Where did Paul says that works have no place? Paul said Faith without works is what? Yeah you know, Faith without works is dead. Everyone will be judged by our fruit so if all we did was say a little prayer and went about a life eating bacon on our cheeseburgers, and ham sandwiches and BarBQue well that’s evidence we didn’t really change isn’t it?
Please look at my just posted comment. There are so many falsehoods in your speech. The full canon is normal magisterial teaching from the beginning. Trent was in direct response to the Protestant heresy. All the Churches in the East and West have the full Canon. It is ONLY Protestants that removed them!
It's easy, the bible was written by man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and should be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guided the hand and mind of the writer and will help those who read it to understand it under his guidance. An old acquaintance used to go to countries behind the Iron Curtain to deliver stacks of bibles and individual gospels to underground Christians, many of whom kept their faith strong sharing and reading one single Gospel.
@@wjf0ne If it were that easy then everyone would "believe the same thing," as scripture tells us we should, and we wouldn't have so much confusion of doctrine. So, tell me, does scripture say we should baptize babies or only believing adults?
@@jimmalloy7279 Revelation 22:12-13 New King James Version (NKJV) “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. --Sure looks like works to me!!!!
@@IsraelCountryCubeso it's true that the Pope is infallible even though Romans 3:23 [23] for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; And how could Peter have been the first Pope when 1) he had a mother-in-law 2) never went to Rome.
@@bowez9 It was Peter who was the first pope. I guess you made a typo. Peter and Paul are both buried in Rome. Their bones are physically there. What is your concern over Peter having a mother-in-law?
@@benjaminwatt2436 You are 100% absolutely correct. We need to love and pray for one another. Butin my experiences, I’ve always been attacked by Catholics because I’m a Christian. They literally told me I was going to hell and I was wrong because I wasn’t Catholic.
@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 I`m a Roman Catholic and I`m not sure about everything Dr Turek says (i do enjoy his videos and his teachings) but i agree with him that we need to accept Jesus as our Lord to be safe.
@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 Its a two way street bro. Protestants don't even believe Catholics are Christians. Protestants believe we worship Mother Mary like she is God and a lot of other things.
I only knew the Bible was God inspired AFTER I was born again in my 30's. Trying to read the Bible with human understanding just led me to become "religious". I believed in Jesus but I didn't really NEED Him, so I dressed nicely and went to church, performed all the repetitive rituals but no inner change ever took place, I lived a life of sin, no genuine repentance...so I tried to earn God's approval by "balancing my good with my bad". I dictated my own standards. It was through a nightmarish dark time in my life that Jesus became real in my life because I cried out to Him once all the crutches of religion had been removed. Today - the Bible is like food to my soul and I cannot live without it. I was once spiritually blind but now I see. I love my Catholic brothers dearly but the fact that they get so triggered about me being born again in my adult life, tells me they don't know what being born of the Spirit even means. My own family and friends resent me for leaving the Catholic church but why? Did I do something unscriptural? Did Jesus not commanded us to REPENT and be baptized on your own will? "if you CONFESS with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and BELIEVE in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be SAVED. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved" Romans 10:9 How could I do that as a baby?
Love how Frank finishes. If we all, as Christians agree on that one simple truth, then we can debate all night on every other point and still be good in the morning.
Greeaaaat conversation - this is how Mere Christian discussions should go. Question:response with heaps of respect. We don't have to agree on everything. We'll all be wrong about something. "They'll know we are Christians by our love."
Because they're both saved. There are Christians within the catholic church, but that doesn't give any validity to the heretical doctrines of the catholic church like purgatory.
The last part of this was the most crucial. How does one get saved? This is fundamental and non negotiable. It also separates Biblical Christianity from every other belief on the planet. It's clearly spelled out here. The glory is God's alone. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
truly we must do works to be saved amen. self proclaimed christians protestant feel the emotion of faith and then what? no good works? most self so called christians dont do good works wether they boast or not is irrelevant they dont do good works and thats not good for anyone. so in many they die.
@soundscapeproductions9173 if the Bible says you are saved by faith ALONE without need of obedience or love then conjure up the verse that says that. Then explain James 2:24 which says you see how a man is justified BY HIS WORKS and NOT by faith alone!
If those books weren’t added to the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent, why are they also in the Orthodox bible? I don’t think the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches were coordinating too well in the 1500’s.
The Catholic Church didn't add any books to the Bible in the council of trent. All it did was affirm what was the canon officially because of the failed protestant reformations attack on the long standing canon.
Frank was also intellectually dishonest when speaking about Jerome. Yes Jerome had his own personal grievances with what books should be translated, but Jerome ultimately said that his grievances were borderline sinful because they went against the authority and power of the Church and relented his grievances to submit to the authority of the Church. Frank conveniently left that part out.
@dman7668 the Council of Trent said for the first time that the apocrypha was to be treated as sacred scripture. They did this because they needed the apocrypha to prop up their heresy of purgatory and indulgences.
The canon of Scripture was recognized well before the Council of Trent. Early councils like Rome in 382 AD and Hippo in 393 AD acknowledged the same books the Catholic Church honors today. Trent's 1546 declaration was a formal affirmation in response to the Reformation, not the initial establishment of the canon.
You're misunderstanding Frank's claim about the additional books that Rome canonized. There he was referring only to the *Apocrypha* (i.e., the deuterocanonical/secondary Jewish books written during the intertestamental period, which are historically accurate and perhaps spiritually valuable but which are nevertheless *not* God-breathed/inspired). Those particular books were never recognized as canonical (i.e., on par with divinely authored Scripture) by Jews or by most Protestants, and in fact were strongly disputed even by many Catholics, until the Council of Trent declared them canonical (and anathematized all who disagree!) in April 1546. Obviously, the vast majority of the 66 canonical books (36 OT; 27 NT) were recognized as being God-breathed/inspired by the middle of the second century. FYI, the Fragment of Muratori (c. A.D. 150-220, Milan) references or alludes to 22 NT books (all but Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and one of John's epistles, although it's not clear which one, as two of his three epistles were acknowledged but not with specificity). Moreover, three early Apostolic church fathers (so named because they were either personal disciples of, or otherwise had direct contact with, the Apostles of Christ) quoted passages from 25 of the 27 NT books between A.D. 95 and 110. These men are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. [Note: Clement of Rome, who was the fourth bishop of the church in Rome, is believed to have been a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he may have been the same Clement the Apostle Paul refers to as a “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. And according to early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a pupil of Polycarp, both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were students of the Apostle John.] Clement of Rome, writing from Rome around A.D. 95 when the Apostle John was plausibly still living, confirmed the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as five Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus) and three general letters (i.e., the occasionally disputed books of Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter). Further, Ignatius of Antioch, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 107, referenced all four Gospels, along with the book of Acts, 12 of Paul’s 13 epistles (i.e., all except 2 Thessalonians), and the remaining books of the NT, with the exceptions of 2 John and Jude. And Polycarp, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 110, recognized 2 Thessalonians and several other NT books already confirmed by Clement and Ignatius. Such remarkably early external attestation-which, by the way, is absolutely extraordinary for writings from the ancient world-goes a long way toward substantiating the transmissional accuracy and historical reliability of the original New Testament documents, as well as their early dating and authorship. Significantly, it also demonstrates that the early Christians recognized and accepted only four Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and that the apostolic authorship or divine authority of the 13 epistles of Paul and the books of Acts and 1 John (at least) were never questioned or contested. And of course, Athanasius' well-known "Easter letter" (i.e., his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle) shows that all 27 books found in the New Testament of modern Bibles were definitely recognized throughout Christendom as being canonical/authoritative by the year A.D. 367.
@@Eighties_Child I won't try to respond to everything you said because it's a lot. The fact of the matter is that this is about authority. The Jews had no authority to decide what the Christian canon was, not to mention there were several groups of Jews, all who didn't agree what was considered sacred scripture and what was not. Which group was right and why?People use the Jews as a monolith when trying to defend the protestant canon. A handful of church fathers don't have the authority to set the canon either. The church hierarchy decides that, just as they did at Rome in 382, and again at Hippo, Florence and Trent.
The Catholic kid was correct, the New Testament has no quotes from Esther, nor from Song of Solomon, nor from Job. Job was mentioned by the Apostle James (James 5:11), but the book was not quoted. Furthermore, while the observation is correct about Jesus and the Apostles not quoting from the so-called Apocrypha, they did quote or allude to a number of books that nobody considers canonical--the book of Enoch,** the book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and several others. So we can't say that "quoted by the Apostles" is a criterion for canonicity. Of course, Mr. Turek didn't say that, but since it wasn't one of the criteria mentioned in Mr. Turek's list of criteria applied by the early church, we need to understand why he brought it up. He brought it up to claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not take those books seriously, and that's fair enough--but they did seem to take Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, etc. seriously. Those were excluded from the canon for other reasons. (In the Talmud, there were at least 3 rabbis who referred to the Apocryphal book called "The Wisdom of Sirach" as scripture, so there were Jews who did include at least that one book in their idea of the canon. But most did not.) Turek's answer was pretty good if you put it all together. Still, "they didn't quote from those books" is not a complete argument, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The question of canonicity is a difficult question, and not one usually handled at the popular level. ** The book of Enoch is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Rite Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken, but not by anybody else.
So what happened in 382, 397, 419, and 1431-1449 AD? He has his ordering mixed up. These books were decided as canon much earlier and the two most ancient branches of Christianity use them in their Bibles. Luther took books OUT of the Bible which is one of the reasons there was a Council of Trent to begin with. All that happened was canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church, not recreated. Luther would have removed more books too like the Letter of James because it's is antithetical to Sola Fide most completely noted in James 2:26
Those books were only considered canonical by the Catholic Church. The Israelites who authored those books and those after never considered them to be inspired or canonical. Not surprising knowing how the Catholic church loves to evolve their theology and doctrines Willy nilly throughout the centuries.
@@brianrich7828 so the Orthodox churches do not exist? And we are not going to acknowledge that each of these councils included both east (Orthodox) and west (Catholic)? And are we going to forget that prior to 70AD there was significant debate in the Jewish community about which books were canon and which were not? Are we also going to ignore that the Septuagint is roughly 1000 years older than the Masoretic texts and that there is a consensus that the Septuagint is the source that Jesus and the Apostles would use in their preaching?
@@definitelynotsarcasm Oh the Orthodox church exists,mind you Orthodox is just a title,and not an apt description based on their theology. The Upanishads are older than even those,so I guess if the supremacy of antiquity is the litmus test for canonicity then the Upanishads should also be in the Bible huh? The Talmud is older than the new Testament therefore it should also be canon. Appealing to antiquity has no basis regarding canonicity. Teachers to this day will reference others works that would be familiar to their audience,that doesn’t make the other persons entire work an authority on a particular subject. Fables are often referenced in academia,that doesn’t mean the fables are true. Jesus alluding to works that would have been read by those who were listening does not equate them to being Canon. The Apostle Paul used examples of Pagan philosophers such as Aratus and others like Menander. And those writings are certainly not canonical. So moot point.
@@brianrich7828 First let me say I hope we can now agree that "these books were only considered canon by the Catholic Church" is a false statement and that prior to the reformation, it was commonly accepted by Christians that these books were in fact Scripture. My point is not "older = better" my point is that if we have a source that Jesus and the Apostles literally quote from and is closer to original than another source, would it not be preferable to use that source instead? Additionally you must contend with the fact that in the days of Jesus, Scripture had not been settled and there was great debate over what was and what was not Scripture. I would also ask these questions: - would your interpretation not then mean that the Jews are the authority for what is or is not Scripture when it comes to the Old Testament? Suppose Jewish religious leaders come out tomorrow and say that not only is the Deuterocanon Scripture, but so is the Orthodox Deuterocanon along with the book of Enoch. Would that not then make all of those books Infallible Scripture? - should we not consider the Scriptures Jesus quotes from in His ministry, instead we need to consult what Jews, who did not consider Jesus as God, declared canon 40 years after His death doing everything they could, including changing the text,/misinterpreting the text, in an attempt to step away from possible Christian interpretations?
@@definitelynotsarcasm The very same Jews wrote the Bible. Protestants didn’t accept them because they weren’t part of the Jewish canon known as the Hebrew Bible. In the second and third centuries BC, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, creating what we know as the Septuagint (LXX). In addition to the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX contains a number of other books of Jewish piety. It is not clear whether some or all of these had existed in Hebrew and were translated into Greek, or were written in Greek and subsequently (for a few of them found in fragmentary form among the Dead Sea Scrolls) translated into Hebrew. However, none of these found their way into the Jewish canon known as the Masoretic text. The LXX was the main Old Testament used by Christians, but the question of whether or not the additional books should be part of it was never settled. Jerome included them in his Vulgate translation, which became the foundation of the Latin-speaking church, but he did not himself regard them as canonical. The Reformation took place in an age of advancing Biblical textual scholarship, and began a period of Bible translation from Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek. When the translators went to translate the Old Testament, they found that these other books did not exist in Hebrew. For this reason, Martin Luther placed them in a separate section, but he did not remove them. The first editions of the Authorised Version in English included them, but they progressively lost headway. In contrary motion, while the Protestants concluded that they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent decided that they should be included. Most Bibles these days are available both with and without the deuterocanonical books, but Bibles without vastly outsell those with. If you read them, it’s clear why they don’t fit with the Old Testament. They are obviously considerably later. The one most likely to interest Christians, the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, explicitly identifies itself as not part of the canon. The writing style is different, and there is a substantial shift in theology, which reflects the fascination with angels and demons of other inter-testamental literature. The New Testament quotes from the canonical parts of the Septuagint 300 times, but it never quotes from the apocryphal parts. The closest it gets is a reference in Hebrews 11:35 which refers to an event described in the deuterocanonicals, although it is not a quotation. No two manuscripts of the Septuagint contain the same apocrypha. The Catholic and Orthodox churches both acknowledge Deuterocanonicals, but they have different lists of what they contain. The bottom line on this is that Protestants recognise that, historically, they were not part of the Bible that Jesus read or used. When Jesus stated that no part of the ‘law’ would pass away, they were evidently not included. Protestant epistemology goes like this: The Resurrection demonstrates that the claims Jesus made about himself were true, specifically that he was sent by God, as he claimed. Jesus explicitly authorised the Hebrew Old Testament. At the end of Matthew’s Gospel, he authorises and requires the apostles to teach everything he taught them. The canonical New Testament is what became accepted by the church as this teaching of the apostles and their associates. For this reason, the cut-off point for the New Testament is the end of the first century, when John, last of the apostles, died. Although there are many second century works of Christian piety, they have never been considered for acceptance. There are two first century documents which are valued by Christians, but which have no particular association with the apostles and therefore were never considered for inclusion. These are Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.
@@keithbirdwell That’s definitely a better argument, but we don’t fully know that. It seems that some early church fathers did see them as possibly inspired, others definitely didn’t. I assume you mean Jesus’s disciples? I don’t know of anything we have today that speaks to if they considered the apocrypha as inspired or not. Their inclusion wasn’t mainstream for several hundred years though, and the Jews didn’t recognize them. That’s probably the best argument.
Frank is good but he’s fumbling here. The historical argument and the exegetical argument are not gonna solve this question for the protestant. If I were still a protestant, I would just have to be agnostic about it which really flies in the face of the structure of Protestantism.
@@tpoy1274 To me, if we are going to be agnostic on it, then we definitely shouldn’t claim they are inspired. Better to reject them in ignorance and accept them in ignorance.
@@crw662 It’s a really a bad argument to base your judgment of what is canon on the Jews. The Jews rejected the Word of God himself. We are going to trust their judgment on the inspired Word? Especially when that judgment is post apostolic? The same protestants who will say that they don’t trust the judgment of the historical church on the canon will trust the judgment of apostate Jews. It doesn’t make sense.
@@fr.Angel21he didn't remove it though. Just as he never removed any other books. And it's funny that catholics complain about it, considering how many things they do that are clearly not in the Bible.
@@malcolmknight345Completely wrong. You have taken Ephesians 2:8-9 completely out of context - it is clear that God is the source of our salvation and not our own works, indicating our need for humility! not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:9 “God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent! Homily on Ephesians.” - John Chrysostom
Ephesians references to works are works of the law. James refers to works as a response to faith. These are very different concepts. But since they both are referred to as works, Protestants often get confused.
As a Catholic I love to watch Frank . There are two issues I have though with his statements: The first being that Jerome did not translate the deuterocanonical books. Considering they were within the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) he did in fact translate them. The second issue is his claim that these books are not mentioned or alluded to in the NewTestament. Here is in fact a list: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18. God bless all believers in Christ.
@@brianrich7828 Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it. It is true Jerome, when learning Hebrew, did not consider 5 of the books as canonical, but they were in the Vulgate. He did translate them, and they have always been considered canonical in the Christian Bible. Even if Jerome himself did not hold some of these to be canonical doesn’t mean they aren’t. The Church has always held them to be canonical and these texts were taken out by Protestants who still themselves hold more texts than the Jewish Bible. You have certain sects of Judaism that only adhere to the Torah (first five books) and others only 22.. so all Christian’s have more texts in the OT.
@@brianrich7828 So in response to your point I never claimed Jerome held them as canonical, but he did translate them and labeled them apocryphal, meaning non canonical, yet in the Bible. The Church on the other hand has always included them in the canon when the Bible was formed.
He's wrong about a lot here. The kid asking the question was correct; Jesus and the apostles never quotes from Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, or Esther. Yet he mistakenly says that they did and that those books just weren't found with the dead sea scrolls.
The council of rome is not considered an ecumenical council. I do agree that Frank isnt the best apologist, but i do belive the arguments still stands, there are books that werent quoted, and there is little reason for us to think they are inspired.
Around 6:50 Frank makes an error and it causes his argument to fail. Regardless of your opinions on the magisterium and its place, using just the standard of "old accepted books", the apocrypha were included in the Greek Septuagint which is the basis for the old testament for the Christian Church from its earliest beginnings. Additionally the Eastern Orthodox Church (split in 11th century) and Oriental Orthodox Church (split in 5th century) accept these books as part of the canon and tradition that has remained largely unchanged since those times. These books were not introduced in response to Martin Luther and the reformation in the 16th century. That is just false to suggest.
The LXX did not originally contain the Apocrypha, but first translated the Torah, and later the Jewish canon. The Apocrypha were either themselves not in Hebrew or translations that Jews themselves considered Jewish literature, reading that might be edifying for spiritual themes for example, but not for reading in religious gatherings. Only later are they bound into copies of the LXX, by which time it's not only far from the original LXX, it's likely not even mere revision 10... EO & Rome only much later insist otherwise, including arguments that the ancient faithful (Jewish Patriarchs etc, and tgwy were faithful--say otherwise and you're Marcionite) didn't have a Canon... which is historically and provably wrong: not only do (ancient( Jewish aources & lists show otherwise (that EOs & R Catholics tend to then twust further in ahistorical ways if they admit that), even Jesus & disciples use terms known to Jews to indicate the specific sets of books. Simply put, arguing with EOs and Catholics on this is analogous to listening to Mormons on their book (whose many "tells" reveal it is historical fabrication much less inspired), or [another big faith] on historical mistatements (strongly asseverated) in their holy writ, or "a certain American cult" on its scifi alien books ripped off from others.... Insisting to an ancient believer before Christ's birth that the (then-ectant} Apocrypha are Canon would be like insisting to a Protestant that Pilgrim's Progress is... who knows better. Insisting on them in the early Church (despite all evidences)... There are internal design matters that also "tell", besides the facts of Jews having preserved the history, especially given that Jews in Alexandria & Egypt & North Africa & thorought Rome weren't wiped out as Jerusalem was... but there are good reasons that the early counsels of Christians *and* the earlier ones of ancient Patristics (pre-Christ) had the same methods & came to the same conclusions. Even using the same statement: the books [today called Apocrypha] are (often) good for edification but not for public (in religious gatherings) reading. And that's before we get into Rome (pre-split of east & West) is infamous (and Rome the Western part post-split ADMITTED) to "creative" arguments from documents it knew were forged but insisted weren't for... many centuries. And all that's before the observation: there really was no controversy here among actually-informed people until partisans started reaching to find Scriptures to rest doctrinal positions upon.
Congratulations to the Catholic students. This was one of the best exchange of the Roman Catholic faith I’ve seen with Frank. Very respectful and humble both participants. I pray that one day you come back to the Catholic Faith, Mr. Frank I don’t agree with everything you say we do need a man like you to stand up for the truth.
2 Timothy 3:16- “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
And as Catholics we say yes! But that is a reference to the Old Testament by Paul. And in no way does it suggest that ONLY scripture is inspired by God, nor does it suggest that it is all one needs.
@@DAWanamakeras Catholics, you reject the supremacy of scripture by putting traditraditions of men and the authority of the church along side it. Those are not referred to in the scripture above as because God's word is the only one capable of doing so. To suggest anything outside of it is capable is presuming God is deceptive and not fulling descriptive in His word, which is clearly false. In short, the Roman Catholic Church is full of lies and contains a false gospel.
@@Belief03 the words "all" and "only" have completely different definitions. In Saint Paul did not use the word only. Again, as a Catholic, I say yes. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and his profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction and righteousness. On that point, we have no argument whatsoever. However, there is no scriptural evidence anywhere that Saint Paul limited himself to Scripture alone.
Normally I come down largely on the side of Frank here, but I think he was lofting air-balls on this whole thing. For instance, as to whether or not the Apocrypha was ever cited or quoted in the NT, it's quite immaterial. There are tons of canonical OT books that are also not cited or quoted. Furthermore, the Book of Enoch is once referenced, which is not in the canon for either Protestants or Catholics. For that matter, Paul even quotes Greek philosophers in order to make a larger point to his hearers. So citation does not necessarily equate canonicity, nor its lack preclude it. An additional observation: Catholics never removed books from their OT canon. It may come as considerable shock to some that the first printings of the venerable old King James version included the Apocrypha, and for almost 200 years after it was first published (1804 to be precise!) Additionally, why are we appealing to Jewish canon that was established AFTER the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora? The now rather historically dubious Council of Jamnia, said to have convened somewhere between 70-90 AD, allegedly established the all-Hebrew canon (excepting Esther and portions of Daniel, which both appear only in Aramaic.) There's precious little to actually support this view today, and was more likely locked in at around the same time the Mishna was compiled at the end of the 2nd century. Early Christians, on the other hand, took their cue from the Septuagint canon, which includes said "missing" books, and would have been a version very familiar to the early Church. This is Church History 101 Frank. You can do better than this! C'mon man! 😄
Frank is amazing at logical arguments for believing in God. But like all protestants, seriously let's himself down when it comes to knowledge of history
Not only that but he completely misrepresents Jerome's position in regards to the books of the Bible. Yes Jerome disagreed with Pope Damascus (forgive me I forget which number he was lol) on what books to translate, but Jerome eventually submits to the authority of the Church saying that his disagreement was borderline sinful because he was going against the authority of the Church that Christ established.
