivity showing.) Nonetheless, on content, I agree that the Wretched channel in this example did not cover itself with glory to say the least. Thanks for the evidence you cited. The early Church clearly did have these 7 books in the Bible from what you cite from the Council of Carthage 397 and Augustine and Jerome. I appreciated what you quoted from Ben Witherington III that the Jews did not accept them as canonical but there was an acceptance that they were deutero-canonical. (Something to ponder: why the Jews have their own view of purgatory yet reject 2 Maccabees as canonical?) My understanding of why the Protestants have the Bible we do is that it was on the basis of what the Jews accepted as canonical OT, so later Reformers (quite late by what you say, 1825!) subsequently 'standardized' the removal of the apocrypha from the Church's canon, where the word 'standardized' indicates a long-held unease regarding them. On the specifics of the letter to the Hebrews, I can accept that the author of Hebrews is aware of 1 and 2 Maccabees and his own hall of faith would definitely have echoed with their hall of deeds. But I don't think the last reference (Hebs. 11:35) necessarily has to imply that he thought 1 and 2 Maccabees were canonical just because all his other quotes were canonical, since on that argument, Jude would have to consider Enoch canonical which Catholics and Protestants don't (seemingly only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does). On the KJV originally including the apocrypha (the 7 OT books), you are correct - seemingly included right up to 1885, even later than 1825, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY WHERE IN THE BIBLE THEY WERE INCLUDED , namely between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT, so even in the day, they were still not regarded as being quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I understand that 1 and 2 Maccabees have been VARIOUSLY PLACED IN CATHOLIC BIBLES (though always with the latter immediately following the former) again indicative of the fact that EVEN IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, they are considered not quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I have not been able to find yet where they were included in the Geneva Bible, though it seems the Puritans removed the apocrypha from the Geneva Bible around 1600 on the basis of them being deutero-canonical BUT even when they were included, it seems that, from on-line information, "the preface always noted these might be read for edification but did not have the authority of Scripture" (source Geneva Bible at Houston Christian University - hc.edu/). (Tyndale did not live long enough to complete the OT so we do not know what he would have done with the apocrypha). Nonetheless, thank you again. I did enjoy learning (being reminded?) that Nicaea itself didn't tell us what its canon was (insofar as having a direct record of it) but we do have Jerome 75 or so years later saying what he believed was included. I also appreciated you citing Jerome's unease in having to translate the apocrypha and his later reference to it as Scripture.
The Judaism today rejects 2nd Maccabees because of the Rafna council lineage of the denomination today. But In ancient times different middle east countries and regions have different local Jewish canons some now lost.
@AlexisHernandez-f7s Calm down. Stay polite please. I am NOT aware of such a corpus though I don't believe the Jews hold them together BUT that does not deal with the fact that even the Catholics have the distinction between canon and deutero canon. You have a distinction. Why that distinction? What is the reason for this distinction? That is the point. It is not like a distinction between Old Testament and New Testament which is a time divide. In their case both Testaments are inspired.@@AlexisHernandez-f7s
I know this is a little afield of the topic, but a major protestant misunderstanding of Catholic theology is the assumption that all doctrine must be solely based on scripture (sola scriptura). Because this is such a strong presupposition, any doctrines, especially well developed ones, that aren't clearly articulated or strongly implied within scripture are highly suspected as being later accretions onto the original pure faith. They cannot imagine that there was more to the faith than what is laid out in scripture, that Christians believed and practiced things before the new testament was written, and that these traditions were passed on and can be found attested to in the historical record. What finally tipped me over the edge to become Catholic was recognizing in scripture that Jesus didn't write a book and distribute it for people to read and interpret on their own. He founded a church by calling apostles whom he gave authority to do the same works he did (and greater), as well as teach, defend, and pass on his teachings. The new testament is a product of the Church that Jesus founded. You cannot separate the Bible from the Church as if it stands by itself. We can say it has primacy in it's spiritual authority, but we can't say it is the only spiritual authority by itself.
It’s my understanding that sola scriptura is the position that scripture is the only *infallible* authority, which is what you basically just said. The idea that scripture is the *only* authority appears to be a common Catholic and ortho misunderstanding of the actual Protestant position. I’m new to this, but it seems evident to me that prots, catholics, and orthos are all taking past one another on this
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsoh romans , the Epistle addressed to our Church headquarters! How nice they always quote some chapters but so many of them don't even seem to believe such church actually existed
I think I can sum this up in one sentence: No, the Church didn't add books, and even if they did, they have that authority:). Now that the pot has been stirred, I say good day to you all:). God Bless,
Hallelujah to the Lord my God, for healing my heart during a heart attack! On March 26th 2022, just past midnight, I was laying restless in bed, and I had a heart attack. My arms and legs became tingly and numb, then my chest got tighter, and then my heart felt like it was being crushed. So I sang out to God and Jesus, about my pain, my feelings, my faults and my inabilities. As I sang, I began to feel like a river, and a hand was on my back, it's fingers where skimming the surface, separating the waters, causing ripples through my body. Then the hand reached inside my chest, lit my heart on fire, and the heat moved like waves through my body. When I was done singing, all the pain was gone, and I looked at the clock, it was past 1am, I had been singing near an hour. Then the voice of my guardian angel called my name from above, and there was a hymn of energy in the air, the same hymn I hear in my dreams of God. Hallelujah to the Lord my God for healing my heart! Hallelujah for His son Jesus for saving my soul! Hallelujah for every day! Hallelujah for every breath! The Lord is Faithful and true! May the Lord Bless your hearts!
What I don't hear mentioned is the obvious point that if we are following the Jewish canon, we would also reject the entire New Testament as Scripture as well! 🙄
This. The Jewish councils esp the one in 90 AD that convened to address what they called ‘thr growing cult of Christianity’ rejected the Gospels saying they weren't the inspired word of God. I always ask protestants why they appeal to Jews for the OT Canon when the Jewish Canon wasn't closed until long after Our Lord walked this earth yet don't accept the Jews in the ruling that the Gospels aren't inspired. Funnily enough none has ever been able to answer my question - they either get nasty, change topic, hurl ad hominems or just disappear only to find them in another Catholic video spouting the same stuff where I call them out on it again
Many Jews are quietly starting to reteach these books. For good reasons; For instance, there is no written mention of Hanukkah outside of Maccabees. The reason Jews rejected them in the first place is because they were thought to have been written in Greek. (Jews thought inspired works had to have originally been authored in Hebrew or Aramaic). Unfortunately for the Jews (and Protestants who hitched to that wagon,) the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls revealed that many of these books were originally written in Semitic languages (and revered among the Essenes.)
Love all your work Joe. One thing. I don’t think it goes near far enough to say (41:22) to say that Protestants gave themselves the authority to remove the seven books. It was the Bible Society - best I can tell this was a company who printed Bibles. And I think I read they made the final decision not based on principle but to save money on printing and shipping! So there was no “protestant church council” that got together to take this action. It was done without any authority at all. For those that want to be “biblically based” they should see this for the outrage and affront to God’s word that it is. And oh by the way, what are they going to do when someone decides to print a new Bible and add or remove more books. How about one that doesn’t include the “clobber verses”. Thank you LORD for giving us a Church to keep us from such blasphemy and ruining the Christian witness.
@@matthewoburke7202 Well, just like most of Church History, this little fact is left out... I mean I get it... if you raised in one of these well meaning "traditions" and you do encounter the love and some truth, why would you ever look beyond what you are taught? We just have to continue to work to educate Catholics and non-Catholics as to what it truly means to be Catholic - to stand up for THE Truth in its entirety "for the salvation of the World".
Go watch Gary Michuta's analysis on Apocrypha Apocalypse. It wasn't merely or even primarily a matter of money. These societies were pressured and knew that those books affirmed Catholic doctrine.
Sad thing... even though the Wretched channel has comments turned on in all the videos I checked out randomly, the particular video explored today has comments turned off.
One of his books has well over 100 citations of Church Fathers either explicitly calling deuterocanonical books scripture or using them to confirm doctrine.
Gary also has a great debate about the Deuterocanon with a Protestant. You can find it on youtube, I think. If not, it could be among the Alpha-Omega (James White) Great Debates.
@Joe Hechmeyer thanks for another great teaching easy to understand and research all whom you quoted from. Appreciate all your studies and hard work for the Kingdom of GOD.
Its sad and a problem that protestants have never even looked into this issue, they simply assume they are right, as evidenced by the guy from wretched thinking the removed books were New Testament books. He doesn't even know what point hes arguing
I'm a Protestant. The video you showed is the most embarrassing pro-Protestant view of the Old Testament Canon I have ever seen lol I made a video on my channel explaining why I think Catholics are right about the Canon.
I am not a Christian yet but very curious about the historical aspects and differences between belief systems. I've attended protestant churches but certain things have felt off to me, so I was very interested in learning more about these additional books. Thank you for putting together this informative video
Can I like this video twice? Thanks Joe for what you are doing. Please continue defending the Church. On a side note, it seems to me the Todd guy came off as one of those guys from in some suspect infomercials...
Even the augustinian numbering for the Commandments is composed of those holy numbers: the first 3 for God (Holy Trinity), the other 7 for neighbour (7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost)
Not to mention John 6:66. The only time Jesus allowed His followers to walk away. The major and most egregious example of Protestants walking away (not believing in the True Presence).
This presentation, once and for all, lays that silly Protestant contention to rest. Protestants, who are generally good people, are badly led astray and embarrass themselves with this absurd contention. Thank you Joe for your research, thought, logic, common sense and preparation that you brought to your wonderful presentation here.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsI noticed when I was starting to come back to the Church (not from protestantism). Catholic apologetics, since the earliest centuries, has always been on the defense line, going even out of their way to prevent any misunderstandings. Heretics however, all they have ever done, since the earliest eras is accuse and attack.
