How the REFORMERS Were WRONG about the BIBLE (w/ Gary Michuta)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by the renown expert on the Bible, apologist Gary Michuta from @ApocryphaApocalypse to discuss the Bible. With bucketloads of insight, wisdom, and decades of research and experience Gary explains exactly how the Bible came out of the Catholic Church and why understanding the origins of the Bible is so important when talking to our non-Catholic Christian friends - who love their Bibles!
Gary explains the process used to discern which books of the Bible belonged in the Canon, how this began in the very early Church councils, and why the Bibles supported by the Reformers actually removed books that had originally been in the Bible, accepted by all Christians, all along.
It's a fascinating and informative look at any extremely important area of apologetics - something at the very core of Protestant Christianity.
For more from Gary visit his website where you can buy his fantastic books on this topic: www.garymichuta...
Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thec...
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our TH-cam channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordi...
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, this is fascinating. I am just now learning about this! Very heartening information for Catholics. This plus the Blessed Shroud news makes me even grateful to be Catholic! Praise Jesus❤
Thank you brother in Christ for making a video about this important topic. It is what I called "One of the Many Strong, Affirmative, valid and substantive cases for Catholocism".
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. It was compiled by the Catholic Church.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
Again, thank you very much brother in Christ. God bless you and your ministry.
Ai Bing says: While the Catholic Church did not “create” the Bible, it played a crucial role in compiling, preserving, and transmitting the texts that make up the Bible ...
The Catholic Church SOUNDS like MAGA -- LOTS and LOTS of "Conspiracy Theories" !!! ………………….. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww !!!
@@Chris-t4i:
You do realize, I'm sure, that it is the Catholic Church that tells us that the Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God!
Catholic Sacred Tradition!
PUFFERY ...
@@alhilford2345 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS FOUNDED ON A FALLACY !!!
They FALSELYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY THINK that whatever AUTHORITY the Lod GOD Jesus GAVE to Peter and other Apostles is TRANSFERRABLE !!!
So, those EARLY Catholics GOT VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY EXCITED and started INVENTINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG a document called “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (CCC) which, please TAKE NOTE !!! is BRIMMING with HERESIES like, “The (CCC) states that Mary “did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” (No. 969).
In John 14:13-14, Lord GOD Jesus says, “And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me for anything in My name, I will do it”.
Nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, when those Catholic Priests pray and ASK for THIS and THAT, does GOD “always DO IT”? ……………………….. NOHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!
PROOF THAT IT IS NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TRANSFERRABLE !!! ……………………….. UNDERSTOODDDDDDDDDDDDDD Catholics ???
Yes, Mary’s “intercession” and her ability to “bring … the gifts of eternal salvation” is a BIG FAT HERESYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!
this is a lie. scripture existed prior to the corruption of the roman catholic church with the roman empire. God provided us with scripture. what the roman catholic church defines as the bible is irrelevant.
Thank you so much for mentioning his channel! Everyone needs to go sub to it and binge those videos. They take down all the usual Protestant arguments and objections. The canon is the Achilles heel of sola Scripura and Protestantism.
the cannon existed before the rcc existed.
the ot cannon is Jewish, not rcc.
only rcc recognizes the apocrypha
@@donhaddix3770 Wow, wrong on 3 for 3. You're on a roll!
As I've told you before, the biblical interpretations, beliefs, and practices of the Catholic Church are historically found in 1st and 2nd century AD Christian writings, long before the NT canon had been settled. Have you not read Didache, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus?? When are you finally going to do that?! *When do you think the Catholic Church first came into existence?*
And are you not aware of how many NT books were being disputed up through the 4th century??
Everything existed in the mind of God/Jesus before any church. That proves nothing. The Church has to exist first for the canon to exist in the mind of the Church or of any of its members.
The Christian canon is CHRISTIAN, not Jewish. It is an historical fact that the Pharisees who survived the destruction of Jerusalem removed the Deuteros from their canon at the same time they condemned the gospels/NT. Shall I quote the evidence for you? Your canon is from anti-Christian Jews; the Catholic canon is from the Jews (and Gentiles) who converted to Christianity.
lol, so narrow and ignorant are you that you are unaware of the apostolic Eastern, Oriental, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc. Orthodox churches who ALSO accept the Deuteros as Scripture. It is not just the Catholic Church.
Try to get at least one thing correct next time.
Every statement you just made is false. The Church predated a definitive canon. There was not a single “Jewish canon.” At the time of Christ, there were many judaisms and many corresponding Jewish canons. Watch the Catholic Brothers’ First 500 Years series for more information. Christ and the Apostles primarily used the Septuagint. Later, the Jews not only rejected the deuterocanon but also the New Testament. In addition to Rome, the eastern churches also accept the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.