@@GamingxKnight Such an important point. It was the Council of Rome that decreed the canon, not Jerome on his own. If we reject the authority of church councils then the whole debate around circumcision of the Gentiles is still unresolved since the Councilof Jerusalem!
The LXX didn't originally contain the Apocrypha. But Jews in second-temple Judaiam began to include books they didn't consider canonical so not allowed for public reading, but nevertheless religiously useful or edifying, along with their scroll collections... Analogously I have an old American Bible that includes a copy of Pilgrim's progress: nobody that bound it nor original buyers thought Pilgrim's was Holy Scripture... Likewise I have a Bible to which I added Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts at the back: that's not Scripture but it's material early Christians knew well, even claiming Plutarch (morally) as one of their own.
Exactly! Jerome did translate those books after expressing his concerns. He understood that those books were in the Septuagint. They would have been the cannon of scripture at the time of Jesus.
@@richardpaskach3084 They never were Canon. Not even by the Jews. Catholics are the first. Not the first to make things up as they go,but to consider the Septuagint inspired.
Protestants LOVE to try to use our own Saints and Church Fathers against us. The weakest argument against those 7 books is "well the Jews didn't accept them." Well, newsflash, they also didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. First century Jews were very reluctant to accept anything that might point to Christ being the Messiah. They would have outright rejected these books as well because they were written in Greek.
Regarding the answer. #1 - The whole notion that "we don't determine what should be in the canon, we discover it" and "the canon is not an authoritative list of books, it is a list of authoritative books" is just an evasion and is not really an answer. This is the kind of thing I'm tempted to point out as dishonest, but I don't believe the speaker is intentionally being dishonest. I think his need to uphold his doctrine has just blinded him to the fact that his answer is nothing more than a semantic game. If you have a list and you say that this list is definitive, and it can't be added to or removed from, and we are obligated to accept the list, then the list, by definition is authoritative. You can play semantic games, but it doesn't change the reality. Likewise, whether you call it "determining" or "discovering" the fact is that there was a point in history where people recognized as authorities, said "this book is in" and "this book is out" and their judgement has been held as binding ever since. The fact is that the Bible does not define itself. Thus there are only three possible ways of defining it (in the sense of what books are part of it and what are not) First, you have an authority that can establish it (ie the Church). Second, you have your own reason. Third, you can believe that your reason is personally inspired by the Holy Spirit That's basically it. I grew up being taught a combination of the second and the third. I defended those positions until I was in my 30's. Then I realized that they were historically indefensible as well as not Biblical, nor particularly logical. #2 - First, notice the contradiction between what he says here, and the first answer he gave. We are no longer discovering whether these books are authoritative. We are no longer saying the list is not authoritative... now we reject these books specifically because they were not on the authoritative list. Second, notice that the authoritative list he was talking about is not even a Christian list. Third, what he says is partially false. The historical fact of the matter is that the Jews did not have a unified canon of scripture until after the time of Jesus. Even at the time of Jesus, the Jews had significant disagreements amongst themselves as to what books were considered scripture and what books were not. There was not an authoritative Jewish canon until later. Since it may come up, one of the historical myths associated with this topic is the "council of Jamnia" which supposedly took place in 90 AD, where the Jews supposedly finalized the canon of their scriptures. The idea of this council was invented in 1871 by a historian after he noticed that in the Mishnah there was debate between the rabbi's over what books of the Ketuvim should be considered Holy Scripture. In the Mishnah (the only source for any of this speculation) it never mentions any book being excluded and primarily centers around affirming that Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes should be considered Scripture. Moreover, the debates occurring among Rabbis in the time right after Christ centered heavily around dealing with the problem of Jews converting to Christianity. They were deliberately making decisions in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity. Why would a Christian accept their judgement as authoritative? #3 - The point about Jerome, again, points out how wrong the speaker's first point was. To give context, Jerome lived about 400 years after Christ. During that first 400 years, if you look around the Christian world you will find that different localities had their own lists of which books they considered to be scripture. Those lists were not all the same. Some of the early Christians had doubts about Revelation, James, the Epistles of Peter and John, and Jude. In fact, if you read some current scholars, you will find that in early writings, the New Testament in general is rarely referenced as "scripture" and most of the time when early Christians spoke about "scripture" they specifically were citing the Old Testament. The canon of scripture was established by the authority of the Church. When people disputed which books were scripture, Synod's and Councils came together and declared authoritative lists to settle the question. Jerome proves this point because he records that he deferred his own judgement to the decisions of the Church regarding what was scripture. The reason he excluded some of the Deuterocanonical texts was because he had friends in the Jewish community, and he based his decision on the fact that those books were not read among Hebrew speaking Jews. Keep in mind this is 400 years after Christ. It is great to look at early sources like Jerome, but no one person's opinion should be your Rule of Faith. Not even a Church Father's. It also raises the question, if you want to site Jerome as an authority on the canon of scripture, why not listen to the rest of what he says? The canon of scripture was established over time and through a process of Church synods and council making rulings on it. The reason why books were in the canon, and other books were not in the canon, is because the authority of the Church established it and the people followed that authority. That is simply the historical fact. The full modern canon of the Catholic scriptures was stated at the Council of Carthage in about 450 AD. That was a local council was a local council, and was therefore not universally binding. However, the canon given there became the traditional canon of the entire Church. There was not a universal statement of the Canon until the Council of Trent. The reason this universal statement came so late, was because the Church does not authoritatively define doctrine, until there is controversy that questions it, which needs to be settled. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not universally authoritatively stated until Nicea in 325 AD. It happened then because that was the first time it became a controversy. People whos ay that Christians did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus before that point are either ignorant or are dishonest. This happens repeatedly down through Church history. The fact that the statement of the canon is so late, does not demonstrate that the canon itself was a late development (again, ignorance or dishonesty). What it actually demonstrates is that the canon was never controversial until that time. Prior to that the whole Church basically accepted without dispute the canon that was traditionally promulgated by local synods and councils. Another point, if you doubt this, is to look at ancient Churches that are non-Catholic, like the Orthodox, the Coptic, the Ethiopian, etc. You will find that they all have the same canon as the Catholic church with minor differences. #4 - The idea that the NT authors quoted the OT canon, and did not quote the Deuterocanonical texts is not true. As the student points out there are OT books which are not quoted. There are also non-canonical texts like the Book of Enoch which ARE quoted. This alone should establish the principle that whether or not something is quoted in the NT does not either prove or disprove it's inspired status. However, the claim that the Deuterocanon is never quoted is based, again, on a doctrinal blindness at best. The first fact you must take into account here is that the NT routinely quotes the OT in a very loose and partial referential way. There are a few places in the gospels, for example, where the gospel writer will say that Jesus fulfilled an OT prophecy and says "to fulfill what was written..." and then the quote of "what was written" is not a direct quote of any OT passage, but rather references an idea, or is a very loose paraphrase etc. The same thing is done with the Deuterocanonical books. Because they are often not direct quotes, they are easy to dismiss if you want to say "this is never quoted". There are numerous things in the NT that refer and paraphrase Deuterocanonical books. I'm only about half way in, but I have to go. If I get a chance and remember, I'll come back and finish.
2:30 Turek’s initial statement is still correct in that he said, Jesus and the apostles quoted from each major “section” of the Hebrew Bible excluding the Apocrypha. Esther is part of the Megillah of the Khetuvim (“Writings”) section, and though not quoted, it is still part of a section that does get quoted. The problem with possible (and actual) allusions to the Apocryphal (Deuteroncanonical) and other extra biblical works in the NT is that not a single one of them is introduced with the formula, “it is written …”, “God said …”, “Moses said …”, as many of the NT quotes and allusions to the Hebrew Bible are.
The problem Matthew, is that the Church accepted the Catholic old testament and nobody had a problem with it, until Luther lost a debate. If you notice, Luther in is 95 page thesis never once talks about how he rejects these books. It is a non issue until it contradicted or threatened Luthers heresies.
Argument from negative is a weak argument. It is like saying "I never see a XYZ species, therefore XYZ does not exist." Also, quoting a bible scholar does not add weight to his defence. The quote he gave is a statement that the books are authoritative to the Biblical Scholar. You cannot have a debate on a faith statement because I can flip that and use any well- known Biblical Scholar of all times that says the opposite thing, "not one book is inspired", or "Aprocyph is part of the inspired scripture".
@@dman7668 That's because they've never rejected them. They're even in the king james bible. It's only today's misinformed Protestants that make this mistake (among the thousands of other mistakes they make). Protestants have removed themselves from any historical link to Jesus and 1st century Christianity, so they kinda of make it up as they go.
seeing who were called to be apostle, it's very unlikely they could quote, simply because they were from the lowest social status, and not schooled. And we have no scriptures from them, in any form.
The student worked him. He specifically says “my view isn’t hinging on the pope,” and the speaker immediately responds to papal authority. Not to mention, Jerome did translate the 7 books AT THE URGING OF THE POPE
Yes, Jerome had his opinion but guess what he DID. He submitted the whole bible including the Deuterocanonicals, to the pope. And that's the famous Vulgate which changed the world. He had an opinion, but he was Catholic.
That's strange, given that when Jerome lived there was no such thing as quote, the pope, unquote. There was the Bishop of Rome, yes. But not a pope in the modern sense of the word.
@@williamjpellas0314 Just because a word is not used doesn't mean the thing signified by the word doesn't exist: the word "Trinity" for example, is not in the bible. Jerome submitted his work to the man in charge. I wonder who that was, hmmm.
So, who was this "pope"? Was that the title used? Was this pope universally recognized? The problem is that Damatius 1 (not sure if it is spelled correctly) didn't use the title pope, he wasn't recognized at the time as having some special status, and was retroactively called pope by the Roman Catholic Church when they were trying to establish apostolic authority.
"The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it's a list of authoritative books" still doesn't answer the question: How do you KNOW with certainty that these 66 or 73 books are authoritative? How do you discover that they are the inspired Word of God? There's no verse in the Bible that tells us specifically which books belong in it. No verse gives the criteria that Frank gave for recognizing what is or is not inspired. But there is a Church that Jesus established that the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). And this Church can recognize with Divine authority and certainty what are the Sacred Scriptures. To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book. If we don't, then there's nothing preventing people from removing books or certain passages they disagree with from the Bible; We saw this happen with Luther on "praying for the dead" and the deuterocanonical books (he also wasn't too keen on the book of James because of James' emphasis on works), and we see this happening today with more "Progressive" Christians and passages of St. Paul on sexual sin. The Bible alone doesn't tell us what the Bible is, but the Catholic Church which Jesus founded has preserved these Sacred Scriptures so that we can confidently follow Christ to the end. Also... Jerome definitely included those 7 "extra" OT books in the Latin Vulgate. He expressed reservations about them but assented to the authority of the Church in the end. The Church continued to include those books in Her canon and didn't have a need to dogmatically define which books belonged in the canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when Protestants began calling the canon into question.
" To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book." ....Who said what is OUTSIDE the Book is infallible ?
@@8shizzle Because the Bible itself doesn't tell you which books belong in it. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, by extension you trust in an infallible authority outside of the Bible to tell you what the Bible is; that authority is the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Yes, except the Church did dogmatically define the canon more than a thousand years before Trent. Trent's list is merely a RE-RE-RE-RE-affirmation of a canon long officially established.
@@8shizzle Jesus commissioned his Church. That’s clearly done in Matthew. If Jesus said it, and Jesus being God it is by that true. It’s an omnipotence rule. When the omnipotence speaks, that which is spoken shall be true. He told it as bound and loosed and gave the keys to the Kingdom to His earthly successor, Peter, who was called Simon. At some point you have to believe or not believe. He did those miracles as much for those He helped as He did them for you so that you would have reason to believe. Then he was nailed up and died a grueling death for you and I then he did perform another miracle, for every single one of us… …He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and had witnesses who saw it and every one of them died too for what they knew and not one of them back-peddled. They all professed of Jesus Christ into their own deaths. That’s to much love for this guy to deny. I’m holding fast and I am doing it in the Church He founded.
I got Catholic friends and we disagree...but I and my friends both believe that ultimately Faith in Christ is the only way to heaven..and I always say we need to ask when we get to heaven who was the closest..and we laugh and remain good friends..
That's how it's got to be (obviously). I'm a Christian (Catholic) and I have nothing but non-catholic friends (because of where I live, there simply aren't many here 😄). Some people just love to belong to a group, and then love to hate on others that aren't in their specific group. It's like they need adversaries to feel important. I don't think God will send anybody to eternal damnation because they don't get every single detail right. That just seems completely unreasonable to me. Just as I don't think people that have never actually had the chance to know Christ probably don't get damned to an eternity without him, never been given a chance to accept/reject him. But, as long as your belief is that Jesus is your Lord and savior, I'm quite sure he'll have mercy on all (relatively) small disagreements. Anything else would be the opposite of merciful, I think.
@@RobertA-11-11 I'm an ex-Catholic, now born again Christian. In order to be saved, you must still repent of your sins and be born again, trusting in Jesus as the only way to heaven- not works, including the communion/confirmation and so on, praying the rosary, praying to Mary, confessing to a priest, believing in Purgatory (arguably the most important false belief), and so on. I'll keep you in prayer!
I’m Catholic and my wife is Protestant and this is how our families view things as well. We are worshipping the same Jesus and we put our faith and trust in Him. We have had the same conversation of getting to heaven and figuring out who got what right or wrong when it comes to theology. I heard a talk about the subject of picking a Christian denomination and he stated a paraphrase of the following: If Jesus Christ was willing to be tortured and nailed to cross for our sins, do you think he cares a whole lot about what denomination we pick? I doubt it. I doubt he’s going to ask what denomination we picked and then scold us for not arriving at the “right” denomination.
Boy there are some haters in the thread of the man God chose to protest the abuses of the Catholic Church. What is the truth? Don’t hang on to Catholic dogma but look and study truth. It’s all in God’s revealed word.
@@bowez9 quoted not mentioned 2Sa_1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
@@bowez9 Who is the author of the Book of Enoch in the Bible? Lesson Summary. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 paved the way for scholars to understand better the Hebraic Bible and traditions during the Second Temple era. Among the preserved documents, archeologists discovered the Book of Enoch, a scripture supposedly written by Noah's great-grandfather Enoch.Feb 6, 2023
Peter quoted from pagan poems. That mean that pagan religions that he quoted from are inspired as well? The book of Enoch has always been considered a book of heresy because it teaches directly against Christ teachings, such as it teaches polytheism and that Enoch, not Jesus, is the Son of Man/God. The book was never considered to be inspired at any point and Enoch didn't write it. To say that the book of Enoch is inspired is like saying that the 'gospels' of Peter, Thomas, Barnabas, Phillip, and Mary are inspired when they are forgeries.
Logically, you can't argue like Frank did and say the NT writers and Jesus didn't quote from the Apocraphya so therefore they were not inspired. The rejoinder is but if Song of Solomon wasn't quoted does that mean the Song of Solomon was not inspired?
What is the problem ? RC & Pros agree on the New Testament and it is the New Testament (Christ through Paul) that teaches how you & I are saved and that's what matters :)
@@robusc4940 No problem brother, he is simply pointed out that Frank's argument fail on a certain point. But i think any Christian, include Frank, agree Song of Solomon was inspired.
I think the evidence mostly lies in the ratio. Out of 39 accepted books by all, only one or two aren't quoted in the NT. That's a pretty good ratio. But the Apocrypha has 14 books but none are quoted. That's a pretty bad ratio. That at least should make one think. Neither Jesus nor the apostles thought much about these books.
Frank's last question was the key point, saved by grace through faith. I have Catholic friends, we don't debate. We enjoy the common agreements. I believe we'll see each other in heaven! Great video!
Catholic here. This is the key: "*I* don't think..." "If the Jews didn't have it, *why* do we?" And that bulleted list by Metzger. These all illustrate the problem: who gets to make the call? You need a referee or else these standards can be unevenly applied, if you even can agree on a standard in the first place. My belief is that the Savior instituted the Apostles and, after their deaths, their successors to govern the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, including by being the referee on such matters. Otherwise it's open to arbitrary choices.
He's right to bring up Jerome, but he completely ignores the fact that though Jerome may have had his own disagreements on what should be in the Bible, he ultimately said that his disagreements were borderline sinful because he was personally going against the authority and power of the Church that Christ established. Martin Luther didn't break from the Church only because he didn't like what was in the Bible. He broke from the Church because of his personal interpretation of the Scriptures and believing in that more than the authority of the Church to fit his worldview. This is the main problem, Protestants ignore facts of history. The Council of Rome is when the Biblical Canon was established. Not to mention that the early Christians did in fact believe in, what Protestants wrongly describe as, 'praying to the dead'. There are tombstones from early Christian graves in Christian catacombs that ask for prayers from the Apostles and other saints who had already passed.
Not an argument but a statement here. Just because they asked for prayers from the deceased in antiquity, it doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Much of the New Testament are Paul’s letters that correct behavior not backed by scripture and urged them to reject traditions of man. Praying to the deceased, or asking them to pray for you, is not supported by scripture and is urged against. The Spirit of God intercedes for you (Romans 8:26-27)
Also, one of Jerome's reasons for not thinking some of those books should be included was the same used by Luther/Calvin: that there were no Hebrew versions (only the greek/Septuagint). That was true at the time, but Hebrew copies of several of the 'deutero/apocrypha' books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls... Making that objection moot. And both Luther/Calvin wanted to remove more books (each had their own ideas about which), but agreed not to because they realized how obvious it would make their position open to attack as 'traditions of men'... Imagine if after Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls were found, that Protestant churches said, "gee, looks like the Catholic Church was right on the canon the whole time?" and started to use them? Wow.... Unity one step closer... and for what it's worth, those Hebrew versions found in that Essene community in Qumran showed how accurate the greek septuagint versions were to the Hebrew versions (makes sense since 70 or 72 senior jewish rabbis created the Septuagint used by the Catholic church for the OT) !! God bless everyone!
Jerome did translate those books. Councils of Rome 382 has the list of books. Florence prior to Trent gave the list, but it was solemnly defined at Trent because of the reformation. He didn’t answer how it was discovered that certain books were inspired. And if it’s not authoritative, then it follows that it could be wrong. Definitely 7 books of the OT he accepts are not quoted in the NT. That argument cuts against him. If it’s valid, that means his canon is screed up. Jews didn’t accept Christ, should we follow them in that too? Jews didn’t have a set canon during the time of Christ. The different parties of Jews had different canons. So if we do follow the Jews during that time, which Jews do we follow?
@@NZIGNANTIHello God bless you, Saint ignatius of Antioch use to refers to the primitive church as Catholic(universal) in the 115 a. C. And Saint Ignatius was disciple of Saint Paul and Saint John, while the term orthodox was popularize after the Nicea councile in 325 but don’t get me wrong I say popularize not that the orthodox church was literally created after the Nicea councile, however people forget one things the Orthodox and Catholic church were once the same so is useless to say My church is the one created by Jesus while boths churches were literally one church, I mean both catholic and orthodox have a different teological stuff and we get separate by it but we are united by one “Person” God, May God bless you
I absolutely love that ending statement. Frank wanted to make sure they were on the same page as the single most important thing a person should right about.
But we are not really on the same page, otherwise protestants would not just keep inventing new Churches. Jesus only made one Church. Just one. He did not need Luther or anybody else to keep making new ones.
We must become believing, confessing, baptized members of the Body of Christ, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” which is “the household of God, founded upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.”
This is a fair and valid question and unfortunately Frank did not do a good job responding to the person concerns. So I will add what I know. Regarding not using Jew canon there were multiple canonical traditions in the first century. The Pharisee tradition, which gave rise to the canon used by rabbinic Judaism, was only one tradition. First-century Christians did not use the Pharisee canonical tradition. They used the Septuagint tradition (which is basically the Greek translation of Hebrew OT), which they passed on to the early Church and that included all deuterocanonical books. Therefore there was no "settled" Jew canon at time of Jesus or in early Church rather there were various Jew canons. This also address the claim that "Catholics" added them to fit their doctrines, they did not, they were always part of Sacred Scripture right from first century Christians and early Church. Outside of Jerome, few early Church father question them, one person (even a great early Church father) having doubts (he eventually agreed to submit to Church teachings anyway) cannot definitely settle Sacred Scripture canon. Ultimately its the Catholic Church the only one that can provide and settle the Sacred Scripture canon. To use the criteria of "never quoted in NT" to determine if a book is canonical or not would be inconsistent even with Protestant canon. The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon. While there are no direct quotes from deuterocanonical books, there are plenty of allusion toward them, some are: Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.” Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.” Tobit 4:16: “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.” Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.” Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?” Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”
I understand the young man’s questions, and they lead me to believe that he is not fully committed to being a Catholic. All that said, I am impressed with how respectful he was, no yelling or name-calling, and willing to read the book that Frank recommended.
He is. He even commented on this video in the comments section. The point is trying to show you the protestant that protest beliefs run into alot of problems when you question their ideas. Which they do.
@@jherandsoleil6335 nope. the catholics that you are pertaining to are the cradle catholics who tries to prove their faith and then fail miserably. try asking people like Scott Hahn or other catholic apologist with good backgrounds etc. they would answer your misconceptions perfectly.
Jesus quoted from Esdras. The "how I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" and "your house is left unto you desolate" both came from Esdras. In Revelation, John saw a vast multitude in heaven with palms. The exact same scene is recounted by Esdras. So there are some good arguments for canonicity.