Outstanding reflection on the topic. I find your treatment of Scripture scholarly, yet accessible and instructive. Thanks! Please keep up the good work of teaching us as it’s inspirational.
Odd. Many Protestants do not confront Orthodox Christians: their denomination has the most books in their Old Testament. Catholics are in the middle while Protestants have the least. Good video.
The canon of the Holy Bible was defined by Pope St. Damassus I in the Decree of Damassus at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. We know that it is true, because the Pope declared it to be so. Subsequent councils simply affirmed his decree. The decree settled the disagreement between St. Augustine and St. Jerome was given the task to translate the original texts into the Latin Vulgate.....and yes, he decreed that the Deuterocanonicals were included.
The canon is a losing issue for Protestants when you get into the history. And that's a major problem for sola scriptura because you can't both claim scripture is your sole authority while also coming from a tradition that changed the canon of scripture. So like Friel does here, Protestants get really squirrelly when it comes to canon history.
I often take this approach when discussing Papal infallibility. They make the claim "no man I'd infallible" I say, do you believe the word of God is infallible? They obviously say yes. I then ask if they believe all men to be fallible? They of course say yes. Then I poise, " so, fallible men decided what was and wasn't acceptable for sacres scripture?" .....crickets. or some gobbledygook about God directing them by the Holy Spirit in that instance. Which I also argue "Oh, well that's what we do with the Pope, and have for 2000 years". And they're done talking. 😊
protestant here - just a side note, the enemy, our enemy uses things like this to seperate and get us to war against each other. I believe we both ...protestant and catholic believe in the death, burial and resurection of Jesus Chirst. We need to come together and reconcile our differences. just a suggestion - God Bless in the name of Jesus Christ
the enemy, as you put it, created protestantism. You cannot separate from the Church, deny the Church, its authority that came from Christ, remove scripture, remove doctrines, interpret however you prefer, remove the eucharist, and then turn around and say with a straight face : "oh but we're all together, lets not be divided" it's beyond hypocritical.
Jesus quoted from the Septuagint which had the detueralcanonical books. Protestants took them out. Luther added the word faith "alone"in the German translation. If you left it up to Luther, the book of James would be gone, calling it an Epistle of straw and how he wanted to throw it in his fireplace. Along with several chapters of Revelation.
Two things. First, I have been subscribed to Wretched for years & have watched this particular video by Todd more than once & have never caught that he keeps saying New Testament as the part of the Bible protestants think Catholics added to (I always thought he was just deflecting from the facts; & not making this big of an error). Second, do some protestants actually preach or teach that Maccabees is part of the New Testament in Catholic Canon? If so who has actually said this?
No, he got all of that wrong. All seven of the disputed books (1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom) are from the Old Testament. These were books that some, but not all, Jews accepted at the time of Christ.
The premise of your question assumes the Jews celebrated Hannukah because they believed in the apocrypha, more specifically 1st & 2nd Maccabees. In a sense you’ve confused cause and effect. The events recorded in 1st and 2nd Maccabees were part of Israel’s national history under the rule of Antioches IV, a man very well attested in secular sources. 1st & 2nd Maccabees was written because of the events that occurred and is considered by all historians as an extremely accurate account of the times. Antioches IV embarked upon a program to force hellenize the Jewish population. Not only did he want to force his Greek gods upon the Jews but he wanted to completely destroy the Jews worship of God. Hannukah centers around the desecration of their temple for 31/2 by Antioches and the restoring of that temple, an act seen as accomplished by the power of God.
Hebrews 11 is one of my favorite chapters of the NT. It was that chapter that convinced me that the "faith alone" doctrine is incorrect, well before I ever became a Catholic. In chronicling the OT saints, Hebrews shows us that their faith was always followed by righteous action.
An excellent exposition - thank you! I might add, stimulated by your comments relating Hebrews and 2 Maccabees, that all the NT authors knew Maccabees well. They knew the scriptures of their time well - their scriptures were the Septuagint. Jesus and the authors of the NT made frequent references showing their familiarity with the Septuagint as their scriptures.
It is frustrating when these Protestants lie about the church founded by Jesus Christ. More frustrating, is that followers sheepishly believe such claims.
The Catholic canon was established at the Council of Rome (under Pope Damasus I in 382). To address the changes made by Martin Luther to the Bible, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible.
What I don't understand is why Protestants call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha when they weren't called that in church history. Early Christian writings were very specific about what they call Apocrypha. Even Protestants recognize the Church Fathers didn't call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha. Taking them out is one thing. Calling them Apocrypha when they were not labeled that way is another.
@@ContendingEarnestly And later changed his mind and did not consider them apocryphal as stated in his writing Against Rufinus. He accepted the extra parts of Daniel, which Protestants call Apocryphal. The reason why he initially called the Deuterocanon Apocryphal is that there wasn't a Hebrew version. It had nothing to do with false teaching.
@@ContendingEarnestly Also, if you watch the video at the 16-minute mark, St. Jerome called at least one of the book's scripture, unlike Protestants who don't call the Scripture.
@vtaylor21 I know he did, but if you read his prefaces, he goes on to say these books are not in the canon. But if you want to read them, great, but not for doctrine.
I think one of the craziest things to think about is the imputed justification and not needing to go to purgatory. Because by many Protestants' definitions of imputed righteousness is that they are still a sinner and only clothed with the righteousness of Christ not inwardly cleaned. So that inturned goes against the book of Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.1john 1 7
@@lad6524 _'But _*_IF_*_ we walk in the light, as He is in the light...'_ I think you wrote the answer yourself... the word "if" is important to note Yep. *"Nothing impure will enter heaven..." Rev 21:27* Hope that helps.
@@eric.loves.to.fish1 but the righteous will fall many Times, the fact that nothing impure will not enter heaven doesnt mean that purgatory exist, you dont even know what that is because you talking about a place and then you say its a state
@@lad6524 The impure after they die have to be purified first and rid of their impurity...this is why they don't go straight to heaven as some denominations believe...may not make sense to you, but it sure does to me. Whether it's a place or a state is besides the point I think.
Struggling with trying to explain this stuff to my daughters father as we speak. Wont even acknowledge this stuff, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t frustrating. Not asking he accept it, just asking he acknowledge the history. Thank you for this
The Gutenberg Bible, the first bible printed using a modern printing press, was not an underground publication but a widely available and well-known one in the 1450s. Therefore, especially since it used the Vulgate translation that was common in bibles at the time, it was very much Catholic. The Gutenberg Bible is a printed copy of the Vulgate, which was a Latin version of the Bible first translated in the 3rd century. Within the Bible is the Latin Old Testament, which includes 46 books, and the Greek New Testament, with 27 books. There are a total of 73 books.
In the Biblia del Oso (1569) by Casiodoro de la Reina, the first protestant bible translated in Spanish from hebrew and greek (the catholic Políglota Complutense is older: 1520) the seven deuterocanonical books are presented without any diferentiation with the other 39 books of the OT. In fact there are presence of another books (non deuterocanonical like the Prayer of Manasseh) and they are calified as apocrypha but not the deuterocanonical.
I found this video very informative. Growing up in heavily protestant areas, I had never realized that Catholics only have two legs. The front, back, and top legs are so crucial. I can only imagine what an impoverished life the papist must lead.
Would an argument showing the eastern orthodox use of the 7 books be a useful argument at all. ie. If the catholic church inserted these at the reformation, how do you explain eastern churches (in schism) having them?
I think the most illogical reasoning is when Protestants say, “these books aren’t biblical”, as if the apostles handed out a table of contents of what should be in the Bible. To be “biblical” means to be physically in the bible. Physically in the canon of scripture. To use a really outlandish example, if we put willy wonka and the chocolate factory in the Bible, it would technically be biblical. What Protestants mean by biblical is that the books don’t jive with Protestant theology so hence they’re not “biblical” We were prob very close to the epistle of james not being “biblical” either if Luther had his way. And I quote, “an epistle of straw”
@ they didn’t. The Jews didn’t agree on what was scripture, for example the sadducees believed only the first 5 books of the Bible to be “scripture”. So the successors to the apostles aka the bishops aka the visible church, had to get together to decide what was inspired and what wasn’t inspired, both in the old and what would become the New Testament as we know it.
James White constantly says that the Catholic Church did not infallibly define the canon until the Council of Trent. Jimmy Akin didn’t correct him in the last debate. Is there any truth to that?
That is true. The only reason the church infallibly defined the canon at Trent was because it had been a settled matter beforehand. Catholic Church has never before infallibly decreed that you shouldn't shove your head into a meat grinder, because people aren't really doing that. If they did, then the Catholic Church would probably give doctrine against it.
Thank you for this thorough refutation and for exposing Todd Fiel as a liar! Can you tell us which church council settled the books our current cannon, both old and NT?
Our “wretched” friend is unaware of the Council of Rome in 382 AD. But, in actuality, the “list” was first exacted from the Easter letter of Athanasius in around 354-5 AD.
I wonder how readily Todd Friel and other Protestants would accept St. Jerome’s theology, as they do his personal opinion on the Canon, based on these quotes: “You see then that the blessedness of a bishop, priest, or deacon, does not lie in the fact that they are bishops, priests, or deacons, but in their having the virtues which their names and offices imply.” (Against Jovinianus 1:35 [A.D. 393]). “In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: Matthew 19:27 Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, Luke 18:29-30 Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.” (Against Jovinianus 1:26 [A.D. 393]). “He endeavors to show that they who with full assurance of faith have been born again in baptism, cannot be overthrown by the devil.” (Against Jovianus 1:3 [A.D. 393 “One thing I will say and so end my discourse, that you ought either to give us a new creed, so that, after baptizing children into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you may baptize them into the kingdom of heaven; or, if you have one baptism both for infants and for persons of mature age, it follows that infants also should be baptized for the remission of sins after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” (Against the Pelagians 3:19 [A.D. 415]). “But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. (Against Jovinianus book 1 par 26 (347-420 ad) "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails." (Letter 51 par 2 [347-420 AD])
The same people who put together the New Testament also put together the Old Testament book collections. How can you accept one set and reject another. Both were inspired by the Holy Spirit, right?