If you don't mind having the Rabbis decide the OT books of the OT then you are a Protestant.
@@RobertPentangelo ot Jews wrote and formed the ot, not the rcc. wrote the nt as well
Book: "Where We Got The Bible" by the Rev. Henry G. Graham. An easy read, it provides much needed perspective on how the bible as we know it came to be. It also contains Rev. Graham's conversion from the Scottish Presbyterian (Calvinist) Church to the Catholic. Highly recommended.
An excellent book.
I always have it within reach when I'm on TH-cam conversations!
The problem is that my evangelical bretheren won't read these books. They still suffer from centuries of anti-Catholic bias, as though history is purely made up by the Church herself. Sad
@@TheMenghi1 It is surreal that those who supposedly live by scripture alone settle for less scripture. No problem making up what's missing!
@@TheMenghi1 Just ask them to cite (and not subjective opinion):
- who decided their New Testament canon
- when
- where
- and what was their criteria.
Keep in mind, there were over 300 early Christian writings.
- and those who decided the above, at the same time, how many writings did they decide were in the Old Testament?
Fascinating insight around minute 46, where 2nd century Christians had one list of what they could use in apologetics with Jews, and another list of what they themselves might have used within Christian communities! It rings true! I hope there is research that backs this up, but it's the kind of idea that had never occurred to me before! A real "aha" moment! Thank you! Even if there's no historical evidence for it, it makes perfect sense as a theory.
Gary Michuta is fab 🩵
Many thanks and thank you Gary. I have added his channel!
I’m here to comment my support for Gary Michuta and you!
Gary is one of the best 😊
Totally agree. I am being received into the Catholic Church in a few weeks. Once I started to sincerely dive into Catholicism I was truly shocked how wide of the mark my misconceptions were. But the biggest surprise was the beauty and depth unfolding before me became. In falling in love with the Catholic church, the mass, the eucharist , Mary; a deep and real connection to the first believers and each other who are all alive regardless of the dimension we presently dwell. The power of that level of Unity as I am coming to understand and grow is simply amazingly wonderful. I am in love with Jesus all over again, like my first love only with a depth that dwells in my very core. I am now more than Christian, I am bride . So am I Christian !
Welcome home!!! God bless you!!!
Congrats!
I see Gary Michuta; I click😂👏🏽
Agreed!
Beautifully done, whats next guys...long long streams, 1st the women now the queenship-so so worth watching. Loving your work guys
Awesome Gary Mitchuda is awesome
Really appreciate this video.
Saint John said in his epistles that Jesus Christ spoke to them and showed his Apostles more things that ARE NOT WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES,so that proves beyond any doubt that the scriptures are not the only thing that Jesus Christ taught and showed his Apostles which is confirmed by Saint Paul when he said in his epistles that they should hold on and keep the TRADITIONS HANDED ON AND DOWN TO THEM FROM SAINT PAUL AND THE OTHER APOSTLES WETHER IT WAS IN WRITINGS OR IN SPEECH THAT THEY TAUGHT THOSE WHO THEY WERE TEACHING IN THEIR LIFE TIME
Excellent content
Very good point at 42 minutes where Gary says that the heretics didn't push back about the church council using non-scripture!
The early church had the Apocrypha... It was 73 books.
By the near 1600's, it was an era for dramatic change to have it available in English.
The translations from Hebrew / Greek to ENGLISH had little errors.
Than the translation from
Hebrew/Greek to Latin to English
Buy the latest NRSVUE that was the effort in the late 1980's to restore. It's Catholic Bible.
In the time of King James, there were obvious tumult between Catholic and Protestants... Few know, the KJV was a collab between Catholic and non Catholic.
But still there were missing Esdras passages. Why? It didn't suite the interests of the monarchy.
Type missing 70 verses Esdras and you'll be STUNNED.
Even the usage of Dhouay Rheimes Catholic Bible had missing passages.
Missing Books is not the same as missing passages.
Today, the latest nrsvue is an eye opener.... As Scripture says " NOTHING HID WILL NOT BE REVEALED IN THE OPEN".
First look to the one and only Catholic Church for the compilation, preservation, and protection of the Bible for 1500 years. First came Oral then, Oral tradition , then the individual Written accounts, then they were compiled to a single volume.
Then, Look to Luther , Calvin, Cramer and pressure from people like Henry VIII for the changes, additions and deletions to the Bible and Traditions.