There are so many incorrect statements made by Dr. Frank Turek, I am not sure if one can properly write about them all on this youtube discussion thread. Maybe a response video will be needed to present the historical facts.
Jesus affirmed the Old Testament canon when He mentioned the first martyr and last martyr in Luke 11:51 ("from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah"). This is Genesis to Chronicles (Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon).
In order for the books to be authoritative, the canon must be authoritative as well. Otherwise you could reject books, add books, or reject teachings at will.
This is a textbook logical fallacy known as a false premise. If the authoritative books by definition are authoritative in of themselves, they do not need an "authoritative" canon that validates their authority. Rather, it's the other way around, because the books are authoritative, they are included in the canon. Which is literally the refutation of the argument you're presenting. All you're doing is repeating the argument that was already addressed appropriately. Like a Cockatoo who keeps repeating the same word over and over again no matter the human's response because they can't comprehend the meaning of it or what it implies.
@@YAHOOISNOTG But the epistemological question of how to determine which books are authoritative remains unanswered. Saying "they are in the canon because they are authoritative" is circular reasoning. If the canon itself is not authoritative, I could start my own Church with new Bibles that exclude the letter to the Romans, for example.
@@liammurphy3513 Actually, what you’re doing is circular reason. I don’t know if you’re trolling or you sincerely can’t see how by definition it is your argument that is circular not the other way around. If you watch the video again you can see that it outlines the criteria used for determining the authority of the canonical books. They didn’t pick and choose at random or cherry pick their favorites like you’re insinuating.
@@YAHOOISNOTG I did not insinuate that the canon was cherry picked or chosen at random. If the criteria for determining the canon is not itself authoritative, the contents of the canon could be rejected. It is not circular to say that a separate authoritative source determined the canon, any more than it's circular to say that a non-authoritative source determined the canon, as you say.
Yeah whether Rome exercised unique authority or the church council exercised its general magisterial authority is doesn't change anything. Magisterial authority defined the canon either way which is an authority evangelicals and rogue priests do not have.
@@mattduin7144 The bishop of Rome didn’t preside in NT canon, there was no pope during that time, The canon of the New Testament was not officially announced at a single definitive moment. Instead, it was a gradual process of consensus-building among early Christian communities. In 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, listed all 27 books of the New Testament in his 39th Festal Letter. This is the first known reference to the exact list of New Testament books that we have today, showing a significant step toward canonization. The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) in North Africa were regional councils that confirmed the New Testament canon as the 27 books we now recognize. These councils played a crucial role in solidifying the canon's acceptance, although they were regional in scope.
This video is an excellent display of respect and courtesy in the midst of opposing viewpoints. I am a former catholic. Upon my first reading of the Bible from cover to cover I noticed numerous contradictions between God’s word and catholic teachings. If you answer the question: are you a Christian? with “I’m catholic”. Please look into the three pillars of catholicism versus Sola Scriptura. Your current pope is an excellent display of why papal infallibility is a ridiculous proposition. Romans 3:23, Isaiah 53:6. Please just read God’s word in its entirety and the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth. You can be free from trying to earn your way to heaven and instead trust fully in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, on your behalf.
The Catholic Church was established by Christ. He left a teaching church, an institution to protect the meaning. The Catholic Church does not claim the Pope is always infallible-- in fact, that 'power' has only been invoked or used a handful of times... I (as a Catholic now) also share your concerns with this Pope. But if we follow your guidance than we end up with the 30,000+ "traditions of men", aka every Protestant denomination founder who (sincerely) believes that "they" have the correct understanding... But to be honest, you know that Protestants have their own traditions of men and understandings, they certainly don't just "read the Bible"-- they have trusted authorities (pastors giving hour long sermons breaking it down), study bibles, bible concordances, bible study groups, etc... It's the same thing as 'Tradition' accept the Catholic church has an unfair advantage because the 12 Apostles didn't just die and leave no more church... they taught others-- for example, St Ignatius of Antioch was taught by the Apostle John, and Ignatius repeats the claim: "“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])." So I have to defer to the Bible and the Apostles, and certainly the writings of those who were made church officials directly by the Apostles themselves-- they would certainly have a better interpretation than me picking up a Bible today. That being said, may you always encourage those Christians around you (as St Paul says) and bring more to our Lord! God bless-
@@kevinzrenda8753 Good points, we could debate but I don’t expect To change your opinion. You sound like someone who believes in critical thinking as well as a person who believes in the Holy Spirit. As a Christians we are encouraged to imitate the example of the Bereans. ”Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.“ Acts 17:11 NIV Yes many theologians are way more intelligent and discerning than I, just as the Apostlle Paul was a far greater theologian than (probably) any Berean yet they were still applauded for their study and search for the truth. Here’s the critical question, when you die and face judgment (Hebrews 9), knowing that all have sinned (Isaiah 53:6) and the wages of sin is death (Roman 6:23) what will save you from perishing? Is it Church attendance, good works, 1000’s of rosaries, the communion of saints, the suffering you’ve endured in this life or a myriad of other possibilities? I’m going with Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. I will be saved from the fires of hell based solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross on my behalf-please join me.
@@tl57345 What did Christ say about eating His flesh and drinking His blood? What did Paul say about failing to discern the body and blood of the Lord? What did Peter say about Baptism saving you? What did Jesus say about people who say "Lord, Lord..." What did Paul say about faith without charity? Maybe you should learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches and you'll find out that it takes in the whole of the Bible and not just a convenient phrase here and there out of context.
@@tl57345 I believe I was saved, I believe am being saved, and I hope to be saved.... Those are the thoughts of the Christian (and in this case Catholic) who heeds the words of Paul to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." When it comes to that final moment (here on earth) of death, 100% agree that Christ is who/what saves us! That being said, the Bible (and Christ's message) isn't just a simple "accept Christ as your lord and savior and you'll be saved!"... If that was the case the Bible would be one paragraph, not one thousand pages. The things you mention (meditating on the moments in Christ's life that we ponder during a rosary, going to church, suffering but uniting that to Christ) are all examples of things that an outsider would notice in the life of a believer. If you really believe a bus is going to hit you, you move (works). Paul asks others to pray for him -- that doesn't mean Christ is 'less' of a mediator for us, since Christ is ultimately THE mediator. Paul also says that we "complete" Christ's suffering on the cross- we take that to mean that our suffering can have redemptive value if we offer it to Christ and draw closer to Him through that suffering. Since I believe Christ wants to be with us on every level (mental, spiritual, and physical), then of course I go to church to offer thanks and receive Him physically. I'm sure your life (as a believer) shows up and leads you to do things too... As to the Bereans, it's great that they searched the scripture, Catholic Tradition is in full accord with scripture, since the early Church of Acts is the first chapter in Catholic Church history... they wrote it and they followed its meaning. There was no "Hebrew Bible" (the typical Protestant OT), so at least we know the Bereans weren't searching that! If anything, they searched the Septuagint (the Catholic OT). But-- in the end-- your point is the most important... do we love Him enough to follow Him and continue to rely on Him and acknowledge Him even when or after we fail, and try to follow His words to "go now and sin no more"? If we are doing that, then we seem to be in a pretty good position to already be falling on His mercy when we die...
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Yes but what is the point of doing so? I don't like veganism, but I don't go to vegan channels and insult them. I wasn't raised in Christianity. I've come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the truth. Not sure why you're so offended by that. What exactly do you expect to accomplish here because the only thing you're doing is engaging in ad hominem attacks to ingratiate your ego.
You cannot find the truth if God did not reveal it to you through the Holy Spirit in the word of God. You have to be born again first before God will reveal the truth to you. You can choose your religion, but only God can regenerate the heart to be born again to love His word.
Brother Frank got it wrong. The new testament writters, used septuagint, Greek version of the Hebrew Bible to take Old Testament quotes in their writings. Septugint had the extra books that catholics have. So our Protestant brothers are trying to say thst thwt cant even trust the apostles of Jesus who wrote the New testament.😊
The remark you make here doesnt seem to actually address or refute what Frank said though...They still didn't actually quote the apocrypha, there is a distinction between formal quotes, allusions and echoes.
@@Adam-ue2ig bro I think you did not understand the comment...I never said they quoted apocrypha. What I said is that what used septuagint ..for their quotes from the Old Testament.
@@vox_diviniI might have misses it but I didn't hear Frank say the Septuagint was not used so didn't see how the remark was a refutation. For whatever reason my response below has been deleted so i will respond here...I don't find the argument you presented convincing as it is full of certain presuppositions, assumptions and human reasonings...Secondly, you actually admit Frank did not say X so instead of refuting him you actually just present a case for your view...atleast 52 major figures including Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan and Jiminez did not personally hold the apocrypha as Canon proper...In 1532 Cajetan says " Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” ~ Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ) Luther did not come along and suddenly remove 7 books...he recognized a distinction that already existed prior to the reformation in which Apocrypha was thought to be possibly useful for reading for edification and historical value but NOT for doctrine and not Canon proper. If you listen to Erick Ybarra for instance he actually mentioned before that the case for Protestant Canon is actually fairly solid. Council of Trent came along and dogmatized Apocrypha as Canon in the 16th century. I don't believe the narrative that Trent was merely reiterating what always was...sure you may respond with appeal to Carthage or Rome council but those were provincial, regional or local and not universal Council. I think it is proper to say Trent was the first dogmatic Council that settled the matter for Catholicism.. Prior to that you had a few streams of thought...as for me I'm not under authority of Trent and I reject the apocrypha as Canon proper.
@@Adam-ue2ig good i understand your doubt. I will explain. Frank did not say that septugint was not used..in fact he cannot say, bcz IT WAS USED. And how is it relevant ? If the apostles of Christ used a scripture that had apocryphal books in it(septuagint) who are we to come later and say that those books should not be considered inspired ? The main reason why the Jewish authority rejected those books was that they were not written in Hebrew but Greek. But the new testament was written in Greek as well. So when the canon of New Testament books were finalized into 27, the old testament canon too was finalized by the early church authority. So if you say that Holy Spirit guided the early church so as to decide on the canon of the new6 testament how can you say that the same church at the same time of finalizing the new testament made a mistake in the old testament ?? You mean Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding the early church ? If early church made a mistake about canon of Old Testament then what is your guarentee that the New Testament canon is inspired by the Holy Spirit ??
I makes me really sad whenever my fellow Protestants say that Catholics added more books into the Bible. It's actually the opposite. We Protestants are the ones who removed precious books from the Bible. Who came first, Protestants or Catholics? It's as simple as that. I grew up in an Evangelical Church and I always thought that Catholics added extra books in their Bible but when I read the history of Christianity and the Bible I realized that we are the ones who removed important books from the Bible. Just because Jews updated their canon, we Christians do not need to do the same. We don't need to copy the Jews. We should stick with the original canon we had from the beginning. I am still a Protestant but I now read only the Catholic edition of the Bible.
Just like Frank said the the apocrypha books were added by catholic to the Old Testament. And the Jews don’t have the apocrypha books in their Old Testament. So by reading a Catholic bible. You’re reading an Old Testament that the Jews don’t even read. Which means it’s inaccurate.
False. Local councils and synods were never authoritative on the whole Church. The Canon was very much not closed until Trent. This is evidenced by the fact that numerous Roman Catholic clergy did not view the apocrypha as divinely inspired, but good and beneficial to read. This is the historic view of the canon. Even Cardinal Cajetan, the man who opposed Luther at his hearings and helped draw up the bill of Luther's excommunication, held this view. In fact, at the Council of Trent, the vote to settle on the 73-book cannon that the Roman church uses today was 24 for, 15 against, and 16 abstained. More people abstained or voted against that canon than actually voted in favor of it.
Outside of Catholicism and Protestantism, Judaism came first. Both Catholicism and Protestantism can trace themselves back to Judaism, but no serious difference with Judaism came about until about 1,000 years after Christ. If we want to understand Christianity, we have to understand that is an extension of Judaism. Most of the first followers of Christ were Jews, excepting some Greeks and Romans. When we study the New and Old Testaments it helps to understand that we’re studying the works ofJews. My point is that if we want to understand Christianity we need to understand Judaism. That gives us the context and understanding for Christianity.
Except there is one problem with your argument. Why would the Catholics care if the Protestants removed books from their canon? They could simply maintain their original canon, right? Yet somehow, they had to add books Protestants took out back into it. You don't find that odd? What do you mean by original canon? The one that includes the Apocrypha that the Jews don't use and Jesus and his disciples never quoted from? Something doesn't fit right, that is why the Protestants removed books from their canon, because obviously it wasn't in there in the very early church. You can make an educated guess as to who put them in later.
"The Scriptures are a list of authoritative books, not an authoritative list of books" is another way of saying "A fallible collection of infallible books". It's logically self-refuting. I think the term is "self-referential incoherence". The reason is because of modal dependency. In order for the Bible to be a collection of infallible books then the process of determining their infallibility must be infallible. It's modally dependent. If the process is not infallible then we cannot trust their infallibility.
@@TheLeftRbabieskillers Thank you. What you've described is the essence of sophistry: Good rhetoric seated on bad logic. And it is bad logic. The logic is inescapable. It ends here. The only question remaining is highly personal: Do I have the integrity to acknowledge the logic, abandon Protestantism, and embrace Catholicism or Orthodoxy?
Ugh I'm more confused than ever..why does this have to be so freaking complicated if God wants us to be able to answer unbelievers' questions?? I can't ever remember all these details no matter how hard I try.
He gave us shepherds to preach and guide us and explain the mysteries of the faith...come check into catholicism with an open heart and mind you won't regret it
It's okay Kat this was a discourse but Frank answered by saying the books of the Bible are "authoritative" and then supported that statement. We don't have all the answers but we know who does, God! This peace means every question has an answer. So when you're talking to an unbeliever and you don't have the answer(s) still share the Gospel because that's what they really need.
@@TheZealotsDen Nah I don't see how any one can honestly read and study the Bible seriously and be Catholic. I was catholic when I was a kid and had issues with the church even when I was a child reading the Bible.
@@captainmartin1219When you look at the early Church, which one supported your views as a protestant and taught Protestant ideas like salvation by faith alone and Sola scripture? Can you find me any examples of Saint Augustine an early Church Bishop talking like a protestant in his views on Purgatory?😅😅
We know that a book is canonical if it is written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle, so the gospels and Acts were quickly recognized as inspired, from God. So canonicity and authorship are tangible evidences of inspiration. Very early on, the letters of Paul were considered “the other scriptures,“ 2 Peter 3:16. Also, did the early church decide which books were inspired, or did they recognize which books were inspired? The church has always argued the latter. Many of the Hebrew Bible books have been authenticated by Christ’s fulfillment of them and his usage of them. There were a few New Testament writings, where it took a little longer for there to be ecclesiastical consensus, and the apocryphal books have always had their supporters and questioners, but for most of the canon, there has not been this debate.
For those wondering, the Catholic student is correct: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament. However, the reason for their inclusion in both the Protestant and Catholic Bibles is that these books are consistent across all Jewish canons, which eliminates the reason for excluding the apocryphal books in the first place (they are not consistent across canons and are not referenced in the New Testament).
When Frank says that the Jews didn’t consider the deuterocanon part of the canon, he hasn’t researched this thoroughly: The Jews had different opinions of what was canon in the second temple period. The Qumran community didn’t consider Esther canon. And other communities clearly believed Sirach was canon. Jerome wasn’t convinced because all he had to work with was the Masoretic text which removed these books. So when Jerome looked at the Septuagint (which is in Koine Greek) he assumed that the Masoretic text was correct (seeing as it was in Hebrew and he assumed was the more preserved text). The irony of this is that the New Testament heavily relies upon the Septuagint for Old Testament quotations. Jerome was wrong. The biggest issue here for Frank is: The Bible does not give you a list of what it considers canon, so without a church authority to determine and pass this down, how do you know? What is the foundation? This is an issue I am still wrestling with, but giving cookie cutter answers like Frank is does not resolve the issue for people that are aware of what’s really going on.
Frank is making the argument that Protestants have the list that is almost universally agreed on. Catholics and Orthodox chose to keep a few books that had been debated by church fathers throughout. whether Catholics or Protestants are correct is hard to determine, but it is no doubt Protestants are holding to a Bible in which the early church would have agreed had the message and inspiration of God
Recommendation for your journey. "A dictionary of early Christian beliefs" by David Bercot. He takes all the ante-nicene church leaders writings and categorizes them by topic.
@benjaminwatt2436 Actually it's not hard to determine Ben. The Catholic Church had authority to bind the Canon of the Bible and the protestant Churches do not. Ergo we use the Catholic Canon and you should be, also. The widely accepted Canon was the Catholic Canon.
@@23lundca then please explain how Sirach 37:13 does not contradict Jeremiah 17:9 and many other passages that denounce how deceptive the heart can be.
@@23lundcaLuther also was not exactly an expert on ancient Koine as used liturgucally among Jews, however. Those who are see no contradiction between James "faith without works" and Christ's "work" equated to merely "believing on Him whom the Father hath sent", as compressed in such statements as "obedience of faith" (a genetice, i.e. obedience that proceeds as fruit from faith, but is not what makes righteous as faith).
It's quite simple. The OT is based on the Masoretic Text, which was used by believers long before the claim of the so-called church that Peter was the rock it was built upon. The NT is determined based upon the writings of the apostles/disciples and the eyewitness testimony of their teachings. It isn't any more complicated than that.
The Masoretic text is a much later pieced / patched back together by Jews that rejected the Messiah and have no covenant (as that went away in 70A.D) and practice a different religion (Rabbinic Judaism) than those of the Old Testament / Covenant, from the 7th to 11th century. The Septuagint was a direct copy by actual Ancient Israelites into Greek and the most quoted by the New Testament.
@@JohnDoe-le8fyJerome himself countered your idea as Messianism is clearer in Hebrew than i the LXX. The Massoretes were also Karaites reflecting Pharisaicaliam by the way. The Hebrew he had and the Massoretes voxalizations (vowel pointings) are, quiye literally, anything but what you claimed. You don't apparently know much. This line of thinking you just expressed was the ancient equivalent of uneducated fundamentalists in backwater swamps of America screaming "The King James in English is God's one true, inspired, preserved version of Scripture!"
@@infinitelink Lets start with, what you just typed makes no real sense, so lets dive into it a bit more, can we? Which parts exactly are you taking exception to as you did not make that clear at all, rather it was mostly ad hominem attacks. So your main contention is the "Massoretes" were still OT biblical Hebrews, so you hold to a dual covenant theology? Or are we still living in the OT Mosaic age under Torah law? It's quite funny you use that analogy while defending the Masoretic text since that's what the King James uses.
@@infinitelink "Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament: The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with. The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original. The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original. The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures. The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine."
@@infinitelink "Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the "Masoretic Text". But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with? History says "no" . . . Scribal emendations - Tikkune Soferim Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes."
I love what you do Frank, do a great job. That said, I must correct you on an inference you make. You say the Bible doesn't quote the apocrypha and that is technically true but the inference is that the apocrypha is not inspired and not scripture. While this might be generally true, there is a problem with this when it comes to Enoch. Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus Himself makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch. You often say that you have a policy, if a guy raises from the dead you believe whatever he says. Well Jesus says Enoch is scripture in Matthew 22: 29-30.
I agree with the notion that some New Testament portions quote from 1 Enoch, but I also must correct you on some points you made. Just because Genesis, Luke and Hebrews reference Enoch the character, that doesn't necessarily mean 1 Enoch is canonical. Luke and Hebrews could be referencing the account written in Genesis. Some will argue 1 Enoch referenced from Genesis and not the other way round. That said, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is highly likely to be an inference of 1 Enoch, which would mean the Apostles likely did infer from one Apocryphal source. As for Matthew 22:29-30, can I ask which part of these verses do you feel references 1 Enoch?
A good tidbit of information to note: The books that comprise the Old Testament in Judaism are actually fewer in number than in Christianity. This is because we added divisions, chapters, and verses. Books like 1st and 2nd Kings and 1st and 2nd Chronicles were not divided as such, along with other sets of books. One example are three such books that were grouped together in the Jewish OT: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. They were all part of the same book, but for the Christian OT, were divided. If I recall correctly, the "minor" prophets were grouped together in some way as well. This is important because of the fact that Jesus and others in the New Testament quote from Old Testament books, which helps validate the canon - if a "split" book was referenced, then the others that once were joined are also valid in the canon. It was, then, as if they were mentioning the other books. Mind you, this isn't meant to be exhaustive in answering the question of why the canon is canon, but a piece of the puzzle and an answer concerning the "lack" of mention of some books of the OT by Jesus & co.
Fair point, but from a quick Google search, I see that Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are grouped together, at least in the modern Jewish canon. And apparently none of those are explicitly quoted in the NT. So we wouldn't have a case of Esther getting in because of another book in the group being quoted. Do you know if the books not quoted were part of different groupings in the first century such that your argument would apply in order to have them included in the canon?
Turek abandoned the Church to focus on text. Also, the apostle Jude definitely quoted from the book of Enoch. The Bible is for the Church, not the Church for the Bible.
Frank is never good on Catholicism. Did he actually address the question asked? No, he just spoke about why he doesn't think the Deuterocanon is Scripture. 1:55 Jerome *did* translate the Deuterocanon because he submitted to the authority of the Church. 2:01 very Old Testament book is NOT quoted in the New Testament: Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. There are, however, plenty of allusions to the Deuterocanon. 6:41 You find evidence of the unique authority of the Bishop of Rome before then, such as when Clement writes to correct the Corinthian Church AD ~98. 6:57 The Deuterocanon was an "official" part of the Bible long before Trent, which is why you find it both in the official Bible (the Vulgate) and the Liturgy. It was *infallibly* declared at Trent, but it had ALSO been declared at the earlier Ecumenical Council of Florence (AD ~1431), as well as at local synods and councils going back as far as the Synod of Rome in AD 382. It's also worth pointing out that the Orthodox have these books in their Bibles despite no decree from an Ecumenical Council.
Exactly he was sneaky and never really answered the question. I hope that young man kept digging to finally get through all of the lies of protestantism.