Well said Joe. This argument has been in place for so many centuries and still active. The Bible of 73 Books OT plus NT as it originally canonized is a CATHOLIC BOOK. Its it property. Luther stole it and removed 7 books that do not suit his stupid theology. So when any non Catholic preaches the message of the Bible and as Catholics, I advise to please do not listen to them, ignore their lies because they are not telling the truth and the message is always wrong and misleading. WHY? Because its not their book. How would someone other than the author the Catholic Church come and explain your own writings. Exactly what happen to the Bible. 73 Books at Luther's time and then he removed 7 then they have only tampered-with 66 books today. What we see is that when we add another 6 to 66 then Luther is then # 666 the Anti Christ. Simple as that traitor!! They also claimed a fake Jamnia Council that never happened in 90 AD. A Council that never was. Another lie emerges. Jamnia as they falsely claimed was a Jewish Council. The Jews community at that time did not have faith in Jesus and there was never a New Testament finalised or in place in 90AD. Jewish never believed in Jesus and their Bible at that time was the Old Testsment only.. So their claim is one lie upon another lie. So their 66 book bible is half Jewish [OT] and half Catholic [NT] and nothing protestant there. Please don't talk about the Bible that does not belong to you Luther followers. Go write your own.
This is a well researched presentation all the way to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s influence on Protestant Bibles. It is difficult running these facts to ground as I found out when researching. Around 1700, some Protestant Bible publishers did begin removing the Deuterocanon, but the marginal cross references to those books were not removed, at least for two more editions later. For example, as Joe pointed out, the KJV 1611 had the Deuterocanon AND there were 102 cross references to Deuterocanon books; 11 of them are New Testament cross references to the Deuterocanon. Later editions that dropped the Deuterocanon still had these cross references to the dropped books in the margins and eventually later editions dropped these as well.
Listen closely those still in Protest, our church history is factual, it actually happened & this Canon debate should be put to rest. Fast forward only a thousand yrs lol & justification by faith alone is sweeping thru despite the sacred texts that say otherwise & btw who cares about that thousand yrs or any practices prior..or even that Luther & Calvin wanted New Test books removed to support their brand new doctrine..its kinda nutty
Remember that the oldest existing physical copies of the bible we have do contain the seven books. Those bibles are from the fourth century, a very long time before the reformation.
*Remember that the oldest existing physical copies of the bible we have do contain the seven books.* They don't. Codex Siniaticus doesn't have 2nd Maccabbes. It does have 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. It also has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Are those inspired scripture?
@@ContendingEarnestly - but what is the method one should use for deciding which books are inspired and which are not? Martin Luther used his own personal tastes. He had a personal dislike of some scriptures. He said he hated the book of James so much that he felt like burning it. He thought Revelations was probably not from God because he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it". Does that sound like someone who respected scriptures.?
@ContendingEarnestly the point he makes is valid. In the 16th century, Martin Luther argued that many of the received texts of the New Testament lacked the authority of the Gospels, and therefore proposed removing a number of books from the New Testament, including Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Could you imagine what your theology would be like without the book of revelations?
@@ContendingEarnestlyHe describes the book as being “neither apostolic nor prophetic,” saying further that he “can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it” (LW 35:398). After accusing the author of Revelation of being somewhat smug and rather puzzling, Luther confesses, “My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.
Martin Luther unilaterally removed them without discussion. He never intended that his 95 thesis would break up the Church and refused to lead a denomination named for him, Lutheran Church. The fact that so many denominations that splintered from the Church accepted the 'new' bible minus the seven books without discussion is amazing. Both Catholics and Protestants don't know why one bible has those seven books and the other why theirs don't. I guess delving into 2000 of history is too much to seek the truth. Additionally, Luther remained a Catholic his entire life.
I had no idea about this. I grew up as Methodist, and then I stopped going later in life. A few years ago I had an experience, and things started to happen that I think Jesus was getting me back to him. I'm at a non-denominational now, and I have never felt so closer to God, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit as I do now. I've never looked into the Catholic church before and saw a video on youtube that got me curious. Any advice on how I should proceed would be welcomed? Thank you for making this video, and God bless.
Hey Joe, I love all of you videos. I am currently devoted protestant who love Lord Jesus with all my heart. I was born and raised in a protestant South Korean household. Many parts of Asia have been evangelized by Protestant missonaries who have given up their life to spread the gospel. Many of them whom I know personally are truly man of God. In your view, the missonaries and the evangelized people need to come to Catholism to truly come to Jesus Christ? Also, you have given me profound desire to search for real meaning to be the true body of Christ and what true form of worship. I would really appreciate if you could do a ultimate sumed up video of why Catholic is the true church of Jesus Christ and the problem with Protestant belief.
I you truly love Jesus with all your heart, then the way to demonstrate Him that love is by believing his words and blindly trusting in His Wisdom, Power and Authority. Jesus Himself said: Matthew 18:18: " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me. Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." John 14:26: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And Paul wrote: 1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." When Protestants believe that the Catholic Church, His only true Church, departed from the Truth, they are actually believing that Jesus was unable to fulfill these passages. That means you believe the Holy Spirit failed in His mission and that Jesus has deceived millions of believers in Him over the centuries because He did not have the Power, nor Authority, nor the Wisdom to be able to fulfill those words, even through the imperfect men He chose and left in charge of His beloved Church. Protestants show their Love to Jesus by telling Him: "Lord I love you but I don't trust the actions and teachings of those you left in charge of your Church. I Love you but I don't believe that you have the Power to prevent your visible Church from falling from the Truth. I Love you Lord but I don't obey nor listen to those you gave authority to speak and teach on your behalf. But trust me Lord I do Love you with all my heart. I simply don't fully believe in your Power." Is that how you show Him your love?
Although I 20000% agree with you, phrasing it like that can come off as extremely abrasive and nobody coming from Protestantism is going to listen to you.
This was one of the reasons I became Catholic. I had no actual knowledge as to why or where the Bible came from. When I started looking into it you have no choice but to accept the Catholic Bible and everything else starts falling into place with Catholic teaching.
❤🎉
@andrewpruett3719. That has NOT been my experience at all. I’ve never steered clear of the deuterocanon, but don’t consider it a gateway to Catholicism. It’s not at all Catholic if you ask me!
Ditto with the Apostolic Church and the Apostolic Fathers. There’s little or no semblance to Rome. And I really cannot even fathom how Catholics evaluate the evidence so differently.
@@ericcarlson9885 So your ok with this?
Maccabees 12:39-48 in which Judah's troops found stolen idolatrous charms on the corpses of Jewish warriors slain on the battlefield. He therefore offered prayers and an expiatory sacrifice for these warriors who had died in a state of sin.
@@ericcarlson9885 Im going to go with you have never read anything outside of the Protestant version of the Bible.
@@guardianangel3425 It’s narration. There are all kinds of treacheries in Scripture: rape, seduction, blasphemy, betrayal, apostasy, and murder. Am I ok with these stories BEING in the Bible? Yes, yes I am. Do I think they are normative? (Go thou and do likewise.) No, no I do not. If 2 Maccabees were in Scripture, would this narrative be normative? No, clearly not. Do even Catholics think it is? I don’t see how. They would have to drastically change other dogmas to fit this one in.
I’m a cradle Catholic but I’ve had a lot of journeying with Protestants, namely my wife (who will be received into the church next month, pray for her and us if you please), so I have love and respect for Protestant people, but man, the more I learn about Protestant origins, the more angry and disgusted I get. Outright lies about Christ’s church, theologies of self masquerading as presupposed “biblical” teaching. The more I hear of Luther, the more unhinged and unwell he seems to be; Calvin seemingly a wrathful dictator. Praying for unity becomes so taxing in light of all this, but I’ll keep at it. Thanks for your work Joe, this was a great explainer of the historical data, I definitely learned a few things!
Dear @mac3441, God bless you and your wife!! That is wonderful news!!
I was also shocked to discover how deranged Luther really was. He personally disliked certain parts of the Bible and thought they shouldn't be taken seriously. He said he hated the book of James so much that he felt like burning it.
@@Klee99zeno also hated the Jews, among many other things. Dude was clearly going through something
@@mac3441 Yes, and he was tormented by his feelings of guilt about his own sins and was constantly going to confession , which might explain why he invented a salvation doctrine where your sins could be ignored and you only needed faith.
@@Klee99zenoyes scrupulosity is what broke him. It's true it was a time where that was common, but it's a sin of presumption nonetheless
This was so well done! Wouldn't it be nice if that protestant Todd fellow actually gave Catholics a fair shake on the matter. It's not even the 'Catholic' viewpoint, it's just simply the historical chain of events that 100% vindicate the Catholic viewpoint. Thank you Joe for your work.
I think he did us a huge favour by claiming that the books we added are in the new testament
That's why they have to fast forward over a millenia, otherwise their blatantly retarded arguments become obvious even to uninformed newbies like me.
@@robyncorbett7965 Widely considered to be a bad move XD
I've had this discussion with protestants several times before. When I point out that the Eastern Orthodox canon contains these books while schisming centuries before Trent, I'm usually just met with "what's an orthodox?" People need to read more. Search engines are amazing things.
A lot of people in the US are very ignorant of Eastern Christianity. I'd imagine that will slowly change as the EO grows in the states.
@@Forester- Probably. I've had an EO convert tell me people thought he was becoming Jewish lol
@@tr1084 😂
@@Forester-people in the US are even confused on American history lol
@@deleteduser1892this!
I have to always put Catholic in the search terms to ensure I get Catholic sites otherwise you end up with just protestant ones.