NEVER forgetting that The Divine Revelation came from God, the life and Word of Jesus Christ and the inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the Trinity’s Revelation.
If it is so easy to get the "proper interpretation of Scripture" by Augustine's methodology, then why is there so much diversity of interpretive conclusions and arguments among Catholic scholars who align with Augustine's methodology? There are only certain interpretations that the Magisterium has weighed in on definitively, while there are multitudes of varied interpretations that fall under the umbrella of sanctioned Catholic scholarship and debate.
Seriously. God gave us the Bible. Period
How do you know that?
Because the Catholic Church told you so.
@@alhilford2345Arrogant nerd! The Catholic Church didn’t give anyone the Bible. All they did was confirm and close the canon revealed by God. It’s even in the name-the Word of God! Not the Word of the Catholic Church!
But that didn’t stop you guys from adding the apocryphal books early on and then petulantly add the rest in response to Luther’s falling out! Or the occasional pope changing words and verses here and there!
@@Halloweendm the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. They compiled the Bible with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit led the Catholic bishops to chose 73 books. The Bible has had 73 books since the end of the 4th century. They are deuterocanonical books inspired by God when written.
I converted to Catholicism from studying a Protestant Bible. But I prayed for truth. You probably will say God is wrong. I studied Catholicism beliefs and early church history before I went to a Catholic church to inquire about becoming Catholic.
You Protestants show your pride. You have hardened heart towards God and His Word.
@Halloweendm that's stupid reasoning to say God gave us the Bible, which is true! we know God did but how did God do this is the response that you are neglecting, example..who wrote the constitution of the U.S.A.? If you say people or even say humans wrote it, that is true but specifically the father's of the nation wrote the declaration..same with the Bible the church took command inspired by the holy spirit to write and compiled the book...and it was the catholic church. .or which other church was alive back then other than the catholic church...
God works his agency through men, through his Church. In fact, God makes numerous claims and promises of his Church. And because of God's claims, you can trust that the canon of scripture that the Church declared 1600 years ago is 100% right. No need to follow fallible Catholic men 500 years ago who claimed that the Church errored and didn't know it. They made Jesus out to be undependable and a liar. He FAILED and failed miserably to lead his Church to ALL TRUTH.
Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18)
Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18)
Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10)
*Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13)
Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20)
Catholics cannot date their canon prior to the end of the fourth century…and even then, the canon lists of Hippo & Carthage are not identical to Trent.
Gary Michuta conceded the Pharisaic school of Hillel had the identical canon Protestants had, which he also conceded this was the canon Rabbi Akiba adopted, as well as his protege Aquila. Lee Martin McDonald conceded the apostle Paul was from this same Pharisaic school, thus embracing the same canon as later Protestants.
Baba Bathra 14b (second century) has these same books.
Epiphanius from the fourth century had access to the Greek version of Jubilees, which was a translation from the Hebrew in the first century BC which enumerated the Jewish canon to 22 books - the same number Josephus enumerated in the first century. These 22 books are the same books in Protestant OTs and the Pharisaic school of Hillel.
So the Protestant & Jewish canons are far older than the Catholic canon.
@@BornAgainRN That's what i am talking about man of God. You just hit it straight on the head, the book Acts of Apostles 28 can help him better if he is willing to learn more about Protestantism
@@BornAgainRN Beautiful explaination man of God
The Protestant canon or anything else Protestant can't be older than anything Catholic. It grew out of radical clerics who broke with the Church which already existed for a millineum and a half.
@@TheMenghi1You need to go back to high school, your math isn’t mathing.
Your Catholic Church didn’t form until the late 4th century, say about 390AD. Martin Luther led the Protestant departure from the Catholic Church around 1540AD; so, your church is actually less than 1200 years in existence. Yours isn’t the church Christ started-you all just jumped into the mix when the Roman Empire fell and made a mess of Christianity with no Christ or apostles to condemn all the sin in your church!
😂 you must be kidding
If the Catholic Church gave us the Bible and teaches that Divine Tradition holds the same authority as the Bible, why hasn't the Church provided a compiled 'deposit of Divine Tradition' in the form of a collection of books, similar to the Bible? Additionally, why hasn't the Church given us a complete list of the authors of Divine Tradition?
If God is good, why bad thing happen?
@@zeektm1762 I'll take a shot at answering your question from my Christian worldview:
I believe God has given humans free will, allowing them to make their own choices. This freedom is essential for genuine love and moral responsibility, but it also means that people can choose to do evil.