@@cristinamz2137 I don't think it was done maliciously. However, Frank's normal clear-thinking gets rather fuzzy when he speaks about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
I am just so heartbroken 💔My husband and I were both born and raised Catholic. I went to 2 different catholic schools and went to several different catholic churches over the years. My husband went to church at several different catholic churches as well. Through first communion to senior year of high school I don't remember any thing about the catholic faith. I stopped attending church because I worked many different church festivals around Milwaukee, Wisconsin and saw drinking and gambling. I just saw a Bunch of people who said they were religious but lived Monday through Friday. Whatever way they wanted. My husband had a similar experience, When we got engaged I knew I wanted to be married in a church but because I hadn't finished the requied catholic steps to be welcome so We got married in a pentecostal church, 2 kids and 15 years later. I still go to that same church, And i'm so frustrated because some catholic co workers Pretty much told me. My children are going to hell because I didn't get them baptized in a catholic church, And I'm just really trying to understand if Catholic is the one true church. Then how come they are doing so poorly in reaching the lost? Because now I'm so torn with how I was raised. Because people say that's the one true religion. But the Protestant church, actually truly taught me to live like jesus and serve other people, But the thought of going back to the mindless, Rituals of the Catholic Church, which I still Get such an uneasy feeling about to this day just makes me sad. I just want my family to love Jesus and go to heaven! I hate that we all can't just come together to love Jesus!
Danielle, I would invite you to check out Chris Stephanik, he is a very good Catholic speaker. Many Catholics are lukewarm and unfaithful to Christ. But many are living very radical lives spent for Jesus. I found Christ in high school and had to rediscover my Catholic faith from scratch. I am praying for you and your family!
I wouldn't recommend anyone to pass judgement on a church based on the conduct of its worst people. The conduct of the ancient Israelites does not justify the religion that God established in the OT as being a faulty religion.
@TheGospelAccordingToMarkyD Yes I understand that, But how much hypocrisy does one person need to see before you start questioning the entire institution, I know of at least 10 catholic churches where I live that hold church festivals. Where re they allow drinking and gambling? Hook up culture ?The fact that these churches are allowing this to happen, knowing what it leads to Is appalling. I worked at a lot of different catholic church festivals and saw the worst kind of things, It wasn't until I got older when it occurred to me, These Catholic churches were literally making money off of the souls of the lost people that came. So that's why I started going to a Protestant church, I started to read the Bible and saw all the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church, teaching with extra books that were in the Catholic bible. And the fact that I left catholic school and knew absolutely nothing about my faith Except for the mindless rituals, And now I'm supposed to listen to the condemning of Catholics that Tell Me my children's baptism wasn't good enough because it wasn't done in a Catholic Church, That I'm supposed to believe the history Of the Catholic Church is not based on corruption, a man-made practices that take the focus off of jesus and on to people and saints, I still see the corruption of the catholic church in these church festivals to this day. Something is clearly not right with a Catholic Church. As a whole, it's not just a couple Outlying rebels, And I'm not saying that there is not corruption in other churches. But the core of catholic church is what causes unsettling feelings in my soul
@eddapra3198 thank you for your kind response, Just the thought of going back to catholic church is depressing for me, I wanna be in a church that gets excited about a relationship with christ, And all catholic churches just do mindless rituals And the majority just go to church as a duty
If you don’t mind me asking, I’ve read ‘mindless rituals’ a few times in these responses. Can you give me an example of one? And if you’d rather not answer, there’s a 7 min movie on TH-cam I’d recommend called “The Veil Removed”. It’s really worth the 7 mins. It’s what believing Catholic’s hold as truly happening in mass.
Ill say it. You must not call any man on earth father. Do not pray to the dead. Do not pray to anyone other than God the Father/Jesus. Do not pray to saints. Do not ask for forgiveness to a man, only God. Do not support or affirm homosexuals. To name a few. Repent of these things. Seek Jesus and read your Bible.
Have you read the gospel of Matthew? The word father's used like 47 times. Paul also calls Timothy and Philemon his son's in the faith and wrote to the fathers of the churchs...these old falsehoods need to disappear with access to the Internet.also Gods the God of the living not the dead who's praying to the dead
@@SnatchnHalos Enoch is not a Catholic scripture, it is only in the Coptic scriptures. Catholics teach Mary worship, and Revelation calls the church the Whore of Babylon. I would stay far far away from the Catholic Church and its idolatry
@@23lundca you don't have copyright to the bible so protestant can use the bible and regards it as the only and highest authority , and there is nothing roman catholic can do about it , protestant don't care if the bible come from catholic tradition. You only ask the dead people to pray for you? That is not what Jesus and the disciples teach. Bowing down to king is make sense, collecting tears from mary statue is nonsense
@@yamint Well you showed how intellectually dishonest you are in regards to Catholic doctrine. He asked for one dogma or doctrine that says we worship Mary and you avoided the challenge more than the plague. Putting aside the fact that there are tombstones in the catacombs of Christians from the first and second century asking for prayers from Apostles and saints who had already passed, you give way too much power to death by saying that those who are with God, the source of Life, are 'dead'. I'd honestly argue that those who are in heaven are far more alive than we are here on earth considering that they are literally in the presence of He who gives life to all. But let's see if you'll rise to a different, but similar, challenge. Show me any Catholic doctrine or dogma that says we have to 'collect the tears from a Mary statue'.
@@GamingxKnight what kind of challenge is that? While in fact that i saw in a catholic church in my city that shows cottonbud containing tears collected from mary statue around the world. I dont need to understand the doctrine and dogma of roman catholic church to know that kind of behavior is idolatry. When i said dead people, i said it from the perspective of the living, it does not mean i do not believe life after death. The is no connection between the living and those who are already dead. We can only communicate with GOD. Tell me which apostle pray to the dead people?
Frank repeatedly says the Catholic Church didn't discover the Bible cannon until the 16th century at the council of Trent. This is the cognitive dissonance response to the fact that the council of Trent only reaffirmed the cannon the Catholic Church declared twice in the 4th century. Unfortunately, for him, this fact makes him a false teacher.
Just share the gospel as JESUS asked you to do. For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whomsoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life 🙌
John 3:16 applies to everyone. But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4 Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13. Who gave Paul that authority ? Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18. John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
@@larzman651 and that is EXACTLY what Christ through Paul taught :) But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4 Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13. Who gave Paul that authority ? Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18. John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
@@grrlsouljah A JUSTIFIED/saved believer does NOT have to demonstrate to anyone whether they are saved or not. If you disagree, show where Christ THROUGH Paul teaches what you claim. To help you :- But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4 Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13. Who gave Paul that authority ? Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18. John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
When Frank said that Jesus and the apostles never quote from Apocrypha, the student said it's not true. I just help to give the reference: * Matthew 7:12 / Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15 * Matthew 6:14-15 Sirach 28:2 My earlier post was deleted, for some reason, I hope this one is not deleted.
Sirach: "All wisdom is from the Lord God, and has always been with him, and is before all time." (Sirach I, 1) Saint John the Apostle: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was with God in the beginning." (John I, 1-2) No one can deny the obvious parallel and citation in this passage, as verse 5 of Sirach goes so far as to say the following in verse 5: " *The Word of God* on high is the source of wisdom, whose steps are eternal commandments." (Sirach I, 5), Saint John calls God the Son "Word of God" *with the book of Sirach in mind*
Luther DID translate The Book of Wisdom. I can't speak to any of the other books of the Apocrypha. I usually am right with Dr. Turek, however on this one I can't agree. The second chapter of Wisdom discusses a secular and Nihilistic culture to come. I can't read that as anything other than a prophecy of today. Never before had a culture fought over belief or nonbelief, rather wars were waged about which faith was correct. Even if the scholars are correct and Wisdom was written 2-300 years before Christ and well after Solomon lived, the prophecy is impossible to ignore. The Jewish clergy of Christ's time were also most responsible for His execution. Maybe leaning on Jewish authorities of Christ's time to determine which books are inspired is not the best idea. Something tells me that David's story would be told much differently if clergy leadership installed by Saul had remained in power after Saul's death.
you're simply incorrect: by the time of Jesus the Jews had lived through two separate civilizations rising & falling (at least). Nihilism is a recurring theme of civilization rise & decline, was common even by 2nd temple Judaism, not to mention is clearly a concept i civilization cycles in neighboring civilizations (e.g. India -- see also Pilate's "what is truth", Rome was already filled with nihilistic atheists not only at its highest eschelons but even throughout the larger public).
Ex Protestant, confirmed Catholic this Easter, this is one of the questions that helped me come home. The issue with Protestantism is they are Rebellious to the church Christ founded and so (like I was) are blocked from the fullness of the faith Christ instituted, it’s a very watered down faith. Protestants seem to have an issue with the fact that Christ gave the church AUTHORITY.
Frank, you mentioned that when Luther said that Maccabees was not in the Bible, the Church said "it is now". Well, that´s not true. Maccabees was included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and that is, many many centuries before Luther.
I agree that Frank's characterization is a bit misleading. Here's a more accurate distinction, I think: The deuterocanonical books were *included* in Bibles of the time, but it wasn't until the Council of Trent that books were confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church *as inspired* / *canonical*. The deuterocanonical books may or may not be inspired, but not merely on the grounds of their inclusion. Inclusion ≠ Inspiration. It's also worth noting that the books are called "deuterocanonical" because they were not recognized as part of the 1st canon, but as the 2nd canon. (Deutero = 2nd [Greek])
@@dman7668 I believe the correct and unbiased explanation is that there are 2 sets of books, that is, 2 canons, the first one was the Hebrew canon and the second the Greek canon. The Catholic Church adopted from the beginning the Greek canon but then in the 16th century Martin Luther started using the Hebrew canon, which had fewer books. I don’t think it needs too much explanation.
“If the Jews don’t have it in their canon why do we have it in ours”. Wait, so now we trust the religion that denies Jesus as Christ to create the canon the Christians hold to?
I was saying the exact same thing. This immediately implies that protestants hold jews as their authority to interpret scripture and to see what is canon and what not.
Also Frank (the man on stage) says he was once a Catholic. Well, I have to tell him, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Baptism in the Catholic faith is a Sacrament it cannot be broken.
That’s what the RCC would like you to believe, in reality it’s total BS. Are you saying that a child baptized as an infant and confirmed at age 8-9 has no choice in the manner in which he/she chooses to worship, or to not worship at all?
@@scottgoulette8900 Yes. They may grow up and 'decide' not to be Catholic anymore and may think that they're not but if they have received the Sacrament of Baptism in a Catholic church, they will always be Catholic. Same for marriage, its a Sacrament.
@@mrsmum3-6 That looks and smells a lot like colonialism to me. Those educated in the early (Catholic) Church might call it Roman imperialism. Regardless of what the Church would like you to believe, it’s total BS and thinking rational people should know better than to fall for it.
@@scottgoulette8900 Well look at all the good things Colonialism brought to other countries: sanitation, civil service, hospitals, railways, education, engineering, clean water... yep Colonialism isn't that bad after all. 😉
*JESUS AND THE APOSTLES NEVER QUOTE THE "APOCRYPHAL"?* Frank repeatedly states that neither Jesus nor the Apostles cited the Deuterocanonicals, which he calls "apocryphal", but this is not true, I could demonstrate this with loose quotations, but I prefer to do this exclusively with the book of Sirach, since this is the clearest book in this regard, and was undeniably cited by Jesus and his Apostles, here are the comparisons: __________________________________________ Sirach: "All wisdom is from the Lord God, and has always been with him, and is before all time." (Sirach I, 1) Saint John the Apostle: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was with God in the beginning." (John I, 1-2) No one can deny the obvious parallel and citation in this passage, as verse 5 of Sirach goes so far as to say the following in verse 5: " *The Word of God* on high is the source of wisdom, whose steps are eternal commandments." (Sirach I, 5), yes friends, Saint John calls God the Son "Word of God" *with the book of Sirach in mind* __________________________________________ Sirach: "Do not choose to be verbose among a multitude of elders, and you should not repeat the words of your prayers." (Sirach 7,15) Jesus: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." (Matthew 6,7) __________________________________________ Sirach: "I [the wisdom] am the mother of the beauty of love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. All grace of *the way* and of *the truth* is in me. All hope of *life* and of virtue is in me" (Sirach 24,24-25) Jesus: "Jesus said to him: 'I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.' " (John 14,6) __________________________________________ Sirach: "Journey toward me, all you who desire me, and be filled by my harvest. For my spirit is sweeter than honey, and my inheritance is better than the honeycomb." (Sirach 24,26-27) Jesus: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11,28-30) __________________________________________ Sirach: "Whoever consumes me will hunger still. And whoever drinks me will thirst still." (Sirach 24,29) Jesus: "Then Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." (John 6,35) Some may ask "but why does Jesus say the exact opposite of what is written in the book of Sirach? My answer is: since the Incarnation of the Word had not yet occurred, people would still be hungry and thirsty, but with the Incarnation of the Word, this would no longer happen, even if you believe that there is a better explanation for this difference, it is undeniable that Jesus *had the book of Sirach in mind when he said those words in John 6* any attempt to deny this is extremely forced and unnatural in light of the text. __________________________________________ With this exposition we realize that Jesus and Apostles did quote the deuterocanonical texts, called "apocryphal" by Frank, I could quote other texts (such as one in which Saint Paul quotes II Maccabees), but for the sake of brevity I will not do that, to the Protestant reader who followed this comment until the end, i strongly recommend you to reflect very carefully on your current position about this, because such a precise book with true prophecies of Jesus being called "apocryphal" is really a serious accusation, I just ask that you think twice before calling the holy work inspired by the Spirit of God of "apocrypha", Christ be with you.
Wow thats really great info brother 💯👍🏼 I'm going to screenshot this info, & make sure I have this info at home. Bc I love to studying church history, & listening to all sides of the arguments, trying my hardest not to be biased. I listen to Gary Michuta from @Apocrypha Apocalypse, & William from @Patristic Pillars. So I know if Frank had an educated Catholic asking those same questions to him. He wouldn't be able to get away using those same fallacies. Idk why a lot of more protestant don't catch his fallacies, or how he uses false dichotomies to, bc Frank is not consistent in his arguments. He even said when Luther debated about prayers to the Saints in the Bible alone. Frank says the Catholic brings up the book of Maccabees, & says yes it's in the Bible alone. So Frank says Luther said Maccabees is not in the Bible, then he says the Catholic said= well now it's in the Bible. But that's such a strawman argument 💯 & more Protestants need to see these fallacies. So Frank is not consistent with his own position. Bc he will say, how one man like Arius = Arianism, doesn't have any authority over the church. But then he will use one man like Jerome, & say these books are not apocryphal, as historical evidence. Then he'll use one man 1600 yrs later = M. Luther to reject the authority of the church. But then say see these two men agree with each, therefore the Apocrypha cannot be canonical books. Thats not how evidence works though 🤦🏻♂️. As if we're just supposed to follow two men in history, to tell us what goes in the Bible alone, as if they have authority over the church, or any church for that matter. Bc "IF" Catholicism is the one true church of Jesus Christ, then no one man has the authority, to change any teachings in the one true church of Jesus Christ. But yet prots do it with Martin Luther, as authoritative for historical evidence. But then in the same breath they will say, one man (the Pope) doesn't have authority over the church. It's hypocrisy💯 And I see it👍🏼 I pray more people see this as well. God bless u brother 🙏🏼💯☦
“Discover what should be in the cannon.” Like the Koran and the book of Mormon? How does one know what’s canonical or not? Your particular sect that you like best? Cause any test you press forward on this will equally apply to other books. Even the test here applies to the Koran or Book of Mormon. That’s either damning to your evidence or enlightening. Just gotta put your thinking cap on here!
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
Where did Paul says that works have no place? Paul said Faith without works is what? Yeah you know, Faith without works is dead. Everyone will be judged by our fruit so if all we did was say a little prayer and went about a life eating bacon on our cheeseburgers, and ham sandwiches and BarBQue well that’s evidence we didn’t really change isn’t it?
Please look at my just posted comment. There are so many falsehoods in your speech. The full canon is normal magisterial teaching from the beginning. Trent was in direct response to the Protestant heresy. All the Churches in the East and West have the full Canon. It is ONLY Protestants that removed them!
It's easy, the bible was written by man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and should be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guided the hand and mind of the writer and will help those who read it to understand it under his guidance.
An old acquaintance used to go to countries behind the Iron Curtain to deliver stacks of bibles and individual gospels to underground Christians, many of whom kept their faith strong sharing and reading one single Gospel.
@@wjf0ne If it were that easy then everyone would "believe the same thing," as scripture tells us we should, and we wouldn't have so much confusion of doctrine. So, tell me, does scripture say we should baptize babies or only believing adults?
@@jimmalloy7279 Revelation 22:12-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
--Sure looks like works to me!!!!
The Catholic student was well read and respectful. Great showing!
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE AMEN SUCH A RESPECTED YOUNG MAN AS I AM GOD BLESS HIM TO CONTINUE CATHOLIC TRADITIONS MORALITY REIGNS WITH US IN CHRIST!
@@IsraelCountryCubeso it's true that the Pope is infallible even though
Romans 3:23
[23] for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
And how could Peter have been the first Pope when 1) he had a mother-in-law 2) never went to Rome.
@@IsraelCountryCube No it isnt stop with the lied.
@@bowez9Because the catholics lie, not saying all but the hierarchy
@@bowez9 It was Peter who was the first pope. I guess you made a typo. Peter and Paul are both buried in Rome. Their bones are physically there.
What is your concern over Peter having a mother-in-law?
I love how respectful his questions and responses were. And then his excitement at the end because it’s a great conversation
agreed, Christians in all of Christondom need to treate each other with grace and kindness. its ugly and unhelpful to name call and make assumptions
@@benjaminwatt2436 You are 100% absolutely correct. We need to love and pray for one another. Butin my experiences, I’ve always been attacked by Catholics because I’m a Christian. They literally told me I was going to hell and I was wrong because I wasn’t Catholic.
@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 I`m a Roman Catholic and I`m not sure about everything Dr Turek says (i do enjoy his videos and his teachings) but i agree with him that we need to accept Jesus as our Lord to be safe.
@@jackprescott9652 AMEN!!!!
@@thanosdoomjuggernaut2846 Its a two way street bro. Protestants don't even believe Catholics are Christians. Protestants believe we worship Mother Mary like she is God and a lot of other things.
I only knew the Bible was God inspired AFTER I was born again in my 30's.
Trying to read the Bible with human understanding just led me to become "religious".
I believed in Jesus but I didn't really NEED Him, so I dressed nicely and went to church, performed all the repetitive rituals but no inner change ever took place, I lived a life of sin, no genuine repentance...so I tried to earn God's approval by "balancing my good with my bad". I dictated my own standards. It was through a nightmarish dark time in my life that Jesus became real in my life because I cried out to Him once all the crutches of religion had been removed. Today - the Bible is like food to my soul and I cannot live without it. I was once spiritually blind but now I see.
I love my Catholic brothers dearly but the fact that they get so triggered about me being born again in my adult life, tells me they don't know what being born of the Spirit even means. My own family and friends resent me for leaving the Catholic church but why? Did I do something unscriptural? Did Jesus not commanded us to REPENT and be baptized on your own will?
"if you CONFESS with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and BELIEVE in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be SAVED. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved" Romans 10:9
How could I do that as a baby?
This was beautifully said, thank you.
G2G 🙌 AMEN 🙏
Very well stated, Mr. Boom! ☝🏻💪🏽🙂
Me too! I wish everyone was born-again. A gift I would love to give to everyone.
How do you know it is god inspired? What evidence do you have to show that a god inspired these texts?
Love how Frank finishes.
If we all, as Christians agree on that one simple truth, then we can debate all night on every other point and still be good in the morning.
Greeaaaat conversation - this is how Mere Christian discussions should go. Question:response with heaps of respect. We don't have to agree on everything. We'll all be wrong about something. "They'll know we are Christians by our love."
AMEN!
👏👏👏
Thankfully, our salvation is not dependent on any of us understanding 100% of all the arguments re: Scripture.
Because they're both saved. There are Christians within the catholic church, but that doesn't give any validity to the heretical doctrines of the catholic church like purgatory.
The last part of this was the most crucial. How does one get saved? This is fundamental and non negotiable. It also separates Biblical Christianity from every other belief on the planet. It's clearly spelled out here. The glory is God's alone.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
You are not justified by faith alone. You don't even understand Ephesians 2:8-9.
@@dman7668 we are. But go on, what does it mean.
truly we must do works to be saved amen. self proclaimed christians protestant feel the emotion of faith and then what? no good works? most self so called christians dont do good works wether they boast or not is irrelevant they dont do good works and thats not good for anyone. so in many they die.
@@dman7668 True faith leads to good works.
@soundscapeproductions9173 if the Bible says you are saved by faith ALONE without need of obedience or love then conjure up the verse that says that.
Then explain James 2:24 which says you see how a man is justified BY HIS WORKS and NOT by faith alone!
If those books weren’t added to the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent, why are they also in the Orthodox bible? I don’t think the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches were coordinating too well in the 1500’s.
They are also in the Oriental Orthodox canon!
The Catholic Church didn't add any books to the Bible in the council of trent. All it did was affirm what was the canon officially because of the failed protestant reformations attack on the long standing canon.
Exactly. Pastor Frank is letting his anti Catholicism colour his knowledge of history (if he has studied this).
Frank was also intellectually dishonest when speaking about Jerome. Yes Jerome had his own personal grievances with what books should be translated, but Jerome ultimately said that his grievances were borderline sinful because they went against the authority and power of the Church and relented his grievances to submit to the authority of the Church. Frank conveniently left that part out.
@dman7668 the Council of Trent said for the first time that the apocrypha was to be treated as sacred scripture. They did this because they needed the apocrypha to prop up their heresy of purgatory and indulgences.
The canon of Scripture was recognized well before the Council of Trent. Early councils like Rome in 382 AD and Hippo in 393 AD acknowledged the same books the Catholic Church honors today. Trent's 1546 declaration was a formal affirmation in response to the Reformation, not the initial establishment of the canon.
I've been saying the same thing over and over again. Thank you.
@@dman7668Protestants just rebuttal due to suffocattion by scripture alone (sola scriptura).