I learnt this after doing it a couple of times and when reading realising it just didn't add up to Catholic theology
This channel is quickly becoming my favorite among all of the Catholic channels I am subscribed to. Keep up the good work! 🇻🇦 ❤
Me too
Your channel is just awesome. The approach you make on church history and apologetics is different: Take Protestant claims and follow them to their logical conclusions…. I love it
I know a person who converted from Calvinism to Christianity after studying the Early Church Fathers.
That's what happened to me!
What book or books do you recommend I read to study the early church fathers?
@@youngKOkid1 When the Church was Young is a good start. It's a nice narrative survey.
@youngKOkid1 A good start is the Commonitory by St. Vincent of Lerins and the On the Holy Spirit by St. Basil of Caesarea.
@@Theosis_and_prayer thanks 🙏
Pretty tough to get around the Christological prophecy in Wisdom chapter 2. Good episode Joe.
« I know that messiah is coming. » a random not very pious Samaritan.
« I can’t believe a moment when Solomon and Jeremiah knew about the messiah didn’t end up in the Bible for some peoples discenrnment. » Of course they’re in Baruch and the book of Wisdom.
Like I said on Apocrypha Apocalypse’ forum, there are also christological things in Enoch. And they’re in 4th Esdras. There’s even a maryological one in 4th Esdras and I’m thinking of expositions that on the Isaak Leillhikar channel soon.
Yes, and there are so many NT echoes in Judith and Tobit as well.
@@rhwinner Also the format of the Gospel is quite similar to the books of the Maccabes and Jeremiahs whole corpus. The books of Maccabes are roughly four books, in one case of two of the books with the same narrative told twice with different things told in it. The four gospels have a lot of similarity to that. And also, Jeremiah has a history book namely Kings, a prophecy book Jeremiah, the gospels are telling the story of Jesus before the time this is all happening and what its all about and it includes prophecies Jesus tells them about whats going to be happning as instructions, and another book with a prophecy which they have in the emperial city deportation, Baruch, like the gospel of Mark, and then, extraordinary coincidence, the prophet Jeremiah wrote an Epistle, and the Apostles epistles have similar thematic influence from the Epistle ofJermeiah, especially Peter and Johns ones. Peter talks about how theyre in dispetion in Babylone, and John talks about making sure you keep to the true spirituality and how to discern the false one you will encounter.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 Fascinating!
@@isaakleillhikar8311Tobit also is very similar to the Gospels and is packed full of christological elements, it's one of the most christological books in the whole Bible
My family are old school methodists.... I was baptized in that denomination and I remember my grandfather had a really old methodist Bible. It was amazing the size of it. The deuterocanon was there as well but had all been moved to the back of the book. I asked my grandad about them... he said they're real Bible stories but fell out of popularity. I'm like how does anything sacred just fall out of popularity? He never told me catholics still keep them, why we had moved them to the back, or why they became unpopular. For me it was just another bread crumb on the trail to rome.
I'm just 60, and I reme.ber old bibles, protestant bibles, in my youth having the 'apocrypha' in the back section. This is not ancient history!
@rhwinner Yeah it's really crazy. They didn't even remove them from their bibles until the 1800s I think. That Bible that belonged to my grandad was about 100 years old.
@@timboslice980 They _started_ to remove them in the 19th century; they were still printing Bibles with them well into the 20th.
@rhwinner that really is crazy... when I was a protestant, the issue of deuterocannon never really got brought up. Shoot, the whole process of how we got our Bible was a mystery as far as I knew. The main answer I would hear is the holy spirit gave us the books. Now as a catholic, I find it sad that the church fathers that put scripture together get no credit. No credit is given for the cannon, the chapter and verse divisions, the chronology of the Bible, the titles to the books, or the accuracy of early translations. Not to mention the hundreds of extra biblical traditions that they follow without a thought like funerals rites, crosses, hymns, and imagery.
@@timboslice980 It's true, Protestants filched virtually their entire religion lock stock and barrel from from us - feasts, bible, dogmas - and then turn around and spit in our faces like ungrateful teenagers. However, we must not hold it against them. Keep loving them and do what we can to correct, reprove and encourage them.
Recent revert to Catholicism here - I've heard every take from here to Sunday about this topic, very interested in what lies in store!
Protestants should be ashamed they removed books from the Bible. Imagine if the Catholics wanted to remove Books from the Bible - the Prots would be outraged.
@@Theosis_and_prayer The Prots are outraged that the Holy Catholic Church even exists.
@@bengoolie5197 True. Pray for their souls, that they may leave their heresies and pride.
I try to be mindful that it's our sin nature & take all the hateful misunderstandings & bigoted comments towards Catholics as further evidence that Catholics are on the right path, in the true Church of Christ.
--We're all here to learn to manage the sin we took upon ourselves & it requires being tested. Plus, many wouldn't feel as strongly about studying our Faith in-depth, if we weren't constantly called to defend it(so it is good).
--I've always enjoyed going to other Christian denominations & their events(Christ did pray for unity among His followers); although, I deeply believe Mass is the fullness of worship. I think worship requires sacrifice & offering, so without the Eucharist it's just a celebration to honor our reasons for worship?! --We have nothing worthy of sacrifice to God; except through Christ. By taking in the body & blood of Christ we're purifying ourselves to become the sacred offering; of our trust, obedience & desire to follow Christ by denying our temptations.
--I apologize for my rambling.
**Recently, chatting with the pastor's wife, she mentioned a new pedo case at a church school. Naturally, it was Catholic, they're the only ones that make headlines, bcuz no one remembers how little we knew of pedos at the time all those stories broke(decades ago) & how they were followed by all kinda boys & girls clubs, preschools, nurseries, etc. No one cares that our Gov. left it to the Church, bcuz they wanted to wash their hands of it & feared backlash.
--I blurted out my thoughts; that the Pope should've brought all the guilty back to Rome, held public trials & swift executions (should've hung them all publicly); in accordance with the Scripture!
--BUT no matter how they'd been dealt with everyone would still be complaining about the Catholic Church & how they handled it! Either it wasn't enough or the Church thinks too highly of themselves & went too far 🤷
--Just like when ppl bring up the Old Testament to claim that God's judgement was "too severe"; having destroyed entire cities without considering that God knew all of their hearts & minds, always sent someone ahead to tell the ppl to repent & put it into context.
A Bible without Wisdom is a Bible without wisdom.
I love this !
i’ve heard you can’t understand the book of John without the book of Wisdom
@@richardkremersNowhere in the Bible will you find any teaching saying that salvation comes from faith alone.
A dog without legs is a dog without legs... Crazy how that works
I read the book of wisdom recently and was blown away by the wisdom contained within. It was clearly supposed to be part of the bible.
Wow, as a Christian/Lutheran who has been seeking to know about the Catholic religion for the past 7 months; EVERY thing has unraveled in my theology of the non denominational/Lutheran faith. Started reading the early church fathers and then listening to the Catholic apologists on TH-cam; I’m totally convinced that the Catholic Church is right. I even bought myself a new bible 7 months ago with the catholic books that aren’t in my bible before. Amazing how it all flows now.
absolutely wonderful!!!!! ☦️✝️🙏
Well Catholicism doesn’t make sense to me.
@@colepriceguitar1153Completely logical, start with Matt 16 18-19, then Jn 3:5 and Jn 6 51-58
@@colepriceguitar1153 what do you mean, "doesn't make sense"? You don't understand how it was established by Christ? You don't understand how the Church is structured? You don't understand the teachings? Or are you making a reference to the fact that God is ultimately cloaked in mysteries we have to accept we won't be able to come close to understanding on this earth?
@@Xymage well one thing I don’t understand is what catholic teachings are supposedly infallible and which aren’t. I understand the first seven councils are thought to be infallible and ex cathedra statements are considered infallible. Is that it?
Let's just say it: most Protestant apologists have to by force of their worldview be dishonest or myopic about history.
some of the best Catholic apologists I know of are former protestants who read Early and Medieval Christian philosophers as part of their conversion journey
this didn't age well. Your Pope oked transgender baptism, transgender godparents and same sex god parents. this is why the Papacy is dangerous and Catholics are leading to
a wordley view
My wife and I have been reading through Sirach, and we have LOVED it!
Of course you love it. It's a false book as are all 7 books not in KJV.
@@Peter-zh5mv They were in the KJV. They were removed.
The book is bogus. But I know you don't think so.
Indeed! It is so beautiful, right? So much to learn from the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, just so much truth and wisdom in it! God bless you! Enjoying it too at present!
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻✝️✝️✝️
@Peter-zh5mv
By whose authority do u decide they are false ?
I bought a facsimile copy of the original 1611 KJV. It includes the 7 missing books in later printings of the KJV. The introduction leaves no doubt it's a protestant bible by it's anti papist comments.
When I ask protestants who has the authority to remove those books given their bible alone position. It's a show stopper.
@akaMakdaddy they get uncomfortable when you talk about the topic. Luther had to take those books out to create his new doctrines.
@f 17:18 ranciscoguzman1065 yes and yes.
@@franciscoguzman1065 ya it's a little shocking to me as a Methodist (looking for a new church home after gay pastor/marriage affirmation), that people insist Catholic belief is not in the Bible. Sure it isn't, as the books were removed that made them Biblical. Pretty dishonest but most people I know have no idea about this.
They were not included when the canon was determined in the 4th century.
@@Richard-e5m not a fact. Canon was translated by St Jerome in 392AD. They were included In the Septugent and in the Latin Vulgate. There is NO CHRISTIAN BIBLE, prior to the reformation that excluded these books.
4th century Jews, just like the Jews of the 4th century deny Christ as Messiah, protestants are dead wrong to align themselves with Jews who deny the Christ rather than side with the apostles.
This may sound judgmental, and I apologize, but I do not get a good feeling watching that Wretched guy.
You aren't the only one.
Yeah it's not just you.
Is it the smooth talking car salesman pitch (a protestant staple) or that he he so sure of things that just aren't so? 😂
Repent 😮
Don't judge a book or person by their cover. Having said that, I agree
Hi Joe! Great video. It was hilarious that Todd legitimately thinks Catholics include the deuterocanon in the New Testament rather than the Old. I think it would have been good to devote a little bit more time to the canonical lists that don’t include the entire deuterocanon. Protestants can quickly list several fathers who don’t list those books and therefore claim they didn’t view them as inspired, it deserves a larger response in my opinion.
I'd love to hear Todd Friel tell us what else he agrees with Jerome on.
As a Friel, I’m embarassed that a man descended from Saint Columba could fall from the one true Church. I pray for him
My sister who had converted from Catholic to Evangelical Protestantism, enrolled me in a Evangelical 'boot camp'. This was during a recent separation from my wife. The 5 instructors were all ex Catholics. They explained that the reason the 7 books were removed because the Jews removed them. It follows then the Jews would know better. What they neglected to say the Jews removed it after the death of Jesus. As it many of the verses were about predictions about the coming of the Christ. The Protestants were not exactly lying but they were disingenuous in not saying the truth that during Jesus's ministry, all books were included during his time. There were so many lies propagated, and I left the bootcamp immediately. Be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Todd Friel was completely incoherent. He’s an actor trying to convince with his voice dictation, enthusiasm, etc…he was bouncing all over the place. I literally found myself chuckling at various points…that was hilarious!
I don't think we're the only ones who found his walking around the studio to be very distracting
+1 that voice dictation and enthusiasm is not a substitute for truth !
I used to like his stuff even before looking into Catholicism and his brass behavior and yelling at the viewer was a major turn off for me and I had to stop watching. There was just something about him that never sat right with me (Actually now that I think about, I felt the same about Bull Nye and look what happened to him lol) and then when I started looking into Catholicism a couple months ago and seeing what other Protestants thought, he was speaking bold lies about Catholicism and I couldn’t watch him anymore period. If you’re going to argue against someone, at least understand what you’re arguing.
He has a real “used car salesman “ vibe.
If I was a Protestant I would still accept the deuterocanon as scripture. Also, I guess the Orthodox Churches liked Trent so much they decided to canonize them too😂
@colton5739 they can’t because it would go against their new doctrines lol.
They are books of history, but never accepted as canon by the Jewish people who wrote them.
@@soteriology400 ummm again the jewish people had no authority to know what the canon is. Jesus left that to the apostles and the church through the Holy Spirit.
@@soteriology400 1. Only 1 and 2 Maccabees are considered historical books, the rest are wisdom literature in the same vain as Proverbs or Job.
2. Sirach and Tobit are believed to have been accepted by the Essenes and some Pharisees accepted Sirach which is why it had to be declared uninspired by the leading Rabbi in the late first century. They were all accepted by Greek speaking diaspora Jews and some are still considered canonical by Ethiopian Jews.
3. The relevant question is what books did the Christians accept, not the Jews.
@@Forester- This is where you are overlooking Roman’s 3:2, and minimizing it. The majority never accepted the 7 books as canon nor inspired. It is best to stick with scripture on this one. Apostle Paul knew what he was talking about. To use a fringe element to define the norm, is intellectually dishonest. The question is, what did the people whom God entrusted His words with decide? I will not let power hungry people in the past define the standard. Will not go there,
It’s so interesting to me… which of these groups was attempting to make theological changes and which was attempting to maintain the historic practices? It seems more consistent that the group attempting to change doctrine would also be more willing to change their basis of authority, which the Protestants were clearly willing to do.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsnot just that but that he would appeal to Jewish authorities who also stated that the Gospels were not the inspired word of God!
Why would any Christian take any Jewish authority formed after Our Lord walked this earth when they don't accept the Gospels
I'm Orthodox and find the Protestant lies about the Catholic church, the general Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry, very annoying, very offensive. And very ugly. The most absurd consequence of this bigotry is the habit, universal among the Evangelicals, of referring to themselves as Christians and calling all other Christians something else.
Tks for your support. The Protestant tactic of attacking Catholicism with prejudice and from ignorance of things Catholic is bewildering and unchristian
We are all Christians and God's elect are throughout all churches. On my journey I am finding truth in all different denominations. Christians should never hate on each other, that is not of Christ.
Yup, the whole "are you Christian or catholic" thing really irks me, I always make a point to correct it
Your comment is very refreshing, thank you. Calling themselves "Christians" as opposed to "Catholics" or anyone else is strategic. Even though the rank and file of them are blind to it, it is an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church, but, in their minds, "save" those who aren't "saved." I like to respond with, why is it then, that all the Churches in the world founded by an apostle, from Jerusalem to Spain and into Africa to India, Asia Minor, and Greece, all over the known world, in apostolic times, even if, unfortunately, we're not in full communion now, hold central as did the earliest Church Fathers, that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Christ? In fact, it's what Christianity is! It always stumps them. When they say, " No one can have the Holy Spirit more than I have!" I laugh and say, really? That's what Mormons claim. It always leaves them with a blank look on their face.
Thank you. I think it primarily stems from their insecurity that they did not have Apostolic lineage.
What a huge death knell for Protestantism and sola Scriptura specifically, if more people knew this history.
Thank You Bro for your work....of exposing the lies of Protestanism.
God Bless You.🙏🏻
This whole topic is like when someone claims that JRR Tolkien was ripping off JK Rowling. And you realize that their "facts" are totally backward. 😂
My favorite version of this was walking out of the theater in 2004 after seeing the movie "Troy," and a girl behind me complaining to her friend that, while she liked the movie, "they totally ripped the plot off of Lord of the Rings."
Yes
lol 😂 all epics are ripping off the Christian story
This was interesting to watch, and it is a great example of why you shouldn't necessarily seek information from the group you belong to. You end up with confirmation bias. I've learned that in a lot of ways I was given false information on the Catholic church because I was always listening to fellow Protestants rather than going to knowledgable Catholic sources. This goes both ways of course, and I think we are always best served by being willing to hear out both sides in a respectful manner.
Very well said! When I'm preparing books, podcast episodes, etc., I try to spend time reading or listening to "the other side" of whatever issue I'm arguing, because it's really easy otherwise to argue against a strawman, or at least miss good possible rebuttals.
The gaul of that guy to get in front of a camera and edit the entire video all without checking to see if he was arguing against the correct critique shows how little he actually cares about the truth, and how little he actually cares about us. He isn't trying to bring us to the truth, he's trying to keep those who agree with him from wandering away, even if they would be wandering towards the truth
That was low... I kept saying to myself why is it treating us like Imans treat Muslims in Islam?
My husband and I went on a quest to personally place eyes on several pre-18th c. Bibles and Bible manuscripts--both in universities and libraries across the US and in Europe--to verify that they contained the 7 books in question. It was a lot of time and money spent, but we wanted to make certain Catholics were telling us the truth that these books REALLY were in the Bibles. We got permission to go into library archives and see originals. We spoke to various librarians when the manuscripts were unavailable to the public for various reasons.
I became satisfied that even the codexes from the 4th century included at least some of the Deuterocanonicals. None were the same as the current Protestant Old Testaments. It was quite a discovery that eventually led us to Catholicism.
One thing I am curious about. Many Protestant canon scholars do report that there were many books that claimed authority but that the 4/5th century Catholics scholars rejected them based on several reasons. The Shepherd of Hermas and the first book of Clement WERE considered canonical in some Christian regions and were discarded from the canon. St. Augustine and Jerome have letters they exchanged arguing what books were canonical. I've read them. I got the impression that you believed that the church did not reject certain books--as if that was a Protestant myth. But I listened twice and still wasn't sure if that is what you were saying.
*I became satisfied that even the codexes from the 4th century included at least some of the Deuterocanonicals. None were the same as the current Protestant Old Testaments.*
Jerome's o.t. is 39. Hefele in his work A History of the Councils of the Church, vol 2 pp 323 gives details of the synod of Laodicea. That o.t. list doesn't have any apocryphal books in it. Athanasius' o.t. canon only has Baruch. And yes, some Codices didn't have some apocryphal books but included others.
The question isn't do the old bibles or documents contain the apocrypha? But were they considered inspired? There was certainly disagreement on that in the 4th or 5th centuries. As well as the 6th.
@@ContendingEarnestly It is not apocrypha. You protestants named them that way. You removed them because they contradict your teachings.
@@Ekim1740 Jerome, Prefaces Samuel and Kings.
"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that *what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings.* Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd *are not in the canon.* "
Thats Jerome in the 4th century. Was he a prot? Read a book.
Our Ethiopian Tewahedo brethren have an even larger canon of scripture that includes Clement and possibly a form of the Didache. (If memory serves). What a great journey to take with your spouse.
Πάντοτε Χαίρετε.
@@ContendingEarnestly that same council left out revelation as well
I am a Protestant from England and found this very edifying, even though I am not yet persuaded my Protestant Bible is wrong. But thank you. I am not overly-familiar with Wretched: I have heard of it but not watched it: (stylistically I found it forced but that may be my English sensitivity showing.) Nonetheless, on content, I agree that the Wretched channel in this example did not cover itself with glory to say the least. Thanks for the evidence you cited. The early Church clearly did have these 7 books in the Bible from what you cite from the Council of Carthage 397 and Augustine and Jerome. I appreciated what you quoted from Ben Witherington III that the Jews did not accept them as canonical but there was an acceptance that they were deutero-canonical. (Something to ponder: why the Jews have their own view of purgatory yet reject 2 Maccabees as canonical?) My understanding of why the Protestants have the Bible we do is that it was on the basis of what the Jews accepted as canonical OT, so later Reformers (quite late by what you say, 1825!) subsequently 'standardized' the removal of the apocrypha from the Church's canon, where the word 'standardized' indicates a long-held unease regarding them.