I don't know how people can continue to argue against these facts. Baffles me.
You're misunderstanding Frank's claim about the additional books that Rome canonized. There he was referring only to the *Apocrypha* (i.e., the deuterocanonical/secondary Jewish books written during the intertestamental period, which are historically accurate and perhaps spiritually valuable but which are nevertheless *not* God-breathed/inspired). Those particular books were never recognized as canonical (i.e., on par with divinely authored Scripture) by Jews or by most Protestants, and in fact were strongly disputed even by many Catholics, until the Council of Trent declared them canonical (and anathematized all who disagree!) in April 1546.
Obviously, the vast majority of the 66 canonical books (36 OT; 27 NT) were recognized as being God-breathed/inspired by the middle of the second century. FYI, the Fragment of Muratori (c. A.D. 150-220, Milan) references or alludes to 22 NT books (all but Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and one of John's epistles, although it's not clear which one, as two of his three epistles were acknowledged but not with specificity).
Moreover, three early Apostolic church fathers (so named because they were either personal disciples of, or otherwise had direct contact with, the Apostles of Christ) quoted passages from 25 of the 27 NT books between A.D. 95 and 110. These men are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp.
[Note: Clement of Rome, who was the fourth bishop of the church in Rome, is believed to have been a disciple of the Apostle Peter, and he may have been the same Clement the Apostle Paul refers to as a “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. And according to early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a pupil of Polycarp, both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were students of the Apostle John.]
Clement of Rome, writing from Rome around A.D. 95 when the Apostle John was plausibly still living, confirmed the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as five Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus) and three general letters (i.e., the occasionally disputed books of Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter).
Further, Ignatius of Antioch, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 107, referenced all four Gospels, along with the book of Acts, 12 of Paul’s 13 epistles (i.e., all except 2 Thessalonians), and the remaining books of the NT, with the exceptions of 2 John and Jude.
And Polycarp, writing from Smyrna around A.D. 110, recognized 2 Thessalonians and several other NT books already confirmed by Clement and Ignatius.
Such remarkably early external attestation-which, by the way, is absolutely extraordinary for writings from the ancient world-goes a long way toward substantiating the transmissional accuracy and historical reliability of the original New Testament documents, as well as their early dating and authorship. Significantly, it also demonstrates that the early Christians recognized and accepted only four Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and that the apostolic authorship or divine authority of the 13 epistles of Paul and the books of Acts and 1 John (at least) were never questioned or contested. And of course, Athanasius' well-known "Easter letter" (i.e., his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle) shows that all 27 books found in the New Testament of modern Bibles were definitely recognized throughout Christendom as being canonical/authoritative by the year A.D. 367.
@@Eighties_Child I won't try to respond to everything you said because it's a lot. The fact of the matter is that this is about authority. The Jews had no authority to decide what the Christian canon was, not to mention there were several groups of Jews, all who didn't agree what was considered sacred scripture and what was not. Which group was right and why?People use the Jews as a monolith when trying to defend the protestant canon. A handful of church fathers don't have the authority to set the canon either. The church hierarchy decides that, just as they did at Rome in 382, and again at Hippo, Florence and Trent.
The Catholic kid was correct, the New Testament has no quotes from Esther, nor from Song of Solomon, nor from Job. Job was mentioned by the Apostle James (James 5:11), but the book was not quoted.
Furthermore, while the observation is correct about Jesus and the Apostles not quoting from the so-called Apocrypha, they did quote or allude to a number of books that nobody considers canonical--the book of Enoch,** the book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and several others. So we can't say that "quoted by the Apostles" is a criterion for canonicity. Of course, Mr. Turek didn't say that, but since it wasn't one of the criteria mentioned in Mr. Turek's list of criteria applied by the early church, we need to understand why he brought it up. He brought it up to claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not take those books seriously, and that's fair enough--but they did seem to take Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, etc. seriously. Those were excluded from the canon for other reasons. (In the Talmud, there were at least 3 rabbis who referred to the Apocryphal book called "The Wisdom of Sirach" as scripture, so there were Jews who did include at least that one book in their idea of the canon. But most did not.)
Turek's answer was pretty good if you put it all together. Still, "they didn't quote from those books" is not a complete argument, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The question of canonicity is a difficult question, and not one usually handled at the popular level.
** The book of Enoch is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Rite Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken, but not by anybody else.
Catholic Here: You are mistaken on your last line. It is the Ethiopian Orthodox. They are not Catholic. They have an 81 book "canon."
@@piouspapist, thanks.
@@philWynk of course. God Bless you brother!
thanks… nice to know
Catholicism is bunk but so was franks claim. Yeshua quoted Enoch so did Jude
So what happened in 382, 397, 419, and 1431-1449 AD?
He has his ordering mixed up. These books were decided as canon much earlier and the two most ancient branches of Christianity use them in their Bibles.
Luther took books OUT of the Bible which is one of the reasons there was a Council of Trent to begin with. All that happened was canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church, not recreated.
Luther would have removed more books too like the Letter of James because it's is antithetical to Sola Fide most completely noted in James 2:26
Those books were only considered canonical by the Catholic Church. The Israelites who authored those books and those after never considered them to be inspired or canonical. Not surprising knowing how the Catholic church loves to evolve their theology and doctrines Willy nilly throughout the centuries.
@@brianrich7828 so the Orthodox churches do not exist? And we are not going to acknowledge that each of these councils included both east (Orthodox) and west (Catholic)?
And are we going to forget that prior to 70AD there was significant debate in the Jewish community about which books were canon and which were not?
Are we also going to ignore that the Septuagint is roughly 1000 years older than the Masoretic texts and that there is a consensus that the Septuagint is the source that Jesus and the Apostles would use in their preaching?
@@definitelynotsarcasm Oh the Orthodox church exists,mind you Orthodox is just a title,and not an apt description based on their theology. The Upanishads are older than even those,so I guess if the supremacy of antiquity is the litmus test for canonicity then the Upanishads should also be in the Bible huh? The Talmud is older than the new Testament therefore it should also be canon. Appealing to antiquity has no basis regarding canonicity. Teachers to this day will reference others works that would be familiar to their audience,that doesn’t make the other persons entire work an authority on a particular subject. Fables are often referenced in academia,that doesn’t mean the fables are true. Jesus alluding to works that would have been read by those who were listening does not equate them to being Canon. The Apostle Paul used examples of Pagan philosophers such as Aratus and others like Menander. And those writings are certainly not canonical. So moot point.
@@brianrich7828 First let me say I hope we can now agree that "these books were only considered canon by the Catholic Church" is a false statement and that prior to the reformation, it was commonly accepted by Christians that these books were in fact Scripture.
My point is not "older = better" my point is that if we have a source that Jesus and the Apostles literally quote from and is closer to original than another source, would it not be preferable to use that source instead? Additionally you must contend with the fact that in the days of Jesus, Scripture had not been settled and there was great debate over what was and what was not Scripture.
I would also ask these questions:
- would your interpretation not then mean that the Jews are the authority for what is or is not Scripture when it comes to the Old Testament? Suppose Jewish religious leaders come out tomorrow and say that not only is the Deuterocanon Scripture, but so is the Orthodox Deuterocanon along with the book of Enoch. Would that not then make all of those books Infallible Scripture?
- should we not consider the Scriptures Jesus quotes from in His ministry, instead we need to consult what Jews, who did not consider Jesus as God, declared canon 40 years after His death doing everything they could, including changing the text,/misinterpreting the text, in an attempt to step away from possible Christian interpretations?
@@definitelynotsarcasm The very same Jews wrote the Bible. Protestants didn’t accept them because they weren’t part of the Jewish canon known as the Hebrew Bible.
In the second and third centuries BC, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, creating what we know as the Septuagint (LXX). In addition to the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX contains a number of other books of Jewish piety. It is not clear whether some or all of these had existed in Hebrew and were translated into Greek, or were written in Greek and subsequently (for a few of them found in fragmentary form among the Dead Sea Scrolls) translated into Hebrew.
However, none of these found their way into the Jewish canon known as the Masoretic text.
The LXX was the main Old Testament used by Christians, but the question of whether or not the additional books should be part of it was never settled. Jerome included them in his Vulgate translation, which became the foundation of the Latin-speaking church, but he did not himself regard them as canonical.
The Reformation took place in an age of advancing Biblical textual scholarship, and began a period of Bible translation from Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek. When the translators went to translate the Old Testament, they found that these other books did not exist in Hebrew.
For this reason, Martin Luther placed them in a separate section, but he did not remove them.
The first editions of the Authorised Version in English included them, but they progressively lost headway.
In contrary motion, while the Protestants concluded that they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent decided that they should be included.
Most Bibles these days are available both with and without the deuterocanonical books, but Bibles without vastly outsell those with.
If you read them, it’s clear why they don’t fit with the Old Testament. They are obviously considerably later. The one most likely to interest Christians, the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, explicitly identifies itself as not part of the canon. The writing style is different, and there is a substantial shift in theology, which reflects the fascination with angels and demons of other inter-testamental literature.
The New Testament quotes from the canonical parts of the Septuagint 300 times, but it never quotes from the apocryphal parts. The closest it gets is a reference in Hebrews 11:35 which refers to an event described in the deuterocanonicals, although it is not a quotation. No two manuscripts of the Septuagint contain the same apocrypha. The Catholic and Orthodox churches both acknowledge Deuterocanonicals, but they have different lists of what they contain.
The bottom line on this is that Protestants recognise that, historically, they were not part of the Bible that Jesus read or used. When Jesus stated that no part of the ‘law’ would pass away, they were evidently not included.
Protestant epistemology goes like this:
The Resurrection demonstrates that the claims Jesus made about himself were true, specifically that he was sent by God, as he claimed.
Jesus explicitly authorised the Hebrew Old Testament.
At the end of Matthew’s Gospel, he authorises and requires the apostles to teach everything he taught them.
The canonical New Testament is what became accepted by the church as this teaching of the apostles and their associates. For this reason, the cut-off point for the New Testament is the end of the first century, when John, last of the apostles, died. Although there are many second century works of Christian piety, they have never been considered for acceptance.
There are two first century documents which are valued by Christians, but which have no particular association with the apostles and therefore were never considered for inclusion. These are Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Now, this is a great discussion the guy asking questions was respectful and well informed and intelligent.
The title is misleading. It's really Catholic Student presses Frank on Discernment of the Canon.
Actually, his question was how do you know they are inspired by God and not just some guy rambling. Frank never answered this question. I wonder why
@@nothingbutthetruth613Because he cant lol.
You don’t know what pressed is 😂
@@MarquezerrrFIGHTFANDid the Jews have a canon?
@treytaylor1511 if Frank is unable to answer, why do you say lol. Do you enjoy someone's incapacity?
I googled it. Ezra, Nehimiah, and Song of Solomon are not quoted. Therefore, I don’t think we can use this argument to not include the apocrypha.
Yet the early church and disciples didn’t consider the apocrypha as inspired.
@@keithbirdwell
That’s definitely a better argument, but we don’t fully know that. It seems that some early church fathers did see them as possibly inspired, others definitely didn’t.
I assume you mean Jesus’s disciples? I don’t know of anything we have today that speaks to if they considered the apocrypha as inspired or not.
Their inclusion wasn’t mainstream for several hundred years though, and the Jews didn’t recognize them. That’s probably the best argument.
Frank is good but he’s fumbling here. The historical argument and the exegetical argument are not gonna solve this question for the protestant. If I were still a protestant, I would just have to be agnostic about it which really flies in the face of the structure of Protestantism.
@@tpoy1274
To me, if we are going to be agnostic on it, then we definitely shouldn’t claim they are inspired.
Better to reject them in ignorance and accept them in ignorance.
@@crw662 It’s a really a bad argument to base your judgment of what is canon on the Jews. The Jews rejected the Word of God himself. We are going to trust their judgment on the inspired Word? Especially when that judgment is post apostolic? The same protestants who will say that they don’t trust the judgment of the historical church on the canon will trust the judgment of apostate Jews. It doesn’t make sense.
Faith is essential for salvation, but faith without works is dead. James 2:24. Can’t get more clear than that.
Luther wanted to remove James, a radical movement that even protestant admits. Makes you ask you think.
@@fr.Angel21he didn't remove it though. Just as he never removed any other books. And it's funny that catholics complain about it, considering how many things they do that are clearly not in the Bible.
You don't understand the context of James 2:24 because Ephesians 2:8-9 refutes a work's based salvation.
@@malcolmknight345Completely wrong. You have taken Ephesians 2:8-9 completely out of context - it is clear that God is the source of our salvation and not our own works, indicating our need for humility!
not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:9
“God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent! Homily on Ephesians.”
- John Chrysostom
Ephesians references to works are works of the law. James refers to works as a response to faith. These are very different concepts. But since they both are referred to as works, Protestants often get confused.
As a Catholic I love to watch Frank . There are two issues I have though with his statements:
The first being that Jerome did not translate the deuterocanonical books. Considering they were within the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) he did in fact translate them.
The second issue is his claim that these books are not mentioned or alluded to in the NewTestament. Here is in fact a list:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
God bless all believers in Christ.
Reference to other writings isn’t a declaration of their canonicity.
@@brianrich7828 Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church.
In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it.
It is true Jerome, when learning Hebrew, did not consider 5 of the books as canonical, but they were in the Vulgate. He did translate them, and they have always been considered canonical in the Christian Bible. Even if Jerome himself did not hold some of these to be canonical doesn’t mean they aren’t. The Church has always held them to be canonical and these texts were taken out by Protestants who still themselves hold more texts than the Jewish Bible. You have certain sects of Judaism that only adhere to the Torah (first five books) and others only 22.. so all Christian’s have more texts in the OT.
@@brianrich7828 So in response to your point I never claimed Jerome held them as canonical, but he did translate them and labeled them apocryphal, meaning non canonical, yet in the Bible. The Church on the other hand has always included them in the canon when the Bible was formed.
@@cooldude71120 wrong,you’d have to show proof that before the 5th century CE those were considered canonical.
@@cooldude71120 also,using groups who also messed up canonicity isn’t a great point to show how the Catholic decision is correct. Bad tactic.
That was excellent...respect on both sides...hard to find in debates today.
Council of Rome around 380AD contradicts Frank on the canon being formed at Trent.
He's wrong about a lot here. The kid asking the question was correct; Jesus and the apostles never quotes from Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, or Esther. Yet he mistakenly says that they did and that those books just weren't found with the dead sea scrolls.
@@BlGGESTBROTHER plus I believe they did find writings of Sirach and Tobit in the Dead Sea scrolls, so he is just wrong here
The council of rome is not considered an ecumenical council. I do agree that Frank isnt the best apologist, but i do belive the arguments still stands, there are books that werent quoted, and there is little reason for us to think they are inspired.
Frank, wrong? Wow what a surprise.
@@jd3jefferson556 there are good ones, look up gavin ortlund, try finding wholes in his arguments
Around 6:50 Frank makes an error and it causes his argument to fail. Regardless of your opinions on the magisterium and its place, using just the standard of "old accepted books", the apocrypha were included in the Greek Septuagint which is the basis for the old testament for the Christian Church from its earliest beginnings. Additionally the Eastern Orthodox Church (split in 11th century) and Oriental Orthodox Church (split in 5th century) accept these books as part of the canon and tradition that has remained largely unchanged since those times. These books were not introduced in response to Martin Luther and the reformation in the 16th century. That is just false to suggest.
He was doing gymnastics avoiding the fact a council of apostolic successors came together with the holy spirit to know these things to be true
So what about the Church in Ethiopia or do you deny thier direct succession?
The LXX did not originally contain the Apocrypha, but first translated the Torah, and later the Jewish canon. The Apocrypha were either themselves not in Hebrew or translations that Jews themselves considered Jewish literature, reading that might be edifying for spiritual themes for example, but not for reading in religious gatherings.
Only later are they bound into copies of the LXX, by which time it's not only far from the original LXX, it's likely not even mere revision 10...
EO & Rome only much later insist otherwise, including arguments that the ancient faithful (Jewish Patriarchs etc, and tgwy were faithful--say otherwise and you're Marcionite) didn't have a Canon... which is historically and provably wrong: not only do (ancient( Jewish aources & lists show otherwise (that EOs & R Catholics tend to then twust further in ahistorical ways if they admit that), even Jesus & disciples use terms known to Jews to indicate the specific sets of books.
Simply put, arguing with EOs and Catholics on this is analogous to listening to Mormons on their book (whose many "tells" reveal it is historical fabrication much less inspired), or [another big faith] on historical mistatements (strongly asseverated) in their holy writ, or "a certain American cult" on its scifi alien books ripped off from others....
Insisting to an ancient believer before Christ's birth that the (then-ectant} Apocrypha are Canon would be like insisting to a Protestant that Pilgrim's Progress is... who knows better. Insisting on them in the early Church (despite all evidences)...
There are internal design matters that also "tell", besides the facts of Jews having preserved the history, especially given that Jews in Alexandria & Egypt & North Africa & thorought Rome weren't wiped out as Jerusalem was... but there are good reasons that the early counsels of Christians *and* the earlier ones of ancient Patristics (pre-Christ) had the same methods & came to the same conclusions.
Even using the same statement: the books [today called Apocrypha] are (often) good for edification but not for public (in religious gatherings) reading.
And that's before we get into Rome (pre-split of east & West) is infamous (and Rome the Western part post-split ADMITTED) to "creative" arguments from documents it knew were forged but insisted weren't for... many centuries.
And all that's before the observation: there really was no controversy here among actually-informed people until partisans started reaching to find Scriptures to rest doctrinal positions upon.
Another question: So all of the early church magisterium is wrong?
@@wildman4126 yes, and the current stratification is too.
I could listen all day to these two respectful men having a conversation. Why do we not see more of this?
Congratulations to the Catholic students. This was one of the best exchange of the Roman Catholic faith I’ve seen with Frank. Very respectful and humble both participants. I pray that one day you come back to the Catholic Faith, Mr. Frank I don’t agree with everything you say we do need a man like you to stand up for the truth.
2 Timothy 3:16- “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
And as Catholics we say yes! But that is a reference to the Old Testament by Paul. And in no way does it suggest that ONLY scripture is inspired by God, nor does it suggest that it is all one needs.
@@DAWanamakeras Catholics, you reject the supremacy of scripture by putting traditraditions of men and the authority of the church along side it.
Those are not referred to in the scripture above as because God's word is the only one capable of doing so.
To suggest anything outside of it is capable is presuming God is deceptive and not fulling descriptive in His word, which is clearly false.
In short, the Roman Catholic Church is full of lies and contains a false gospel.
@@DAWanamaker ALL Scripture….not just OT or this book and not that….ALL SCRIPTURE!!! We can not pick and choose what we want scripture to mean.
@@Belief03 the words "all" and "only" have completely different definitions. In Saint Paul did not use the word only. Again, as a Catholic, I say yes. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and his profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction and righteousness. On that point, we have no argument whatsoever. However, there is no scriptural evidence anywhere that Saint Paul limited himself to Scripture alone.
Normally I come down largely on the side of Frank here, but I think he was lofting air-balls on this whole thing. For instance, as to whether or not the Apocrypha was ever cited or quoted in the NT, it's quite immaterial. There are tons of canonical OT books that are also not cited or quoted. Furthermore, the Book of Enoch is once referenced, which is not in the canon for either Protestants or Catholics. For that matter, Paul even quotes Greek philosophers in order to make a larger point to his hearers. So citation does not necessarily equate canonicity, nor its lack preclude it.
An additional observation: Catholics never removed books from their OT canon. It may come as considerable shock to some that the first printings of the venerable old King James version included the Apocrypha, and for almost 200 years after it was first published (1804 to be precise!) Additionally, why are we appealing to Jewish canon that was established AFTER the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora? The now rather historically dubious Council of Jamnia, said to have convened somewhere between 70-90 AD, allegedly established the all-Hebrew canon (excepting Esther and portions of Daniel, which both appear only in Aramaic.) There's precious little to actually support this view today, and was more likely locked in at around the same time the Mishna was compiled at the end of the 2nd century. Early Christians, on the other hand, took their cue from the Septuagint canon, which includes said "missing" books, and would have been a version very familiar to the early Church.
This is Church History 101 Frank. You can do better than this! C'mon man! 😄
Personally I think the Christian OT is more true to the original Jewish. Judaism today is different from what it originally as.
Frank is amazing at logical arguments for believing in God. But like all protestants, seriously let's himself down when it comes to knowledge of history
Not only that but he completely misrepresents Jerome's position in regards to the books of the Bible. Yes Jerome disagreed with Pope Damascus (forgive me I forget which number he was lol) on what books to translate, but Jerome eventually submits to the authority of the Church saying that his disagreement was borderline sinful because he was going against the authority of the Church that Christ established.
@@GamingxKnight Such an important point. It was the Council of Rome that decreed the canon, not Jerome on his own. If we reject the authority of church councils then the whole debate around circumcision of the Gentiles is still unresolved since the Councilof Jerusalem!
The LXX didn't originally contain the Apocrypha. But Jews in second-temple Judaiam began to include books they didn't consider canonical so not allowed for public reading, but nevertheless religiously useful or edifying, along with their scroll collections...
Analogously I have an old American Bible that includes a copy of Pilgrim's progress: nobody that bound it nor original buyers thought Pilgrim's was Holy Scripture...
Likewise I have a Bible to which I added Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts at the back: that's not Scripture but it's material early Christians knew well, even claiming Plutarch (morally) as one of their own.
Wake up ppl. Soon, very soon. It doesn't get plainer than this. Thank you Jesus. Amen. I love you Jesus.
Jesus 😂😂😂😂your hilarious 😂 😃
Saying that Jerome didn't want to translate the apocrypha is like Martin Luther calling the book of James in the New Testament is a book of straw
Exactly! Jerome did translate those books after expressing his concerns. He understood that those books were in the Septuagint. They would have been the cannon of scripture at the time of Jesus.
@@richardpaskach3084 They never were Canon. Not even by the Jews. Catholics are the first. Not the first to make things up as they go,but to consider the Septuagint inspired.
Protestants LOVE to try to use our own Saints and Church Fathers against us. The weakest argument against those 7 books is "well the Jews didn't accept them." Well, newsflash, they also didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. First century Jews were very reluctant to accept anything that might point to Christ being the Messiah. They would have outright rejected these books as well because they were written in Greek.
@@brianrich7828 So what is Septuagint to Jews? Why did Luke quote from Septuagint instead of Hebrew Tanakh?
@@cyril_s probably because he didn't speak Hebrew.
Regarding the answer.
#1 - The whole notion that "we don't determine what should be in the canon, we discover it" and "the canon is not an authoritative list of books, it is a list of authoritative books" is just an evasion and is not really an answer. This is the kind of thing I'm tempted to point out as dishonest, but I don't believe the speaker is intentionally being dishonest. I think his need to uphold his doctrine has just blinded him to the fact that his answer is nothing more than a semantic game.
If you have a list and you say that this list is definitive, and it can't be added to or removed from, and we are obligated to accept the list, then the list, by definition is authoritative. You can play semantic games, but it doesn't change the reality.
Likewise, whether you call it "determining" or "discovering" the fact is that there was a point in history where people recognized as authorities, said "this book is in" and "this book is out" and their judgement has been held as binding ever since.
The fact is that the Bible does not define itself. Thus there are only three possible ways of defining it (in the sense of what books are part of it and what are not)
First, you have an authority that can establish it (ie the Church).
Second, you have your own reason.
Third, you can believe that your reason is personally inspired by the Holy Spirit
That's basically it. I grew up being taught a combination of the second and the third. I defended those positions until I was in my 30's. Then I realized that they were historically indefensible as well as not Biblical, nor particularly logical.
#2 - First, notice the contradiction between what he says here, and the first answer he gave. We are no longer discovering whether these books are authoritative. We are no longer saying the list is not authoritative... now we reject these books specifically because they were not on the authoritative list.
Second, notice that the authoritative list he was talking about is not even a Christian list.
Third, what he says is partially false. The historical fact of the matter is that the Jews did not have a unified canon of scripture until after the time of Jesus. Even at the time of Jesus, the Jews had significant disagreements amongst themselves as to what books were considered scripture and what books were not. There was not an authoritative Jewish canon until later. Since it may come up, one of the historical myths associated with this topic is the "council of Jamnia" which supposedly took place in 90 AD, where the Jews supposedly finalized the canon of their scriptures.
The idea of this council was invented in 1871 by a historian after he noticed that in the Mishnah there was debate between the rabbi's over what books of the Ketuvim should be considered Holy Scripture. In the Mishnah (the only source for any of this speculation) it never mentions any book being excluded and primarily centers around affirming that Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes should be considered Scripture.
Moreover, the debates occurring among Rabbis in the time right after Christ centered heavily around dealing with the problem of Jews converting to Christianity. They were deliberately making decisions in order to prevent people from converting to Christianity. Why would a Christian accept their judgement as authoritative?
#3 - The point about Jerome, again, points out how wrong the speaker's first point was. To give context, Jerome lived about 400 years after Christ. During that first 400 years, if you look around the Christian world you will find that different localities had their own lists of which books they considered to be scripture. Those lists were not all the same. Some of the early Christians had doubts about Revelation, James, the Epistles of Peter and John, and Jude.
In fact, if you read some current scholars, you will find that in early writings, the New Testament in general is rarely referenced as "scripture" and most of the time when early Christians spoke about "scripture" they specifically were citing the Old Testament.
The canon of scripture was established by the authority of the Church. When people disputed which books were scripture, Synod's and Councils came together and declared authoritative lists to settle the question.
Jerome proves this point because he records that he deferred his own judgement to the decisions of the Church regarding what was scripture. The reason he excluded some of the Deuterocanonical texts was because he had friends in the Jewish community, and he based his decision on the fact that those books were not read among Hebrew speaking Jews. Keep in mind this is 400 years after Christ.
It is great to look at early sources like Jerome, but no one person's opinion should be your Rule of Faith. Not even a Church Father's. It also raises the question, if you want to site Jerome as an authority on the canon of scripture, why not listen to the rest of what he says?
The canon of scripture was established over time and through a process of Church synods and council making rulings on it. The reason why books were in the canon, and other books were not in the canon, is because the authority of the Church established it and the people followed that authority. That is simply the historical fact.
The full modern canon of the Catholic scriptures was stated at the Council of Carthage in about 450 AD. That was a local council was a local council, and was therefore not universally binding. However, the canon given there became the traditional canon of the entire Church. There was not a universal statement of the Canon until the Council of Trent.
The reason this universal statement came so late, was because the Church does not authoritatively define doctrine, until there is controversy that questions it, which needs to be settled.
For example, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not universally authoritatively stated until Nicea in 325 AD. It happened then because that was the first time it became a controversy. People whos ay that Christians did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus before that point are either ignorant or are dishonest. This happens repeatedly down through Church history.
The fact that the statement of the canon is so late, does not demonstrate that the canon itself was a late development (again, ignorance or dishonesty). What it actually demonstrates is that the canon was never controversial until that time. Prior to that the whole Church basically accepted without dispute the canon that was traditionally promulgated by local synods and councils.
Another point, if you doubt this, is to look at ancient Churches that are non-Catholic, like the Orthodox, the Coptic, the Ethiopian, etc. You will find that they all have the same canon as the Catholic church with minor differences.
#4 - The idea that the NT authors quoted the OT canon, and did not quote the Deuterocanonical texts is not true. As the student points out there are OT books which are not quoted. There are also non-canonical texts like the Book of Enoch which ARE quoted. This alone should establish the principle that whether or not something is quoted in the NT does not either prove or disprove it's inspired status.
However, the claim that the Deuterocanon is never quoted is based, again, on a doctrinal blindness at best. The first fact you must take into account here is that the NT routinely quotes the OT in a very loose and partial referential way. There are a few places in the gospels, for example, where the gospel writer will say that Jesus fulfilled an OT prophecy and says "to fulfill what was written..." and then the quote of "what was written" is not a direct quote of any OT passage, but rather references an idea, or is a very loose paraphrase etc.
The same thing is done with the Deuterocanonical books. Because they are often not direct quotes, they are easy to dismiss if you want to say "this is never quoted". There are numerous things in the NT that refer and paraphrase Deuterocanonical books.
I'm only about half way in, but I have to go. If I get a chance and remember, I'll come back and finish.
I’m not gonna read that no offense. You need to write a blog post, not a TH-cam comment
2:30 Turek’s initial statement is still correct in that he said, Jesus and the apostles quoted from each major “section” of the Hebrew Bible excluding the Apocrypha. Esther is part of the Megillah of the Khetuvim (“Writings”) section, and though not quoted, it is still part of a section that does get quoted.
The problem with possible (and actual) allusions to the Apocryphal (Deuteroncanonical) and other extra biblical works in the NT is that not a single one of them is introduced with the formula, “it is written …”, “God said …”, “Moses said …”, as many of the NT quotes and allusions to the Hebrew Bible are.
The problem Matthew, is that the Church accepted the Catholic old testament and nobody had a problem with it, until Luther lost a debate. If you notice, Luther in is 95 page thesis never once talks about how he rejects these books. It is a non issue until it contradicted or threatened Luthers heresies.
Argument from negative is a weak argument. It is like saying "I never see a XYZ species, therefore XYZ does not exist."
Also, quoting a bible scholar does not add weight to his defence. The quote he gave is a statement that the books are authoritative to the Biblical Scholar. You cannot have a debate on a faith statement because I can flip that and use any well- known Biblical Scholar of all times that says the opposite thing, "not one book is inspired", or "Aprocyph is part of the inspired scripture".
@@pazu8728 I am merely pointing out that Luther's rejection of the Christian Canon in use was based on his ego, not some theological disagreement.
@@dman7668 That's because they've never rejected them. They're even in the king james bible. It's only today's misinformed Protestants that make this mistake (among the thousands of other mistakes they make). Protestants have removed themselves from any historical link to Jesus and 1st century Christianity, so they kinda of make it up as they go.
seeing who were called to be apostle, it's very unlikely they could quote, simply because they were from the lowest social status, and not schooled. And we have no scriptures from them, in any form.
The student worked him. He specifically says “my view isn’t hinging on the pope,” and the speaker immediately responds to papal authority.
Not to mention, Jerome did translate the 7 books AT THE URGING OF THE POPE
Yes, Jerome had his opinion but guess what he DID. He submitted the whole bible including the Deuterocanonicals, to the pope. And that's the famous Vulgate which changed the world. He had an opinion, but he was Catholic.
That's strange, given that when Jerome lived there was no such thing as quote, the pope, unquote. There was the Bishop of Rome, yes. But not a pope in the modern sense of the word.
@@williamjpellas0314 Just because a word is not used doesn't mean the thing signified by the word doesn't exist: the word "Trinity" for example, is not in the bible. Jerome submitted his work to the man in charge. I wonder who that was, hmmm.
Yeah, who was it?
So, who was this "pope"? Was that the title used? Was this pope universally recognized? The problem is that Damatius 1 (not sure if it is spelled correctly) didn't use the title pope, he wasn't recognized at the time as having some special status, and was retroactively called pope by the Roman Catholic Church when they were trying to establish apostolic authority.
Ahhh my brother. Thank you for questioning! God has given us intellect to commune with him...we should always question to grow deeper in our faith.
"The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it's a list of authoritative books" still doesn't answer the question: How do you KNOW with certainty that these 66 or 73 books are authoritative? How do you discover that they are the inspired Word of God? There's no verse in the Bible that tells us specifically which books belong in it. No verse gives the criteria that Frank gave for recognizing what is or is not inspired.
But there is a Church that Jesus established that the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). And this Church can recognize with Divine authority and certainty what are the Sacred Scriptures. To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book. If we don't, then there's nothing preventing people from removing books or certain passages they disagree with from the Bible; We saw this happen with Luther on "praying for the dead" and the deuterocanonical books (he also wasn't too keen on the book of James because of James' emphasis on works), and we see this happening today with more "Progressive" Christians and passages of St. Paul on sexual sin. The Bible alone doesn't tell us what the Bible is, but the Catholic Church which Jesus founded has preserved these Sacred Scriptures so that we can confidently follow Christ to the end.
Also... Jerome definitely included those 7 "extra" OT books in the Latin Vulgate. He expressed reservations about them but assented to the authority of the Church in the end. The Church continued to include those books in Her canon and didn't have a need to dogmatically define which books belonged in the canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when Protestants began calling the canon into question.
" To believe that the Bible we have today is the inspired, infallible Word of God, requires us to trust in another infallible authority OUTSIDE of that book." ....Who said what is OUTSIDE the Book is infallible ?
@@8shizzle Because the Bible itself doesn't tell you which books belong in it. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, by extension you trust in an infallible authority outside of the Bible to tell you what the Bible is; that authority is the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Yes, except the Church did dogmatically define the canon more than a thousand years before Trent. Trent's list is merely a RE-RE-RE-RE-affirmation of a canon long officially established.
The Bible does say it is not complete. You’re going to have to have faith. That’s a wee fact with a HUGE consequence.
@@8shizzle Jesus commissioned his Church. That’s clearly done in Matthew. If Jesus said it, and Jesus being God it is by that true. It’s an omnipotence rule. When the omnipotence speaks, that which is spoken shall be true. He told it as bound and loosed and gave the keys to the Kingdom to His earthly successor, Peter, who was called Simon. At some point you have to believe or not believe. He did those miracles as much for those He helped as He did them for you so that you would have reason to believe. Then he was nailed up and died a grueling death for you and I then he did perform another miracle, for every single one of us… …He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and had witnesses who saw it and every one of them died too for what they knew and not one of them back-peddled. They all professed of Jesus Christ into their own deaths. That’s to much love for this guy to deny. I’m holding fast and I am doing it in the Church He founded.
I got Catholic friends and we disagree...but I and my friends both believe that ultimately Faith in Christ is the only way to heaven..and I always say we need to ask when we get to heaven who was the closest..and we laugh and remain good friends..
That's how it's got to be (obviously). I'm a Christian (Catholic) and I have nothing but non-catholic friends (because of where I live, there simply aren't many here 😄). Some people just love to belong to a group, and then love to hate on others that aren't in their specific group. It's like they need adversaries to feel important.
I don't think God will send anybody to eternal damnation because they don't get every single detail right. That just seems completely unreasonable to me. Just as I don't think people that have never actually had the chance to know Christ probably don't get damned to an eternity without him, never been given a chance to accept/reject him. But, as long as your belief is that Jesus is your Lord and savior, I'm quite sure he'll have mercy on all (relatively) small disagreements. Anything else would be the opposite of merciful, I think.
@@RobertA-11-11 I'm an ex-Catholic, now born again Christian. In order to be saved, you must still repent of your sins and be born again, trusting in Jesus as the only way to heaven- not works, including the communion/confirmation and so on, praying the rosary, praying to Mary, confessing to a priest, believing in Purgatory (arguably the most important false belief), and so on. I'll keep you in prayer!
I’m Catholic and my wife is Protestant and this is how our families view things as well. We are worshipping the same Jesus and we put our faith and trust in Him. We have had the same conversation of getting to heaven and figuring out who got what right or wrong when it comes to theology.
I heard a talk about the subject of picking a Christian denomination and he stated a paraphrase of the following: If Jesus Christ was willing to be tortured and nailed to cross for our sins, do you think he cares a whole lot about what denomination we pick? I doubt it. I doubt he’s going to ask what denomination we picked and then scold us for not arriving at the “right” denomination.
Sadly, that doesn’t work with Moslems. Two streams of water that will never mix.
@@bryant475No Communion? 😂 It's a required, perpetual ritual. "Do this in remembrance of me,"
Luther wanted take out Revelation and Hebrews, but he was talked out of it.
He also wanted to remove James
@@Hboogie182Came to say the same.
And he hated the Jews.
Boy there are some haters in the thread of the man God chose to protest the abuses of the Catholic Church. What is the truth? Don’t hang on to Catholic dogma but look and study truth. It’s all in God’s revealed word.
@@Hboogie182 No wonder! It is an awful book if you have a non-Christian view on salvation!
Thank You Lord Jesus Christ for the Catholic faith ❤
Amen!!@
Amen!
I was raised catholic but their are way to many things that they teach that contradict the Bible!
EVEN THOUGH IT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL???
@@morganclare4704 We choose between Heaven and Hell. God doesn’t send us there. He gives us freedom to choose life or death. I choose life!
Hard to quote from something that has not been written yet
They did quote from the book of Enoch and Jasher
Not quoted but are mentioned.
@@bowez9 quoted not mentioned
2Sa_1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)
Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
@@jamesfields4149 so Jasher was a technical manaul, and Enoch prophesied but didn't write a book.
@@bowez9 Who is the author of the Book of Enoch in the Bible?
Lesson Summary. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 paved the way for scholars to understand better the Hebraic Bible and traditions during the Second Temple era. Among the preserved documents, archeologists discovered the Book of Enoch, a scripture supposedly written by Noah's great-grandfather Enoch.Feb 6, 2023
Peter quoted from pagan poems. That mean that pagan religions that he quoted from are inspired as well? The book of Enoch has always been considered a book of heresy because it teaches directly against Christ teachings, such as it teaches polytheism and that Enoch, not Jesus, is the Son of Man/God. The book was never considered to be inspired at any point and Enoch didn't write it. To say that the book of Enoch is inspired is like saying that the 'gospels' of Peter, Thomas, Barnabas, Phillip, and Mary are inspired when they are forgeries.
Logically, you can't argue like Frank did and say the NT writers and Jesus didn't quote from the Apocraphya so therefore they were not inspired. The rejoinder is but if Song of Solomon wasn't quoted does that mean the Song of Solomon was not inspired?
What is the problem ? RC & Pros agree on the New Testament and it is the New Testament (Christ through Paul) that teaches how you & I are saved and that's what matters :)
@@robusc4940 No problem brother, he is simply pointed out that Frank's argument fail on a certain point.
But i think any Christian, include Frank, agree Song of Solomon was inspired.
Logic and Frank Turek don't really mix....
I think the evidence mostly lies in the ratio. Out of 39 accepted books by all, only one or two aren't quoted in the NT. That's a pretty good ratio. But the Apocrypha has 14 books but none are quoted. That's a pretty bad ratio. That at least should make one think. Neither Jesus nor the apostles thought much about these books.
Frank's last question was the key point, saved by grace through faith. I have Catholic friends, we don't debate. We enjoy the common agreements. I believe we'll see each other in heaven! Great video!
Catholic here. This is the key: "*I* don't think..." "If the Jews didn't have it, *why* do we?" And that bulleted list by Metzger. These all illustrate the problem: who gets to make the call? You need a referee or else these standards can be unevenly applied, if you even can agree on a standard in the first place.
My belief is that the Savior instituted the Apostles and, after their deaths, their successors to govern the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, including by being the referee on such matters. Otherwise it's open to arbitrary choices.
Do you perfectly submit to Francis?
He's right to bring up Jerome, but he completely ignores the fact that though Jerome may have had his own disagreements on what should be in the Bible, he ultimately said that his disagreements were borderline sinful because he was personally going against the authority and power of the Church that Christ established. Martin Luther didn't break from the Church only because he didn't like what was in the Bible. He broke from the Church because of his personal interpretation of the Scriptures and believing in that more than the authority of the Church to fit his worldview. This is the main problem, Protestants ignore facts of history. The Council of Rome is when the Biblical Canon was established. Not to mention that the early Christians did in fact believe in, what Protestants wrongly describe as, 'praying to the dead'. There are tombstones from early Christian graves in Christian catacombs that ask for prayers from the Apostles and other saints who had already passed.
Not an argument but a statement here. Just because they asked for prayers from the deceased in antiquity, it doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Much of the New Testament are Paul’s letters that correct behavior not backed by scripture and urged them to reject traditions of man. Praying to the deceased, or asking them to pray for you, is not supported by scripture and is urged against. The Spirit of God intercedes for you (Romans 8:26-27)
Also, one of Jerome's reasons for not thinking some of those books should be included was the same used by Luther/Calvin: that there were no Hebrew versions (only the greek/Septuagint). That was true at the time, but Hebrew copies of several of the 'deutero/apocrypha' books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls... Making that objection moot. And both Luther/Calvin wanted to remove more books (each had their own ideas about which), but agreed not to because they realized how obvious it would make their position open to attack as 'traditions of men'... Imagine if after Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls were found, that Protestant churches said, "gee, looks like the Catholic Church was right on the canon the whole time?" and started to use them? Wow.... Unity one step closer... and for what it's worth, those Hebrew versions found in that Essene community in Qumran showed how accurate the greek septuagint versions were to the Hebrew versions (makes sense since 70 or 72 senior jewish rabbis created the Septuagint used by the Catholic church for the OT) !! God bless everyone!
Jerome did translate those books.
Councils of Rome 382 has the list of books.
Florence prior to Trent gave the list, but it was solemnly defined at Trent because of the reformation.
He didn’t answer how it was discovered that certain books were inspired. And if it’s not authoritative, then it follows that it could be wrong.
Definitely 7 books of the OT he accepts are not quoted in the NT. That argument cuts against him. If it’s valid, that means his canon is screed up.
Jews didn’t accept Christ, should we follow them in that too?
Jews didn’t have a set canon during the time of Christ. The different parties of Jews had different canons. So if we do follow the Jews during that time, which Jews do we follow?
In summary, he couldn't answer the question.
I like the respectful and thought provoking convo👍
6:30 The church is not a denomination nor a building!
You are right, none of the protestant denominations are the Church Jesus made. It's only the Catholic Church
@@dman7668 Hah, by that angle the first church is Eastern Orthodox & was in Antioch
@dman7668 I don't worship the pope. I worship God, Jesus Christ. You do realize many popes were murderous, sexual scandalous, sinful men, right?
Jesus was Jewish and whipped people for desecrating the temple by selling stuff.
@@NZIGNANTIHello God bless you, Saint ignatius of Antioch use to refers to the primitive church as Catholic(universal) in the 115 a. C. And Saint Ignatius was disciple of Saint Paul and Saint John, while the term orthodox was popularize after the Nicea councile in 325 but don’t get me wrong I say popularize not that the orthodox church was literally created after the Nicea councile, however people forget one things the Orthodox and Catholic church were once the same so is useless to say My church is the one created by Jesus while boths churches were literally one church, I mean both catholic and orthodox have a different teological stuff and we get separate by it but we are united by one “Person” God, May God bless you
I absolutely love that ending statement. Frank wanted to make sure they were on the same page as the single most important thing a person should right about.
Lol... yet they can't show it to be correct... at all.
But we are not really on the same page, otherwise protestants would not just keep inventing new Churches. Jesus only made one Church. Just one. He did not need Luther or anybody else to keep making new ones.
We must become believing, confessing, baptized members of the Body of Christ, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” which is “the household of God, founded upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.”
Bro, what a coincidence to find you here!
@@1106hdgaming: Bro, no way. It’s a small platform after all!
The Savior taught, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
How does that relate to any of this?
This is a fair and valid question and unfortunately Frank did not do a good job responding to the person concerns. So I will add what I know.
Regarding not using Jew canon there were multiple canonical traditions in the first century. The Pharisee tradition, which gave rise to the canon used by rabbinic Judaism, was only one tradition.
First-century Christians did not use the Pharisee canonical tradition. They used the Septuagint tradition (which is basically the Greek translation of Hebrew OT), which they passed on to the early Church and that included all deuterocanonical books. Therefore there was no "settled" Jew canon at time of Jesus or in early Church rather there were various Jew canons.
This also address the claim that "Catholics" added them to fit their doctrines, they did not, they were always part of Sacred Scripture right from first century Christians and early Church. Outside of Jerome, few early Church father question them, one person (even a great early Church father) having doubts (he eventually agreed to submit to Church teachings anyway) cannot definitely settle Sacred Scripture canon. Ultimately its the Catholic Church the only one that can provide and settle the Sacred Scripture canon.
To use the criteria of "never quoted in NT" to determine if a book is canonical or not would be inconsistent even with Protestant canon. The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon.
While there are no direct quotes from deuterocanonical books, there are plenty of allusion toward them, some are:
Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.”
Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.”
Tobit 4:16: “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another”
Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”
Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.”
Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.”
Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”
Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”
I understand the young man’s questions, and they lead me to believe that he is not fully committed to being a Catholic. All that said, I am impressed with how respectful he was, no yelling or name-calling, and willing to read the book that Frank recommended.
He is. He even commented on this video in the comments section. The point is trying to show you the protestant that protest beliefs run into alot of problems when you question their ideas. Which they do.
@@dman7668 Catholics have the same issue lol
@@jherandsoleil6335 nope. the catholics that you are pertaining to are the cradle catholics who tries to prove their faith and then fail miserably. try asking people like Scott Hahn or other catholic apologist with good backgrounds etc. they would answer your misconceptions perfectly.
@@jherandsoleil6335 they don't lol
@@jherandsoleil6335like what? lol
Jesus quoted from Esdras. The "how I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" and "your house is left unto you desolate" both came from Esdras. In Revelation, John saw a vast multitude in heaven with palms. The exact same scene is recounted by Esdras. So there are some good arguments for canonicity.
Thank you. Tired of the argument that Jesus nor the Apostles never quoted from books of the Apocrypha. They did.
Great Catholic guy, well speak..
There are so many incorrect statements made by Dr. Frank Turek, I am not sure if one can properly write about them all on this youtube discussion thread. Maybe a response video will be needed to present the historical facts.
Maybe you could name one?
i would love to listen to a 4 hour podcast of them two
Jesus affirmed the Old Testament canon when He mentioned the first martyr and last martyr in Luke 11:51
("from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah").
This is Genesis to Chronicles (Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon).
In order for the books to be authoritative, the canon must be authoritative as well. Otherwise you could reject books, add books, or reject teachings at will.
Just as martin luther did
This is a textbook logical fallacy known as a false premise. If the authoritative books by definition are authoritative in of themselves, they do not need an "authoritative" canon that validates their authority. Rather, it's the other way around, because the books are authoritative, they are included in the canon. Which is literally the refutation of the argument you're presenting. All you're doing is repeating the argument that was already addressed appropriately. Like a Cockatoo who keeps repeating the same word over and over again no matter the human's response because they can't comprehend the meaning of it or what it implies.
@@YAHOOISNOTG But the epistemological question of how to determine which books are authoritative remains unanswered. Saying "they are in the canon because they are authoritative" is circular reasoning. If the canon itself is not authoritative, I could start my own Church with new Bibles that exclude the letter to the Romans, for example.
@@liammurphy3513 Actually, what you’re doing is circular reason. I don’t know if you’re trolling or you sincerely can’t see how by definition it is your argument that is circular not the other way around.
If you watch the video again you can see that it outlines the criteria used for determining the authority of the canonical books. They didn’t pick and choose at random or cherry pick their favorites like you’re insinuating.
@@YAHOOISNOTG I did not insinuate that the canon was cherry picked or chosen at random. If the criteria for determining the canon is not itself authoritative, the contents of the canon could be rejected.
It is not circular to say that a separate authoritative source determined the canon, any more than it's circular to say that a non-authoritative source determined the canon, as you say.
Nice to see a great respectfull debate well done to you both.
"Rome didnt exercise its unique authority until after 500AD"
That's just not true there was 5 church councils up to that point
There just might be a wee bit of difference between a church council and Rome.
@@ReadItAgainBJ who called the Chuch council, sat in on it, presided over it, and ensured what was agreed applied to all of Christianity?
Yeah whether Rome exercised unique authority or the church council exercised its general magisterial authority is doesn't change anything. Magisterial authority defined the canon either way which is an authority evangelicals and rogue priests do not have.
@@mattduin7144 The bishop of Rome didn’t preside in NT canon, there was no pope during that time, The canon of the New Testament was not officially announced at a single definitive moment. Instead, it was a gradual process of consensus-building among early Christian communities. In 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, listed all 27 books of the New Testament in his 39th Festal Letter. This is the first known reference to the exact list of
New Testament books that we have today, showing a significant step toward canonization.
The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) in North Africa were regional councils that confirmed the New Testament canon as the 27 books we now recognize. These councils played a crucial role in solidifying the canon's acceptance, although they were regional in scope.
@@elliotlazarus9257 The canon of scripture was defined at the council of Rome on 382AD.
When you say "churches", who were those church? All catholic
This video is an excellent display of respect and courtesy in the midst of opposing viewpoints.
I am a former catholic. Upon my first reading of the Bible from cover to cover I noticed numerous contradictions between God’s word and catholic teachings.
If you answer the question: are you a Christian? with “I’m catholic”. Please look into the three pillars of catholicism versus Sola Scriptura. Your current pope is an excellent display of why papal infallibility is a ridiculous proposition. Romans 3:23, Isaiah 53:6.
Please just read God’s word in its entirety and the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth.
You can be free from trying to earn your way to heaven and instead trust fully in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, on your behalf.
The Catholic Church was established by Christ. He left a teaching church, an institution to protect the meaning. The Catholic Church does not claim the Pope is always infallible-- in fact, that 'power' has only been invoked or used a handful of times... I (as a Catholic now) also share your concerns with this Pope. But if we follow your guidance than we end up with the 30,000+ "traditions of men", aka every Protestant denomination founder who (sincerely) believes that "they" have the correct understanding... But to be honest, you know that Protestants have their own traditions of men and understandings, they certainly don't just "read the Bible"-- they have trusted authorities (pastors giving hour long sermons breaking it down), study bibles, bible concordances, bible study groups, etc... It's the same thing as 'Tradition' accept the Catholic church has an unfair advantage because the 12 Apostles didn't just die and leave no more church... they taught others-- for example, St Ignatius of Antioch was taught by the Apostle John, and Ignatius repeats the claim: "“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])." So I have to defer to the Bible and the Apostles, and certainly the writings of those who were made church officials directly by the Apostles themselves-- they would certainly have a better interpretation than me picking up a Bible today. That being said, may you always encourage those Christians around you (as St Paul says) and bring more to our Lord! God bless-
@@kevinzrenda8753 Good points, we could debate but I don’t expect To change your opinion. You sound like someone who believes in critical thinking as well as a person who believes in the Holy Spirit. As a Christians we are encouraged to imitate the example of the Bereans.
”Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.“
Acts 17:11 NIV
Yes many theologians are way more intelligent and discerning than I, just as the Apostlle Paul was a far greater theologian than (probably) any Berean yet they were still applauded for their study and search for the truth.
Here’s the critical question, when you die and face judgment (Hebrews 9), knowing that all have sinned (Isaiah 53:6) and the wages of sin is death (Roman 6:23) what will save you from perishing? Is it Church attendance, good works, 1000’s of rosaries, the communion of saints, the suffering you’ve endured in this life or a myriad of other possibilities? I’m going with Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. I will be saved from the fires of hell based solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross on my behalf-please join me.
@@tl57345 What did Christ say about eating His flesh and drinking His blood? What did Paul say about failing to discern the body and blood of the Lord? What did Peter say about Baptism saving you? What did Jesus say about people who say "Lord, Lord..." What did Paul say about faith without charity? Maybe you should learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches and you'll find out that it takes in the whole of the Bible and not just a convenient phrase here and there out of context.
@@tl57345 I believe I was saved, I believe am being saved, and I hope to be saved.... Those are the thoughts of the Christian (and in this case Catholic) who heeds the words of Paul to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." When it comes to that final moment (here on earth) of death, 100% agree that Christ is who/what saves us! That being said, the Bible (and Christ's message) isn't just a simple "accept Christ as your lord and savior and you'll be saved!"... If that was the case the Bible would be one paragraph, not one thousand pages. The things you mention (meditating on the moments in Christ's life that we ponder during a rosary, going to church, suffering but uniting that to Christ) are all examples of things that an outsider would notice in the life of a believer. If you really believe a bus is going to hit you, you move (works). Paul asks others to pray for him -- that doesn't mean Christ is 'less' of a mediator for us, since Christ is ultimately THE mediator. Paul also says that we "complete" Christ's suffering on the cross- we take that to mean that our suffering can have redemptive value if we offer it to Christ and draw closer to Him through that suffering. Since I believe Christ wants to be with us on every level (mental, spiritual, and physical), then of course I go to church to offer thanks and receive Him physically. I'm sure your life (as a believer) shows up and leads you to do things too... As to the Bereans, it's great that they searched the scripture, Catholic Tradition is in full accord with scripture, since the early Church of Acts is the first chapter in Catholic Church history... they wrote it and they followed its meaning. There was no "Hebrew Bible" (the typical Protestant OT), so at least we know the Bereans weren't searching that! If anything, they searched the Septuagint (the Catholic OT). But-- in the end-- your point is the most important... do we love Him enough to follow Him and continue to rely on Him and acknowledge Him even when or after we fail, and try to follow His words to "go now and sin no more"? If we are doing that, then we seem to be in a pretty good position to already be falling on His mercy when we die...
@@kevinzrenda8753 well said - Praise be to God
Thanks To Holy Catholic Church
Unholy church of antichrist.
I literally get Catholics justifying murdering bible believers all the time. That's your church's official position. Holy? Are you out of your mind?
Mystery Babylon the Great!
By the grace of God through faith. "We're good."❤
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDThen why are you watching these videos and commenting? Seems unnecessary.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Yes but what is the point of doing so? I don't like veganism, but I don't go to vegan channels and insult them. I wasn't raised in Christianity. I've come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the truth. Not sure why you're so offended by that.
What exactly do you expect to accomplish here because the only thing you're doing is engaging in ad hominem attacks to ingratiate your ego.
You cannot find the truth if God did not reveal it to you through the Holy Spirit in the word of God. You have to be born again first before God will reveal the truth to you. You can choose your religion, but only God can regenerate the heart to be born again to love His word.
Brother Frank got it wrong. The new testament writters, used septuagint, Greek version of the Hebrew Bible to take Old Testament quotes in their writings. Septugint had the extra books that catholics have. So our Protestant brothers are trying to say thst thwt cant even trust the apostles of Jesus who wrote the New testament.😊
Church fathers also used the LXX
The remark you make here doesnt seem to actually address or refute what Frank said though...They still didn't actually quote the apocrypha, there is a distinction between formal quotes, allusions and echoes.
@@Adam-ue2ig bro I think you did not understand the comment...I never said they quoted apocrypha. What I said is that what used septuagint ..for their quotes from the Old Testament.
@@vox_diviniI might have misses it but I didn't hear Frank say the Septuagint was not used so didn't see how the remark was a refutation. For whatever reason my response below has been deleted so i will respond here...I don't find the argument you presented convincing as it is full of certain presuppositions, assumptions and human reasonings...Secondly, you actually admit Frank did not say X so instead of refuting him you actually just present a case for your view...atleast 52 major figures including Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan and Jiminez did not personally hold the apocrypha as Canon proper...In 1532 Cajetan says " Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
~ Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII )
Luther did not come along and suddenly remove 7 books...he recognized a distinction that already existed prior to the reformation in which Apocrypha was thought to be possibly useful for reading for edification and historical value but NOT for doctrine and not Canon proper. If you listen to Erick Ybarra for instance he actually mentioned before that the case for Protestant Canon is actually fairly solid. Council of Trent came along and dogmatized Apocrypha as Canon in the 16th century. I don't believe the narrative that Trent was merely reiterating what always was...sure you may respond with appeal to Carthage or Rome council but those were provincial, regional or local and not universal Council. I think it is proper to say Trent was the first dogmatic Council that settled the matter for Catholicism..
Prior to that you had a few streams of thought...as for me I'm not under authority of Trent and I reject the apocrypha as Canon proper.
@@Adam-ue2ig good i understand your doubt. I will explain. Frank did not say that septugint was not used..in fact he cannot say, bcz IT WAS USED. And how is it relevant ? If the apostles of Christ used a scripture that had apocryphal books in it(septuagint) who are we to come later and say that those books should not be considered inspired ? The main reason why the Jewish authority rejected those books was that they were not written in Hebrew but Greek. But the new testament was written in Greek as well. So when the canon of New Testament books were finalized into 27, the old testament canon too was finalized by the early church authority. So if you say that Holy Spirit guided the early church so as to decide on the canon of the new6 testament how can you say that the same church at the same time of finalizing the new testament made a mistake in the old testament ?? You mean Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding the early church ? If early church made a mistake about canon of Old Testament then what is your guarentee that the New Testament canon is inspired by the Holy Spirit ??
I makes me really sad whenever my fellow Protestants say that Catholics added more books into the Bible. It's actually the opposite. We Protestants are the ones who removed precious books from the Bible. Who came first, Protestants or Catholics? It's as simple as that. I grew up in an Evangelical Church and I always thought that Catholics added extra books in their Bible but when I read the history of Christianity and the Bible I realized that we are the ones who removed important books from the Bible. Just because Jews updated their canon, we Christians do not need to do the same. We don't need to copy the Jews. We should stick with the original canon we had from the beginning. I am still a Protestant but I now read only the Catholic edition of the Bible.
Just like Frank said the the apocrypha books were added by catholic to the Old Testament. And the Jews don’t have the apocrypha books in their Old Testament. So by reading a Catholic bible. You’re reading an Old Testament that the Jews don’t even read. Which means it’s inaccurate.
And saying the Jews updated their canon was incorrect. That was the Catholics
False. Local councils and synods were never authoritative on the whole Church. The Canon was very much not closed until Trent. This is evidenced by the fact that numerous Roman Catholic clergy did not view the apocrypha as divinely inspired, but good and beneficial to read. This is the historic view of the canon. Even Cardinal Cajetan, the man who opposed Luther at his hearings and helped draw up the bill of Luther's excommunication, held this view.
In fact, at the Council of Trent, the vote to settle on the 73-book cannon that the Roman church uses today was 24 for, 15 against, and 16 abstained. More people abstained or voted against that canon than actually voted in favor of it.
Outside of Catholicism and Protestantism, Judaism came first. Both Catholicism and Protestantism can trace themselves back to Judaism, but no serious difference with Judaism came about until about 1,000 years after Christ. If we want to understand Christianity, we have to understand that is an extension of Judaism. Most of the first followers of Christ were Jews, excepting some Greeks and Romans. When we study the New and Old Testaments it helps to understand that we’re studying the works ofJews.
My point is that if we want to understand Christianity we need to understand Judaism. That gives us the context and understanding for Christianity.
Except there is one problem with your argument. Why would the Catholics care if the Protestants removed books from their canon? They could simply maintain their original canon, right? Yet somehow, they had to add books Protestants took out back into it. You don't find that odd? What do you mean by original canon? The one that includes the Apocrypha that the Jews don't use and Jesus and his disciples never quoted from? Something doesn't fit right, that is why the Protestants removed books from their canon, because obviously it wasn't in there in the very early church. You can make an educated guess as to who put them in later.
Wow this is so enlightening. I’m going to bookmark this and watch this many and many times over lol thank you Frank !!!
"The Scriptures are a list of authoritative books, not an authoritative list of books" is another way of saying "A fallible collection of infallible books". It's logically self-refuting. I think the term is "self-referential incoherence". The reason is because of modal dependency. In order for the Bible to be a collection of infallible books then the process of determining their infallibility must be infallible. It's modally dependent. If the process is not infallible then we cannot trust their infallibility.
Right on,
He throws a quote from some guy to make his point, but when you think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever.
@@TheLeftRbabieskillers Thank you. What you've described is the essence of sophistry: Good rhetoric seated on bad logic. And it is bad logic. The logic is inescapable. It ends here. The only question remaining is highly personal: Do I have the integrity to acknowledge the logic, abandon Protestantism, and embrace Catholicism or Orthodoxy?
Ugh I'm more confused than ever..why does this have to be so freaking complicated if God wants us to be able to answer unbelievers' questions?? I can't ever remember all these details no matter how hard I try.
He gave us shepherds to preach and guide us and explain the mysteries of the faith...come check into catholicism with an open heart and mind you won't regret it
It's okay Kat this was a discourse but Frank answered by saying the books of the Bible are "authoritative" and then supported that statement. We don't have all the answers but we know who does, God! This peace means every question has an answer. So when you're talking to an unbeliever and you don't have the answer(s) still share the Gospel because that's what they really need.
@@TheZealotsDen
Nah I don't see how any one can honestly read and study the Bible seriously and be Catholic. I was catholic when I was a kid and had issues with the church even when I was a child reading the Bible.
It seems it is also freaking complicated to answer believers' questions, when they feel free to have questions....
@@captainmartin1219When you look at the early Church, which one supported your views as a protestant and taught Protestant ideas like salvation by faith alone and Sola scripture? Can you find me any examples of Saint Augustine an early Church Bishop talking like a protestant in his views on Purgatory?😅😅
We know that a book is canonical if it is written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle, so the gospels and Acts were quickly recognized as inspired, from God. So canonicity and authorship are tangible evidences of inspiration.
Very early on, the letters of Paul were considered “the other scriptures,“ 2 Peter 3:16.
Also, did the early church decide which books were inspired, or did they recognize which books were inspired? The church has always argued the latter.
Many of the Hebrew Bible books have been authenticated by Christ’s fulfillment of them and his usage of them.
There were a few New Testament writings, where it took a little longer for there to be ecclesiastical consensus, and the apocryphal books have always had their supporters and questioners, but for most of the canon, there has not been this debate.
For those wondering, the Catholic student is correct: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament. However, the reason for their inclusion in both the Protestant and Catholic Bibles is that these books are consistent across all Jewish canons, which eliminates the reason for excluding the apocryphal books in the first place (they are not consistent across canons and are not referenced in the New Testament).
Loved this dialogue
When Frank says that the Jews didn’t consider the deuterocanon part of the canon, he hasn’t researched this thoroughly: The Jews had different opinions of what was canon in the second temple period. The Qumran community didn’t consider Esther canon. And other communities clearly believed Sirach was canon.
Jerome wasn’t convinced because all he had to work with was the Masoretic text which removed these books. So when Jerome looked at the Septuagint (which is in Koine Greek) he assumed that the Masoretic text was correct (seeing as it was in Hebrew and he assumed was the more preserved text). The irony of this is that the New Testament heavily relies upon the Septuagint for Old Testament quotations. Jerome was wrong.
The biggest issue here for Frank is: The Bible does not give you a list of what it considers canon, so without a church authority to determine and pass this down, how do you know? What is the foundation?
This is an issue I am still wrestling with, but giving cookie cutter answers like Frank is does not resolve the issue for people that are aware of what’s really going on.
Frank is making the argument that Protestants have the list that is almost universally agreed on. Catholics and Orthodox chose to keep a few books that had been debated by church fathers throughout. whether Catholics or Protestants are correct is hard to determine, but it is no doubt Protestants are holding to a Bible in which the early church would have agreed had the message and inspiration of God
Recommendation for your journey. "A dictionary of early Christian beliefs" by David Bercot.
He takes all the ante-nicene church leaders writings and categorizes them by topic.
@benjaminwatt2436 Actually it's not hard to determine Ben. The Catholic Church had authority to bind the Canon of the Bible and the protestant Churches do not. Ergo we use the Catholic Canon and you should be, also. The widely accepted Canon was the Catholic Canon.
@@dman7668 The canon from the early church is protestant. The protestant church is the continuation of the early church.
For anyone considering them inspired, read Sirach 37:13, Tobias 12:9 and 2Macc 12:40-46.
I don't see how you telling people to read those passages would invalidate their canonicity.
@@dman7668 wdym? they explicitly contradict other biblical messages
@@23lundca then please explain how Sirach 37:13 does not contradict Jeremiah 17:9 and many other passages that denounce how deceptive the heart can be.
@@23lundcaLuther also was not exactly an expert on ancient Koine as used liturgucally among Jews, however. Those who are see no contradiction between James "faith without works" and Christ's "work" equated to merely "believing on Him whom the Father hath sent", as compressed in such statements as "obedience of faith" (a genetice, i.e. obedience that proceeds as fruit from faith, but is not what makes righteous as faith).
@@23lundcaluther is the starter of the reformation, he is not perfect , the perfect and superior reformator is john calvin
I love the last question, a great way to cap the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics.
It's quite simple. The OT is based on the Masoretic Text, which was used by believers long before the claim of the so-called church that Peter was the rock it was built upon. The NT is determined based upon the writings of the apostles/disciples and the eyewitness testimony of their teachings. It isn't any more complicated than that.
The Masoretic text is a much later pieced / patched back together by Jews that rejected the Messiah and have no covenant (as that went away in 70A.D) and practice a different religion (Rabbinic Judaism) than those of the Old Testament / Covenant, from the 7th to 11th century. The Septuagint was a direct copy by actual Ancient Israelites into Greek and the most quoted by the New Testament.
@@JohnDoe-le8fyJerome himself countered your idea as Messianism is clearer in Hebrew than i the LXX.
The Massoretes were also Karaites reflecting Pharisaicaliam by the way.
The Hebrew he had and the Massoretes voxalizations (vowel pointings) are, quiye literally, anything but what you claimed.
You don't apparently know much.
This line of thinking you just expressed was the ancient equivalent of uneducated fundamentalists in backwater swamps of America screaming "The King James in English is God's one true, inspired, preserved version of Scripture!"
@@infinitelink Lets start with, what you just typed makes no real sense, so lets dive into it a bit more, can we? Which parts exactly are you taking exception to as you did not make that clear at all, rather it was mostly ad hominem attacks. So your main contention is the "Massoretes" were still OT biblical Hebrews, so you hold to a dual covenant theology? Or are we still living in the OT Mosaic age under Torah law?
It's quite funny you use that analogy while defending the Masoretic text since that's what the King James uses.
@@infinitelink "Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:
The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine."
@@infinitelink "Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the "Masoretic Text". But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?
History says "no" . . .
Scribal emendations - Tikkune Soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes."
I love what you do Frank, do a great job. That said, I must correct you on an inference you make. You say the Bible doesn't quote the apocrypha and that is technically true but the inference is that the apocrypha is not inspired and not scripture. While this might be generally true, there is a problem with this when it comes to Enoch. Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus Himself makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.
You often say that you have a policy, if a guy raises from the dead you believe whatever he says. Well Jesus says Enoch is scripture in Matthew 22: 29-30.
I agree with the notion that some New Testament portions quote from 1 Enoch, but I also must correct you on some points you made.