On the specifics of the letter to the Hebrews, I can accept that the author of Hebrews is aware of 1 and 2 Maccabees and his own hall of faith would definitely have echoed with their hall of deeds. But I don't think the last reference (Hebs. 11:35) necessarily has to imply that he thought 1 and 2 Maccabees were canonical just because all his other quotes were canonical, since on that argument, Jude would have to consider Enoch canonical which Catholics and Protestants don't (seemingly only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does).
On the KJV originally including the apocrypha (the 7 OT books), you are correct - seemingly included right up to 1885, even later than 1825, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY WHERE IN THE BIBLE THEY WERE INCLUDED , namely between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT, so even in the day, they were still not regarded as being quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I understand that 1 and 2 Maccabees have been VARIOUSLY PLACED IN CATHOLIC BIBLES (though always with the latter immediately following the former) again indicative of the fact that EVEN IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, they are considered not quite the same as the rest of Scripture. I have not been able to find yet where they were included in the Geneva Bible, though it seems the Puritans removed the apocrypha from the Geneva Bible around 1600 on the basis of them being deutero-canonical BUT even when they were included, it seems that, from on-line information, "the preface always noted these might be read for edification but did not have the authority of Scripture" (source Geneva Bible at Houston Christian University - hc.edu/). (Tyndale did not live long enough to complete the OT so we do not know what he would have done with the apocrypha).
Nonetheless, thank you again. I did enjoy learning (being reminded?) that Nicaea itself didn't tell us what its canon was (insofar as having a direct record of it) but we do have Jerome 75 or so years later saying what he believed was included. I also appreciated you citing Jerome's unease in having to translate the apocrypha and his later reference to it as Scripture.
The Judaism today rejects 2nd Maccabees because of the Rafna council lineage of the denomination today.
But In ancient times different middle east countries and regions have different local Jewish canons some now lost.
You are making my point. They are deuterocanonical. They are different from the rest of the canon@@AlexisHernandez-f7s
@AlexisHernandez-f7s Calm down. Stay polite please. I am NOT aware of such a corpus though I don't believe the Jews hold them together BUT that does not deal with the fact that even the Catholics have the distinction between canon and deutero canon. You have a distinction. Why that distinction? What is the reason for this distinction? That is the point. It is not like a distinction between Old Testament and New Testament which is a time divide. In their case both Testaments are inspired.@@AlexisHernandez-f7s
I know this is a little afield of the topic, but a major protestant misunderstanding of Catholic theology is the assumption that all doctrine must be solely based on scripture (sola scriptura). Because this is such a strong presupposition, any doctrines, especially well developed ones, that aren't clearly articulated or strongly implied within scripture are highly suspected as being later accretions onto the original pure faith. They cannot imagine that there was more to the faith than what is laid out in scripture, that Christians believed and practiced things before the new testament was written, and that these traditions were passed on and can be found attested to in the historical record.
What finally tipped me over the edge to become Catholic was recognizing in scripture that Jesus didn't write a book and distribute it for people to read and interpret on their own. He founded a church by calling apostles whom he gave authority to do the same works he did (and greater), as well as teach, defend, and pass on his teachings. The new testament is a product of the Church that Jesus founded. You cannot separate the Bible from the Church as if it stands by itself. We can say it has primacy in it's spiritual authority, but we can't say it is the only spiritual authority by itself.
It’s my understanding that sola scriptura is the position that scripture is the only *infallible* authority, which is what you basically just said. The idea that scripture is the *only* authority appears to be a common Catholic and ortho misunderstanding of the actual Protestant position. I’m new to this, but it seems evident to me that prots, catholics, and orthos are all taking past one another on this
@@KingdomInterestagreed
Well usually when someone is scared of you, they will accuse you of doing something when it's actually THEY are to blame.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsoh romans , the Epistle addressed to our Church headquarters! How nice they always quote some chapters but so many of them don't even seem to believe such church actually existed
"This alone will make you not protestant." Man that protestant canon is clearly an accretion, lol.
I think I can sum this up in one sentence: No, the Church didn't add books, and even if they did, they have that authority:). Now that the pot has been stirred, I say good day to you all:). God Bless,
Mr. Friel reminds me of someone I'd see on TBN at 3:00 AM... I love your channel, and look forward to your videos!
Hallelujah to the Lord my God,
for healing my heart during a heart attack!
On March 26th 2022,
just past midnight,
I was laying restless in bed,
and I had a heart attack.
My arms and legs became tingly and numb,
then my chest got tighter,
and then my heart felt like it was being crushed.
So I sang out to God and Jesus,
about my pain, my feelings,
my faults and my inabilities.
As I sang, I began to feel like a river,
and a hand was on my back,
it's fingers where skimming the surface,
separating the waters,
causing ripples through my body.
Then the hand reached inside my chest,
lit my heart on fire,
and the heat moved like waves through my body.
When I was done singing,
all the pain was gone,
and I looked at the clock,
it was past 1am,
I had been singing near an hour.
Then the voice of my guardian angel called my name from above,
and there was a hymn of energy in the air,
the same hymn I hear in my dreams of God.
Hallelujah to the Lord my God for healing my heart!
Hallelujah for His son Jesus for saving my soul!
Hallelujah for every day!
Hallelujah for every breath!
The Lord is Faithful and true!
May the Lord Bless your hearts!
What I don't hear mentioned is the obvious point that if we are following the Jewish canon, we would also reject the entire New Testament as Scripture as well! 🙄
Also, what authority do Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah, have over Christian doctrine? (NONE)
Great point! Amen and God Bless!
This. The Jewish councils esp the one in 90 AD that convened to address what they called ‘thr growing cult of Christianity’ rejected the Gospels saying they weren't the inspired word of God.
I always ask protestants why they appeal to Jews for the OT Canon when the Jewish Canon wasn't closed until long after Our Lord walked this earth yet don't accept the Jews in the ruling that the Gospels aren't inspired.
Funnily enough none has ever been able to answer my question - they either get nasty, change topic, hurl ad hominems or just disappear only to find them in another Catholic video spouting the same stuff where I call them out on it again
Many Jews are quietly starting to reteach these books. For good reasons; For instance, there is no written mention of Hanukkah outside of Maccabees. The reason Jews rejected them in the first place is because they were thought to have been written in Greek. (Jews thought inspired works had to have originally been authored in Hebrew or Aramaic). Unfortunately for the Jews (and Protestants who hitched to that wagon,) the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls revealed that many of these books were originally written in Semitic languages (and revered among the Essenes.)
@@JohnBoyX570 Yes. I would only add that the only reason Hanukkah is universally celebrated is _because_ it was recorded in Scripture.
As a Protestant, I really WOULD like to know what the Catholic Church did with my other three legs!!!
I chuckled. 🙂
They're waiting for you in Purgatory. Please pray for them.🙏🏻
Love all your work Joe.
One thing.
I don’t think it goes near far enough to say (41:22) to say that Protestants gave themselves the authority to remove the seven books.
It was the Bible Society - best I can tell this was a company who printed Bibles. And I think I read they made the final decision not based on principle but to save money on printing and shipping!
So there was no “protestant church council” that got together to take this action. It was done without any authority at all.
For those that want to be “biblically based” they should see this for the outrage and affront to God’s word that it is.
And oh by the way, what are they going to do when someone decides to print a new Bible and add or remove more books. How about one that doesn’t include the “clobber verses”.
Thank you LORD for giving us a Church to keep us from such blasphemy and ruining the Christian witness.
You are so right! It amazes me that Protestants who have a love for scripture don't get upset when this is pointed out to them.
@@matthewoburke7202 Well, just like most of Church History, this little fact is left out... I mean I get it... if you raised in one of these well meaning "traditions" and you do encounter the love and some truth, why would you ever look beyond what you are taught?
We just have to continue to work to educate Catholics and non-Catholics as to what it truly means to be Catholic - to stand up for THE Truth in its entirety "for the salvation of the World".
Go watch Gary Michuta's analysis on Apocrypha Apocalypse. It wasn't merely or even primarily a matter of money. These societies were pressured and knew that those books affirmed Catholic doctrine.
@@tonyl3762 Can’t figure out which video. Can you add a link? Thx
@@tonyl3762 can you link to the video?
Keep going with this, my man; your intro is like a soothing brook to chapped ears!
Sad thing... even though the Wretched channel has comments turned on in all the videos I checked out randomly, the particular video explored today has comments turned off.
Yes! I love this topic. Can't wait to listen to what you have to say.
Thank you, Joe, this was a very important topic, for all Christians.
Hey Joe Gary Michuta has done excellent work on the bible canon.
One of his books has well over 100 citations of Church Fathers either explicitly calling deuterocanonical books scripture or using them to confirm doctrine.
Gary also has a great debate about the Deuterocanon with a Protestant. You can find it on youtube, I think. If not, it could be among the Alpha-Omega (James White) Great Debates.
Gary Michuta has a yt channel called Apocrypha Apocalypse with many videos about the deuterocanonical books.
I can't believe I used to watch that wretched channel!! 😖
I'm very indebted to you, Joe 🙏
Thank you so much for supporting the channel -Vanessa
@Joe Hechmeyer thanks for another great teaching easy to understand and research all whom you quoted from. Appreciate all your studies and hard work for the Kingdom of GOD.
You're my favorite Catholic TH-camr, hands down.
Its sad and a problem that protestants have never even looked into this issue, they simply assume they are right, as evidenced by the guy from wretched thinking the removed books were New Testament books. He doesn't even know what point hes arguing
I'm a Protestant. The video you showed is the most embarrassing pro-Protestant view of the Old Testament Canon I have ever seen lol
I made a video on my channel explaining why I think Catholics are right about the Canon.
I am not a Christian yet but very curious about the historical aspects and differences between belief systems. I've attended protestant churches but certain things have felt off to me, so I was very interested in learning more about these additional books. Thank you for putting together this informative video
Can I like this video twice? Thanks Joe for what you are doing. Please continue defending the Church. On a side note, it seems to me the Todd guy came off as one of those guys from in some suspect infomercials...
73 books, a holy number 7 and 3 while the prots have 66, number of man twice. Jesus taught us to look at numbers, i.e. the beast which has 3 6's
Even the augustinian numbering for the Commandments is composed of those holy numbers: the first 3 for God (Holy Trinity), the other 7 for neighbour (7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost)
Not to mention John 6:66. The only time Jesus allowed His followers to walk away. The major and most egregious example of Protestants walking away (not believing in the True Presence).
This presentation, once and for all, lays that silly Protestant contention to rest. Protestants, who are generally good people, are badly led astray and embarrass themselves with this absurd contention. Thank you Joe for your research, thought, logic, common sense and preparation that you brought to your wonderful presentation here.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qsI noticed when I was starting to come back to the Church (not from protestantism). Catholic apologetics, since the earliest centuries, has always been on the defense line, going even out of their way to prevent any misunderstandings. Heretics however, all they have ever done, since the earliest eras is accuse and attack.
Thanks for defending the true faith
Where was the church for 1500 years before Luther ?
Yes, the position is so irrational. Jesus made his sacrifice...for no one...until it was taken up 1500 years later???
Outstanding reflection on the topic. I find your treatment of Scripture scholarly, yet accessible and instructive. Thanks! Please keep up the good work of teaching us as it’s inspirational.
Odd. Many Protestants do not confront Orthodox Christians: their denomination has the most books in their Old Testament. Catholics are in the middle while Protestants have the least.
Good video.
Orthodoxy is also much smaller, especially in the West, so they don't bother them as much.
Ethiopian Orthodox have the most. I think it's 81 books.
The canon of the Holy Bible was defined by Pope St. Damassus I in the Decree of Damassus at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. We know that it is true, because the Pope declared it to be so. Subsequent councils simply affirmed his decree. The decree settled the disagreement between St. Augustine and St. Jerome was given the task to translate the original texts into the Latin Vulgate.....and yes, he decreed that the Deuterocanonicals were included.
The canon is a losing issue for Protestants when you get into the history. And that's a major problem for sola scriptura because you can't both claim scripture is your sole authority while also coming from a tradition that changed the canon of scripture. So like Friel does here, Protestants get really squirrelly when it comes to canon history.
I often take this approach when discussing Papal infallibility. They make the claim "no man I'd infallible" I say, do you believe the word of God is infallible? They obviously say yes. I then ask if they believe all men to be fallible? They of course say yes. Then I poise, " so, fallible men decided what was and wasn't acceptable for sacres scripture?" .....crickets. or some gobbledygook about God directing them by the Holy Spirit in that instance. Which I also argue "Oh, well that's what we do with the Pope, and have for 2000 years". And they're done talking. 😊
protestant here - just a side note, the enemy, our enemy uses things like this to seperate and get us to war against each other. I believe we both ...protestant and catholic believe in the death, burial and resurection of Jesus Chirst. We need to come together and reconcile our differences. just a suggestion - God Bless in the name of Jesus Christ
the enemy, as you put it, created protestantism. You cannot separate from the Church, deny the Church, its authority that came from Christ, remove scripture, remove doctrines, interpret however you prefer, remove the eucharist, and then turn around and say with a straight face : "oh but we're all together, lets not be divided" it's beyond hypocritical.
@@KaycCal triggered enemy spotted.
Jesus quoted from the Septuagint which had the detueralcanonical books. Protestants took them out. Luther added the word faith "alone"in the German translation. If you left it up to Luther, the book of James would be gone, calling it an Epistle of straw and how he wanted to throw it in his fireplace. Along with several chapters of Revelation.
Two things. First, I have been subscribed to Wretched for years & have watched this particular video by Todd more than once & have never caught that he keeps saying New Testament as the part of the Bible protestants think Catholics added to (I always thought he was just deflecting from the facts; & not making this big of an error). Second, do some protestants actually preach or teach that Maccabees is part of the New Testament in Catholic Canon? If so who has actually said this?
No, he got all of that wrong. All seven of the disputed books (1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom) are from the Old Testament. These were books that some, but not all, Jews accepted at the time of Christ.
@@JosephHeschmeyer Thank you. Which Jewish sects accepted some of the Disputed books? I can never seem to remember.
The premise of your question assumes the Jews celebrated Hannukah because they believed in the apocrypha, more specifically 1st & 2nd Maccabees. In a sense you’ve confused cause and effect. The events recorded in 1st and 2nd Maccabees were part of Israel’s national history under the rule of Antioches IV, a man very well attested in secular sources. 1st & 2nd Maccabees was written because of the events that occurred and is considered by all historians as an extremely accurate account of the times.
Antioches IV embarked upon a program to force hellenize the Jewish population. Not only did he want to force his Greek gods upon the Jews but he wanted to completely destroy the Jews worship of God.
Hannukah centers around the desecration of their temple for 31/2 by Antioches and the restoring of that temple, an act seen as accomplished by the power of God.
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s I am aware. Using language most protestants know.
I love you Joe but please put batteries in your smoke alarms! 😂😂
Done! Sorry, I got so into this I didn't notice the beeping until hours later. Thankfully not dead!
Hebrews 11 is one of my favorite chapters of the NT. It was that chapter that convinced me that the "faith alone" doctrine is incorrect, well before I ever became a Catholic. In chronicling the OT saints, Hebrews shows us that their faith was always followed by righteous action.
Salvation is only by grace, only through faith, in Christ alone. That faith will produce good works. Romans and James must be taken in tandem.
An excellent exposition - thank you! I might add, stimulated by your comments relating Hebrews and 2 Maccabees, that all the NT authors knew Maccabees well. They knew the scriptures of their time well - their scriptures were the Septuagint. Jesus and the authors of the NT made frequent references showing their familiarity with the Septuagint as their scriptures.
One of the best I’ve ever heard in the subject. Thank you.
It is frustrating when these Protestants lie about the church founded by Jesus Christ. More frustrating, is that followers sheepishly believe such claims.
Great video. Very clear, easy to understand and well researched. Thank you for your work.
The Catholic canon was established at the Council of Rome (under Pope Damasus I in 382). To address the changes made by Martin Luther to the Bible, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible.
What I don't understand is why Protestants call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha when they weren't called that in church history.
Early Christian writings were very specific about what they call Apocrypha. Even Protestants recognize the Church Fathers didn't call the Deuterocanon Apocrypha.
Taking them out is one thing. Calling them Apocrypha when they were not labeled that way is another.
Jerome called them apocrypha in his Prefaces Samuel and Kings.
@@ContendingEarnestly
And later changed his mind and did not consider them apocryphal as stated in his writing Against Rufinus. He accepted the extra parts of Daniel, which Protestants call Apocryphal.
The reason why he initially called the Deuterocanon Apocryphal is that there wasn't a Hebrew version. It had nothing to do with false teaching.
@@ContendingEarnestly
Also, if you watch the video at the 16-minute mark, St. Jerome called at least one of the book's scripture, unlike Protestants who don't call the Scripture.
@@vtaylor21 Hebrew versions of Sirach and Tobit were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
@vtaylor21 I know he did, but if you read his prefaces, he goes on to say these books are not in the canon. But if you want to read them, great, but not for doctrine.
I think one of the craziest things to think about is the imputed justification and not needing to go to purgatory. Because by many Protestants' definitions of imputed righteousness is that they are still a sinner and only clothed with the righteousness of Christ not inwardly cleaned. So that inturned goes against the book of Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
But thats what the bible says
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.1john 1 7
@@lad6524
_'But _*_IF_*_ we walk in the light, as He is in the light...'_
I think you wrote the answer yourself... the word "if" is important to note
Yep. *"Nothing impure will enter heaven..." Rev 21:27*
Hope that helps.
@@eric.loves.to.fish1 but the righteous will fall many Times, the fact that nothing impure will not enter heaven doesnt mean that purgatory exist, you dont even know what that is because you talking about a place and then you say its a state
@@lad6524
The impure after they die have to be purified first and rid of their impurity...this is why they don't go straight to heaven as some denominations believe...may not make sense to you, but it sure does to me. Whether it's a place or a state is besides the point I think.
Protestants Jesus asked for one universal church he didn't say go out and make many different churches with different teachings
I can't believe how many Protestants even Protestant podcasters that are converting to Catholicism due to their research with the early Fathers
There were no Protestants when the Bible was put together
Struggling with trying to explain this stuff to my daughters father as we speak. Wont even acknowledge this stuff, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t frustrating. Not asking he accept it, just asking he acknowledge the history. Thank you for this
print off the lists and nail them to his bedroom door.😅
@@adifferentangle7064 Baaammmm .
The Gutenberg Bible, the first bible printed using a modern printing press, was not an underground publication but a widely available and well-known one in the 1450s. Therefore, especially since it used the Vulgate translation that was common in bibles at the time, it was very much Catholic.
The Gutenberg Bible is a printed copy of the Vulgate, which was a Latin version of the Bible first translated in the 3rd century. Within the Bible is the Latin Old Testament, which includes 46 books, and the Greek New Testament, with 27 books. There are a total of 73 books.
In the Biblia del Oso (1569) by Casiodoro de la Reina, the first protestant bible translated in Spanish from hebrew and greek (the catholic Políglota Complutense is older: 1520) the seven deuterocanonical books are presented without any diferentiation with the other 39 books of the OT. In fact there are presence of another books (non deuterocanonical like the Prayer of Manasseh) and they are calified as apocrypha but not the deuterocanonical.
I think the amish and/or mennonites use them too. They're still wrong about many other things but they use them
Lmao the guy turned off comments in the original video. Probably sick of being called out. Great breakdown in this video!
The Bible is a Catholic book...
Thank you
You couln't have said it any better, Amen!