Just because Genesis, Luke and Hebrews reference Enoch the character, that doesn't necessarily mean 1 Enoch is canonical. Luke and Hebrews could be referencing the account written in Genesis. Some will argue 1 Enoch referenced from Genesis and not the other way round.
That said, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is highly likely to be an inference of 1 Enoch, which would mean the Apostles likely did infer from one Apocryphal source.
As for Matthew 22:29-30, can I ask which part of these verses do you feel references 1 Enoch?
A good tidbit of information to note:
The books that comprise the Old Testament in Judaism are actually fewer in number than in Christianity. This is because we added divisions, chapters, and verses. Books like 1st and 2nd Kings and 1st and 2nd Chronicles were not divided as such, along with other sets of books. One example are three such books that were grouped together in the Jewish OT: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. They were all part of the same book, but for the Christian OT, were divided. If I recall correctly, the "minor" prophets were grouped together in some way as well.
This is important because of the fact that Jesus and others in the New Testament quote from Old Testament books, which helps validate the canon - if a "split" book was referenced, then the others that once were joined are also valid in the canon. It was, then, as if they were mentioning the other books.
Mind you, this isn't meant to be exhaustive in answering the question of why the canon is canon, but a piece of the puzzle and an answer concerning the "lack" of mention of some books of the OT by Jesus & co.
Fair point, but from a quick Google search, I see that Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are grouped together, at least in the modern Jewish canon. And apparently none of those are explicitly quoted in the NT. So we wouldn't have a case of Esther getting in because of another book in the group being quoted.
Do you know if the books not quoted were part of different groupings in the first century such that your argument would apply in order to have them included in the canon?
Good Information
Turek abandoned the Church to focus on text. Also, the apostle Jude definitely quoted from the book of Enoch. The Bible is for the Church, not the Church for the Bible.
Frank’s quite wrong on when the authority of the Bishop of Rome began.
Of course he is lol
Frank is never good on Catholicism. Did he actually address the question asked? No, he just spoke about why he doesn't think the Deuterocanon is Scripture.
1:55 Jerome *did* translate the Deuterocanon because he submitted to the authority of the Church.
2:01 very Old Testament book is NOT quoted in the New Testament: Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. There are, however, plenty of allusions to the Deuterocanon.
6:41 You find evidence of the unique authority of the Bishop of Rome before then, such as when Clement writes to correct the Corinthian Church AD ~98.
6:57 The Deuterocanon was an "official" part of the Bible long before Trent, which is why you find it both in the official Bible (the Vulgate) and the Liturgy. It was *infallibly* declared at Trent, but it had ALSO been declared at the earlier Ecumenical Council of Florence (AD ~1431), as well as at local synods and councils going back as far as the Synod of Rome in AD 382. It's also worth pointing out that the Orthodox have these books in their Bibles despite no decree from an Ecumenical Council.
Exactly he was sneaky and never really answered the question. I hope that young man kept digging to finally get through all of the lies of protestantism.
@@cristinamz2137 I don't think it was done maliciously. However, Frank's normal clear-thinking gets rather fuzzy when he speaks about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
That is how you get to Heaven, by the grace of God through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Catholics agree. Your attacking a straw man out of ignorance.
@@SevereFamine lol. We all agree Catholics don't fully follow or read the Bible or Christ - Catholics agree they follow the Pope.
Ou..MAJOR RED FLAG!! THEY DID!! THEY QUOTED FROM APOCRYPHA!
Can you help me with source please
@@ACHAESE just research, there is videos on youtube revealing these quotes and than u can check them in the Bible
I am just so heartbroken 💔My husband and I were both born and raised Catholic. I went to 2 different catholic schools and went to several different catholic churches over the years. My husband went to church at several different catholic churches as well. Through first communion to senior year of high school I don't remember any thing about the catholic faith. I stopped attending church because I worked many different church festivals around Milwaukee, Wisconsin and saw drinking and gambling. I just saw a Bunch of people who said they were religious but lived Monday through Friday. Whatever way they wanted. My husband had a similar experience, When we got engaged I knew I wanted to be married in a church but because I hadn't finished the requied catholic steps to be welcome so We got married in a pentecostal church, 2 kids and 15 years later. I still go to that same church, And i'm so frustrated because some catholic co workers Pretty much told me. My children are going to hell because I didn't get them baptized in a catholic church, And I'm just really trying to understand if Catholic is the one true church. Then how come they are doing so poorly in reaching the lost? Because now I'm so torn with how I was raised. Because people say that's the one true religion.
But the Protestant church, actually truly taught me to live like jesus and serve other people, But the thought of going back to the mindless, Rituals of the Catholic Church, which I still Get such an uneasy feeling about to this day just makes me sad. I just want my family to love Jesus and go to heaven! I hate that we all can't just come together to love Jesus!
Danielle, I would invite you to check out Chris Stephanik, he is a very good Catholic speaker. Many Catholics are lukewarm and unfaithful to Christ. But many are living very radical lives spent for Jesus. I found Christ in high school and had to rediscover my Catholic faith from scratch. I am praying for you and your family!
I wouldn't recommend anyone to pass judgement on a church based on the conduct of its worst people. The conduct of the ancient Israelites does not justify the religion that God established in the OT as being a faulty religion.
@TheGospelAccordingToMarkyD Yes I understand that, But how much hypocrisy does one person need to see before you start questioning the entire institution, I know of at least 10 catholic churches where I live that hold church festivals. Where re they allow drinking and gambling?
Hook up culture ?The fact that these churches are allowing this to happen, knowing what it leads to Is appalling. I worked at a lot of different catholic church festivals and saw the worst kind of things, It wasn't until I got older when it occurred to me, These Catholic churches were literally making money off of the souls of the lost people that came. So that's why I started going to a Protestant church, I started to read the Bible and saw all the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church, teaching with extra books that were in the Catholic bible. And the fact that I left catholic school and knew absolutely nothing about my faith Except for the mindless rituals, And now I'm supposed to listen to the condemning of Catholics that Tell Me my children's baptism wasn't good enough because it wasn't done in a Catholic Church, That I'm supposed to believe the history Of the Catholic Church is not based on corruption, a man-made practices that take the focus off of jesus and on to people and saints, I still see the corruption of the catholic church in these church festivals to this day. Something is clearly not right with a Catholic Church. As a whole, it's not just a couple Outlying rebels, And I'm not saying that there is not corruption in other churches. But the core of catholic church is what causes unsettling feelings in my soul
@eddapra3198 thank you for your kind response, Just the thought of going back to catholic church is depressing for me, I wanna be in a church that gets excited about a relationship with christ, And all catholic churches just do mindless rituals And the majority just go to church as a duty
If you don’t mind me asking, I’ve read ‘mindless rituals’ a few times in these responses. Can you give me an example of one?
And if you’d rather not answer, there’s a 7 min movie on TH-cam I’d recommend called “The Veil Removed”. It’s really worth the 7 mins.
It’s what believing Catholic’s hold as truly happening in mass.
Awesome question and great answer as well. Loved this coversation.
Turek never answered the question. He dodged it.
Ill say it. You must not call any man on earth father. Do not pray to the dead. Do not pray to anyone other than God the Father/Jesus. Do not pray to saints. Do not ask for forgiveness to a man, only God. Do not support or affirm homosexuals. To name a few. Repent of these things. Seek Jesus and read your Bible.
Who made you the arbiter of interpretation?
Have you read the gospel of Matthew? The word father's used like 47 times. Paul also calls Timothy and Philemon his son's in the faith and wrote to the fathers of the churchs...these old falsehoods need to disappear with access to the Internet.also Gods the God of the living not the dead who's praying to the dead
The Bible also says to confess our sins to one another....what bible are you reading brother?
@@TheZealotsDen Likely the same Bible as you, but you did not answer my question, who made you the ultimate authority of intreptation?
@@TheZealotsDen yes I agree, if you done someone wrong then fix that. It does not say to pray for the dead/saints/mary.
Peter and Jude quote from Enoch
Exactly. also the speaker is being extremly disengeous with his history. God bless the EKLEASIA CATOLICA!
@@SnatchnHalos Enoch is not a Catholic scripture, it is only in the Coptic scriptures. Catholics teach Mary worship, and Revelation calls the church the Whore of Babylon. I would stay far far away from the Catholic Church and its idolatry
@@23lundca you don't have copyright to the bible so protestant can use the bible and regards it as the only and highest authority , and there is nothing roman catholic can do about it , protestant don't care if the bible come from catholic tradition. You only ask the dead people to pray for you? That is not what Jesus and the disciples teach. Bowing down to king is make sense, collecting tears from mary statue is nonsense
@@yamint Well you showed how intellectually dishonest you are in regards to Catholic doctrine. He asked for one dogma or doctrine that says we worship Mary and you avoided the challenge more than the plague. Putting aside the fact that there are tombstones in the catacombs of Christians from the first and second century asking for prayers from Apostles and saints who had already passed, you give way too much power to death by saying that those who are with God, the source of Life, are 'dead'. I'd honestly argue that those who are in heaven are far more alive than we are here on earth considering that they are literally in the presence of He who gives life to all. But let's see if you'll rise to a different, but similar, challenge. Show me any Catholic doctrine or dogma that says we have to 'collect the tears from a Mary statue'.
@@GamingxKnight what kind of challenge is that? While in fact that i saw in a catholic church in my city that shows cottonbud containing tears collected from mary statue around the world. I dont need to understand the doctrine and dogma of roman catholic church to know that kind of behavior is idolatry. When i said dead people, i said it from the perspective of the living, it does not mean i do not believe life after death. The is no connection between the living and those who are already dead. We can only communicate with GOD. Tell me which apostle pray to the dead people?
What about praying to saints and Mary. Jesus Christ is the Savior and Jesus alone He is our Redeemer and is worthy of our praise.
Respect for the young man for having knowledge on his beliefs even if we disagree on some things.
Frank repeatedly says the Catholic Church didn't discover the Bible cannon until the 16th century at the council of Trent. This is the cognitive dissonance response to the fact that the council of Trent only reaffirmed the cannon the Catholic Church declared twice in the 4th century. Unfortunately, for him, this fact makes him a false teacher.
Just share the gospel as JESUS asked you to do.
For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whomsoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life 🙌
John 3:16 applies to everyone.
But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4
Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13.
Who gave Paul that authority ?
Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18.
John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
@robusc4940 you are saved by grace through faith , it is the gift of GOD ; that no man could boast
@@larzman651 and that is EXACTLY what Christ through Paul taught :)
But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4
Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13.
Who gave Paul that authority ?
Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18.
John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
@@grrlsouljah A JUSTIFIED/saved believer does NOT have to demonstrate to anyone whether they are saved or not.
If you disagree, show where Christ THROUGH Paul teaches what you claim.
To help you :-
But we are ONLY saved by our Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4
Conditions are :- Eph 2;8-9, Gal 2:26, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 4:5-8, Titus 3:5, Eph 1:13.
Who gave Paul that authority ?
Christ did :- Acts 9:10-15, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 26:14-18.
John, Peter, James confirmed it :- Acts 15:7-12, Acts 15:13-25, Gal 2:7-9.
How do you know Jesus asked you to do that?
When Frank said that Jesus and the apostles never quote from Apocrypha, the student said it's not true. I just help to give the reference:
* Matthew 7:12 / Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
* Matthew 6:14-15 Sirach 28:2
My earlier post was deleted, for some reason, I hope this one is not deleted.
Sirach: "All wisdom is from the Lord God, and has always been with him, and is before all time."
(Sirach I, 1)
Saint John the Apostle: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was with God in the beginning."
(John I, 1-2)
No one can deny the obvious parallel and citation in this passage, as verse 5 of Sirach goes so far as to say the following in verse 5: " *The Word of God* on high is the source of wisdom, whose steps are eternal commandments." (Sirach I, 5), Saint John calls God the Son "Word of God" *with the book of Sirach in mind*
I would very much enjoy watching the two of you just sit down together and have more discussion. It was very interesting to listen to.
Luther DID translate The Book of Wisdom. I can't speak to any of the other books of the Apocrypha. I usually am right with Dr. Turek, however on this one I can't agree. The second chapter of Wisdom discusses a secular and Nihilistic culture to come. I can't read that as anything other than a prophecy of today. Never before had a culture fought over belief or nonbelief, rather wars were waged about which faith was correct. Even if the scholars are correct and Wisdom was written 2-300 years before Christ and well after Solomon lived, the prophecy is impossible to ignore.
The Jewish clergy of Christ's time were also most responsible for His execution. Maybe leaning on Jewish authorities of Christ's time to determine which books are inspired is not the best idea. Something tells me that David's story would be told much differently if clergy leadership installed by Saul had remained in power after Saul's death.
He didn't say Luther, he was talking about an early chirch father. 1:42
you're simply incorrect: by the time of Jesus the Jews had lived through two separate civilizations rising & falling (at least). Nihilism is a recurring theme of civilization rise & decline, was common even by 2nd temple Judaism, not to mention is clearly a concept i civilization cycles in neighboring civilizations (e.g. India -- see also Pilate's "what is truth", Rome was already filled with nihilistic atheists not only at its highest eschelons but even throughout the larger public).
Ex Protestant, confirmed Catholic this Easter, this is one of the questions that helped me come home. The issue with Protestantism is they are Rebellious to the church Christ founded and so (like I was) are blocked from the fullness of the faith Christ instituted, it’s a very watered down faith. Protestants seem to have an issue with the fact that Christ gave the church AUTHORITY.
The Protestant churches wouldn’t exist without the Catholic Church to rebel against.
And who is the church?
Welcome Home brob! Isn't it good to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
@@pmlm1571😂. Same rhetoric and catholic religion dogma speech. It is another Christ.
Never born again.
Frank, you mentioned that when Luther said that Maccabees was not in the Bible, the Church said "it is now". Well, that´s not true. Maccabees was included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and that is, many many centuries before Luther.
Yes, Frank is mistaken here. I think Frank mispoke and is an intellectually honest person.
I agree that Frank's characterization is a bit misleading.
Here's a more accurate distinction, I think:
The deuterocanonical books were *included* in Bibles of the time,
but it wasn't until the Council of Trent that books were confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church *as inspired* / *canonical*.
The deuterocanonical books may or may not be inspired, but not merely on the grounds of their inclusion.
Inclusion ≠ Inspiration.
It's also worth noting that the books are called "deuterocanonical" because they were not recognized as part of the 1st canon, but as the 2nd canon. (Deutero = 2nd [Greek])
@@dman7668 I believe the correct and unbiased explanation is that there are 2 sets of books, that is, 2 canons, the first one was the Hebrew canon and the second the Greek canon. The Catholic Church adopted from the beginning the Greek canon but then in the 16th century Martin Luther started using the Hebrew canon, which had fewer books. I don’t think it needs too much explanation.
"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St Augustine
“If the Jews don’t have it in their canon why do we have it in ours”.
Wait, so now we trust the religion that denies Jesus as Christ to create the canon the Christians hold to?
Right?! In the end, Protestants are just stubborn.
I was saying the exact same thing.
This immediately implies that protestants hold jews as their authority to interpret scripture and to see what is canon and what not.
I hope people realize that Jesus and all his apostles were jews, right?
@@MrSeedi76 Yea we know. What’s the point you’re trying to make?
he didn't really answer the question
You mean he didn’t answer it the way you wanted him to.
Also Frank (the man on stage) says he was once a Catholic. Well, I have to tell him, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Baptism in the Catholic faith is a Sacrament it cannot be broken.
That’s what the RCC would like you to believe, in reality it’s total BS. Are you saying that a child baptized as an infant and confirmed at age 8-9 has no choice in the manner in which he/she chooses to worship, or to not worship at all?
@@scottgoulette8900 Yes. They may grow up and 'decide' not to be Catholic anymore and may think that they're not but if they have received the Sacrament of Baptism in a Catholic church, they will always be Catholic. Same for marriage, its a Sacrament.
@@mrsmum3-6 That looks and smells a lot like colonialism to me. Those educated in the early (Catholic) Church might call it Roman imperialism. Regardless of what the Church would like you to believe, it’s total BS and thinking rational people should know better than to fall for it.
@@scottgoulette8900 There are seven Sacrament in our Catholic religion.
@@scottgoulette8900 Well look at all the good things Colonialism brought to other countries: sanitation, civil service, hospitals, railways, education, engineering, clean water... yep Colonialism isn't that bad after all. 😉
An interesting and respectful discussion. I enjoyed that and learned a lot.
*JESUS AND THE APOSTLES NEVER QUOTE THE "APOCRYPHAL"?*
Frank repeatedly states that neither Jesus nor the Apostles cited the Deuterocanonicals, which he calls "apocryphal", but this is not true, I could demonstrate this with loose quotations, but I prefer to do this exclusively with the book of Sirach, since this is the clearest book in this regard, and was undeniably cited by Jesus and his Apostles, here are the comparisons:
__________________________________________
Sirach: "All wisdom is from the Lord God, and has always been with him, and is before all time."
(Sirach I, 1)
Saint John the Apostle: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was with God in the beginning."
(John I, 1-2)
No one can deny the obvious parallel and citation in this passage, as verse 5 of Sirach goes so far as to say the following in verse 5: " *The Word of God* on high is the source of wisdom, whose steps are eternal commandments." (Sirach I, 5), yes friends, Saint John calls God the Son "Word of God" *with the book of Sirach in mind*
__________________________________________
Sirach: "Do not choose to be verbose among a multitude of elders, and you should not repeat the words of your prayers."
(Sirach 7,15)
Jesus: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
(Matthew 6,7)
__________________________________________
Sirach: "I [the wisdom] am the mother of the beauty of love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. All grace of *the way* and of *the truth* is in me. All hope of *life* and of virtue is in me"
(Sirach 24,24-25)
Jesus: "Jesus said to him: 'I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.' "
(John 14,6)
__________________________________________
Sirach: "Journey toward me, all you who desire me, and be filled by my harvest. For my spirit is sweeter than honey, and my inheritance is better than the honeycomb."
(Sirach 24,26-27)
Jesus: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
(Matthew 11,28-30)
__________________________________________
Sirach: "Whoever consumes me will hunger still. And whoever drinks me will thirst still."
(Sirach 24,29)
Jesus: "Then Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
(John 6,35)
Some may ask "but why does Jesus say the exact opposite of what is written in the book of Sirach?
My answer is: since the Incarnation of the Word had not yet occurred, people would still be hungry and thirsty, but with the Incarnation of the Word, this would no longer happen, even if you believe that there is a better explanation for this difference, it is undeniable that Jesus *had the book of Sirach in mind when he said those words in John 6* any attempt to deny this is extremely forced and unnatural in light of the text.
__________________________________________
With this exposition we realize that Jesus and Apostles did quote the deuterocanonical texts, called "apocryphal" by Frank, I could quote other texts (such as one in which Saint Paul quotes II Maccabees), but for the sake of brevity I will not do that, to the Protestant reader who followed this comment until the end, i strongly recommend you to reflect very carefully on your current position about this, because such a precise book with true prophecies of Jesus being called "apocryphal" is really a serious accusation, I just ask that you think twice before calling the holy work inspired by the Spirit of God of "apocrypha", Christ be with you.
Wow thats really great info brother 💯👍🏼
I'm going to screenshot this info, & make sure I have this info at home. Bc I love to studying church history, & listening to all sides of the arguments, trying my hardest not to be biased. I listen to Gary Michuta from @Apocrypha Apocalypse, & William from @Patristic Pillars.
So I know if Frank had an educated Catholic asking those same questions to him. He wouldn't be able to get away using those same fallacies.
Idk why a lot of more protestant don't catch his fallacies, or how he uses false dichotomies to, bc Frank is not consistent in his arguments.
He even said when Luther debated about prayers to the Saints in the Bible alone.
Frank says the Catholic brings up the book of Maccabees, & says yes it's in the Bible alone.
So Frank says Luther said Maccabees is not in the Bible, then he says the Catholic said= well now it's in the Bible.
But that's such a strawman argument 💯 & more Protestants need to see these fallacies.
So Frank is not consistent with his own position. Bc he will say, how one man like Arius = Arianism, doesn't have any authority over the church.
But then he will use one man like Jerome, & say these books are not apocryphal, as historical evidence. Then he'll use one man 1600 yrs later = M. Luther to reject the authority of the church. But then say see these two men agree with each, therefore the Apocrypha cannot be canonical books. Thats not how evidence works though 🤦🏻♂️.
As if we're just supposed to follow two men in history, to tell us what goes in the Bible alone, as if they have authority over the church, or any church for that matter.
Bc "IF" Catholicism is the one true church of Jesus Christ, then no one man has the authority, to change any teachings in the one true church of Jesus Christ.
But yet prots do it with Martin Luther, as authoritative for historical evidence.
But then in the same breath they will say, one man (the Pope) doesn't have authority over the church.
It's hypocrisy💯 And I see it👍🏼 I pray more people see this as well.
God bless u brother 🙏🏼💯☦
So thanks for the info, 👍🏼💯 Lord bless u & guide u on your spiritual journey 🙏🏼💯☦
“Discover what should be in the cannon.” Like the Koran and the book of Mormon? How does one know what’s canonical or not? Your particular sect that you like best? Cause any test you press forward on this will equally apply to other books.
Even the test here applies to the Koran or Book of Mormon. That’s either damning to your evidence or enlightening. Just gotta put your thinking cap on here!
I've opened the Bible quite a number of times but never discovered the Quran or the Book of Mormon inside it.
Did Jesus or the disciples quote from those?
@@29th. so no on the thinking cap, eh?
@@ericwantsbbd Pass, I use my brain to think.
@@francismarion6400 you’re aware of how time works?
Catholicism is Christ’s bride, the Church-the fullness of truth.
Satan attempt to Mimicking Christianity.
No that's incorrect , Born-again Christians are, they are his bride, the church, not a Goddess worshipping religion, I'm sorry you're deceived
@@kristophstjames4143 The fact that you think we worship Mary highlights your misunderstanding of the Church.
@@Imfromtheyear3452 I know, I've never met one Catholic that admits their Goddess worship of Mary- you're correct
This was an excellent exchange that really got me to want to look into the topic more. Very interesting!
I love Frank - But this is one that he stumbled on….
Yup