I found this video very informative. Growing up in heavily protestant areas, I had never realized that Catholics only have two legs. The front, back, and top legs are so crucial. I can only imagine what an impoverished life the papist must lead.
I am Orthodox so an outsider on this, Catholics were right in this case
Would an argument showing the eastern orthodox use of the 7 books be a useful argument at all. ie. If the catholic church inserted these at the reformation, how do you explain eastern churches (in schism) having them?
I think the most illogical reasoning is when Protestants say, “these books aren’t biblical”, as if the apostles handed out a table of contents of what should be in the Bible.
To be “biblical” means to be physically in the bible. Physically in the canon of scripture. To use a really outlandish example, if we put willy wonka and the chocolate factory in the Bible, it would technically be biblical. What Protestants mean by biblical is that the books don’t jive with Protestant theology so hence they’re not “biblical”
We were prob very close to the epistle of james not being “biblical” either if Luther had his way. And I quote, “an epistle of straw”
The Apostle did however *have* a table of contents: Torah, Prophets, and Other-Writings.
@ they didn’t. The Jews didn’t agree on what was scripture, for example the sadducees believed only the first 5 books of the Bible to be “scripture”.
So the successors to the apostles aka the bishops aka the visible church, had to get together to decide what was inspired and what wasn’t inspired, both in the old and what would become the New Testament as we know it.
James White constantly says that the Catholic Church did not infallibly define the canon until the Council of Trent. Jimmy Akin didn’t correct him in the last debate. Is there any truth to that?
That is true. The only reason the church infallibly defined the canon at Trent was because it had been a settled matter beforehand. Catholic Church has never before infallibly decreed that you shouldn't shove your head into a meat grinder, because people aren't really doing that. If they did, then the Catholic Church would probably give doctrine against it.
Thank you for this thorough refutation and for exposing Todd Fiel as a liar! Can you tell us which church council settled the books our current cannon, both old and NT?
I believe Carthage, Hippo and Rome (3 councils)
Our “wretched” friend is unaware of the Council of Rome in 382 AD. But, in actuality, the “list” was first exacted from the Easter letter of Athanasius in around 354-5 AD.
I wonder how readily Todd Friel and other Protestants would accept St. Jerome’s theology, as they do his personal opinion on the Canon, based on these quotes:
“You see then that the blessedness of a bishop, priest, or deacon, does not lie in the fact that they are bishops, priests, or deacons, but in their having the virtues which their names and offices imply.” (Against Jovinianus 1:35 [A.D. 393]).
“In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: Matthew 19:27 Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, Luke 18:29-30 Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.” (Against Jovinianus 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
“He endeavors to show that they who with full assurance of faith have been born again in baptism, cannot be overthrown by the devil.” (Against Jovianus 1:3 [A.D. 393
“One thing I will say and so end my discourse, that you ought either to give us a new creed, so that, after baptizing children into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you may baptize them into the kingdom of heaven; or, if you have one baptism both for infants and for persons of mature age, it follows that infants also should be baptized for the remission of sins after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” (Against the Pelagians 3:19 [A.D. 415]).
“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. (Against Jovinianus book 1 par 26 (347-420 ad)
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails." (Letter 51 par 2 [347-420 AD])
The same people who put together the New Testament also put together the Old Testament book collections. How can you accept one set and reject another. Both were inspired by the Holy Spirit, right?
Well said Joe. This argument has been in place for so many centuries and still active. The Bible of 73 Books OT plus NT as it originally canonized is a CATHOLIC BOOK. Its it property. Luther stole it and removed 7 books that do not suit his stupid theology. So when any non Catholic preaches the message of the Bible and as Catholics, I advise to please do not listen to them, ignore their lies because they are not telling the truth and the message is always wrong and misleading. WHY? Because its not their book. How would someone other than the author the Catholic Church come and explain your own writings. Exactly what happen to the Bible. 73 Books at Luther's time and then he removed 7 then they have only tampered-with 66 books today. What we see is that when we add another 6 to 66 then Luther is then # 666 the Anti Christ. Simple as that traitor!! They also claimed a fake Jamnia Council that never happened in 90 AD. A Council that never was. Another lie emerges. Jamnia as they falsely claimed was a Jewish Council. The Jews community at that time did not have faith in Jesus and there was never a New Testament finalised or in place in 90AD. Jewish never believed in Jesus and their Bible at that time was the Old Testsment only.. So their claim is one lie upon another lie. So their 66 book bible is half Jewish [OT] and half Catholic [NT] and nothing protestant there. Please don't talk about the Bible that does not belong to you Luther followers. Go write your own.
How can there be so many bible believing Christians be going around reading and believing using a bible that is missing books?
Thank You Thank You Thank You !!!
This is a well researched presentation all the way to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s influence on Protestant Bibles. It is difficult running these facts to ground as I found out when researching.
Around 1700, some Protestant Bible publishers did begin removing the Deuterocanon, but the marginal cross references to those books were not removed, at least for two more editions later. For example, as Joe pointed out, the KJV 1611 had the Deuterocanon AND there were 102 cross references to Deuterocanon books; 11 of them are New Testament cross references to the Deuterocanon. Later editions that dropped the Deuterocanon still had these cross references to the dropped books in the margins and eventually later editions dropped these as well.
Listen closely those still in Protest, our church history is factual, it actually happened & this Canon debate should be put to rest. Fast forward only a thousand yrs lol & justification by faith alone is sweeping thru despite the sacred texts that say otherwise & btw who cares about that thousand yrs or any practices prior..or even that Luther & Calvin wanted New Test books removed to support their brand new doctrine..its kinda nutty
Very good information. God bless you for doing this
Remember that the oldest existing physical copies of the bible we have do contain the seven books. Those bibles are from the fourth century, a very long time before the reformation.
*Remember that the oldest existing physical copies of the bible we have do contain the seven books.*
They don't. Codex Siniaticus doesn't have 2nd Maccabbes. It does have 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. It also has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Are those inspired scripture?
@@ContendingEarnestly - but what is the method one should use for deciding which books are inspired and which are not? Martin Luther used his own personal tastes. He had a personal dislike of some scriptures. He said he hated the book of James so much that he felt like burning it. He thought Revelations was probably not from God because he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it". Does that sound like someone who respected scriptures.?
@@Klee99zeno So you blow off my response to your post about 'the oldest bible'. Where you were wrong. So let's talk crap about Luther instead. Nice.
@ContendingEarnestly the point he makes is valid. In the 16th century, Martin Luther argued that many of the received texts of the New Testament lacked the authority of the Gospels, and therefore proposed removing a number of books from the New Testament, including Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.
Could you imagine what your theology would be like without the book of revelations?
@@ContendingEarnestlyHe describes the book as being “neither apostolic nor prophetic,” saying further that he “can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it” (LW 35:398). After accusing the author of Revelation of being somewhat smug and rather puzzling, Luther confesses, “My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.
Why is this even a thing? The Guttenberg Bible, printed BEFORE the reformation, has the 73 books, not the 66 books. Anyone can Google the thing.
Great explanation!
Martin Luther unilaterally removed them without discussion. He never intended that his 95 thesis would break up the Church and refused to lead a denomination named for him, Lutheran Church.
The fact that so many denominations that splintered from the Church accepted the 'new' bible minus the seven books without discussion is amazing. Both Catholics and Protestants don't know why one bible has those seven books and the other why theirs don't.
I guess delving into 2000 of history is too much to seek the truth.
Additionally, Luther remained a Catholic his entire life.
The tone of this Protestant alone is enough to make me doubt his sincerity
I had no idea about this. I grew up as Methodist, and then I stopped going later in life. A few years ago I had an experience, and things started to happen that I think Jesus was getting me back to him. I'm at a non-denominational now, and I have never felt so closer to God, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit as I do now. I've never looked into the Catholic church before and saw a video on youtube that got me curious. Any advice on how I should proceed would be welcomed? Thank you for making this video, and God bless.
The Catholic Church did not add 7 books to the Bible. The Catholic Church added 27 books to the Bible. They're called the New Testament.
That wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. The Canon was determined before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the early middle ages.
Hey Joe, I love all of you videos. I am currently devoted protestant who love Lord Jesus with all my heart. I was born and raised in a protestant South Korean household. Many parts of Asia have been evangelized by Protestant missonaries who have given up their life to spread the gospel. Many of them whom I know personally are truly man of God. In your view, the missonaries and the evangelized people need to come to Catholism to truly come to Jesus Christ? Also, you have given me profound desire to search for real meaning to be the true body of Christ and what true form of worship. I would really appreciate if you could do a ultimate sumed up video of why Catholic is the true church of Jesus Christ and the problem with Protestant belief.
I you truly love Jesus with all your heart, then the way to demonstrate Him that love is by believing his words and blindly trusting in His Wisdom, Power and Authority.
Jesus Himself said:
Matthew 18:18: " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.
Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
John 14:26: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
And Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
When Protestants believe that the Catholic Church, His only true Church, departed from the Truth, they are actually believing that Jesus was unable to fulfill these passages. That means you believe the Holy Spirit failed in His mission and that Jesus has deceived millions of believers in Him over the centuries because He did not have the Power, nor Authority, nor the Wisdom to be able to fulfill those words, even through the imperfect men He chose and left in charge of His beloved Church. Protestants show their Love to Jesus by telling Him: "Lord I love you but I don't trust the actions and teachings of those you left in charge of your Church. I Love you but I don't believe that you have the Power to prevent your visible Church from falling from the Truth. I Love you Lord but I don't obey nor listen to those you gave authority to speak and teach on your behalf. But trust me Lord I do Love you with all my heart. I simply don't fully believe in your Power." Is that how you show Him your love?
Although I 20000% agree with you, phrasing it like that can come off as extremely abrasive and nobody coming from Protestantism is going to listen to you.
Hello brother Eric , Indonesian Catholic here....