The world was originally created good, but the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and suffering into the world. This original sin has affected all of creation, leading to the presence of evil and suffering. Sin returns corruption.
My positive attitude looks at how suffering can have a purpose, such as building character, fostering dependence on God, or bringing about a greater good that may not be immediately apparent. Romans 8:28 states, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose”.
I acknowledge that God’s ways are beyond human understanding. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”.
Ultimately, with the hope of redemption and the promise of eternal life. God will one day make all things right and the present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed (Romans 8:18).
@@zeektm1762 I'll take a shot at answering your question from my Christian worldview:
I believe God has given humans free will, allowing them to make their own choices. This freedom is essential for genuine love and moral responsibility, but it also means that people can choose to do evil.
The world was originally created good, but the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and suffering into the world. This original sin has affected all of creation, leading to the presence of evil and suffering. Sin returns corruption.
My positive attitude looks at how suffering can have a purpose, such as building character, fostering dependence on God, or bringing about a greater good that may not be immediately apparent. Romans 8:28 states, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose”.
I acknowledge that God’s ways are beyond human understanding. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”.
Ultimately, with the hope of redemption and the promise of eternal life. God will one day make all things right and the present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed (Romans 8:18).
@@zeektm1762 I'll take a shot at answering your question from my Christian worldview:
I believe God has given humans free will, allowing them to make their own choices. This freedom is essential for genuine love and moral responsibility, but it also means that people can choose to do evil.
The world was originally created good, but the fall of Adam and Eve introduced sin and suffering into the world. This original sin has affected all of creation, leading to the presence of evil and suffering. Sin returns corruption.
My positive attitude looks at how suffering can have a purpose, such as building character, fostering dependence on God, or bringing about a greater good that may not be immediately apparent. Romans 8:28 states, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose”.
I acknowledge that God’s ways are beyond human understanding. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”.
Ultimately, with the hope of redemption and the promise of eternal life. God will one day make all things right and the present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed (Romans 8:18).
They did...
Luther and Calvin were also for a time basing their understanding of "the Bible" just on what they had always called the Bible in their Catholic upbringings and culture. Once they did more research and gave it more thought, they apparently came to different conclusions. This is like Catholics in syncretistic contexts who grow up thinking of certain spiritist or animist practices, or superstitions, as being Catholic ones, but later realize that they should reject those things as contrary to good Catholic teaching.
Problem with your theory is that the Protestants threw out the baby with the bath water. Also, don't forget that the parts are never greater than the whole, the problem with protestantism. Remember, the Protestant church tried to piggy back off the Church, which is always open to errors. Don't forget that reformation always existed in the church. Look at the religious orders, they have various iterations of living their rule and charism.
God came up with it > Holy Spirit inspired 40 authors to put ink to page > Catholics canonized it (incorrectly) > Protestants translated and then massed produced printed Bibles.
Thats how it happened. All glory to God, and thank you to all other parties involved 🙏
Canonized it incorrectly?? So for 1500 yrs we had a flawed bible until Protestantism began, Talk sense christa
@@Sentinal6405 Credit where credit is due. But really, all the Glory should go to God. God brought us the Bible.
@@christafarion9We all give Glory to God for or everything but concerning the bible we give glory for the Catholic Church he founded who in turn gave us the bible. I wonder why you said was incorrectly canonized and you should know St Jerome translated the bible from Greek to Latin the common language of the day . Protestants only translated it into the vernacular Credit goes to science for the invention of the printing press for the mass production not to Protestants
@@Sentinal6405 okay 👍
@@christafarion9🙏
Not only the Canonical Books, but the Reformers were wrong about virtually everything…lol.
Which one? There are four different canons used in the Catholic Church today: the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint Greek, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Ethiopian Ge'ez.
Apologetics is so tedious, and not very enlightening.
It is most disturbing to learn of Luther’s mind, while he lived in a Catholic monastery. He was rebuked by his confessor for going to confession every day, listing his ‘sins’. He was profoundly scrupulous, a Sepulcian priest, - those who teach in seminaries, that inflicted with scruples is first step into insanity.
Protestants should take time where Luther spent his time reflecting and composing his 95 theses.
He could not debate theologian Ek with doctrine, but with polemics.
He should never have been a priest to begin with. This is the fault at the time of the Church. He should have followed his father's words and become a lawyer.
❤
🙏
sorry Tynedale..
I love how Paul's first chapter of First Corinthians tells about early Christians some of whom said they followed Peter while others followed other Apostles or said they followed Christ. There, Paul exalts Christ over the apostles. The chapter concludes by saying that the one who boasts should boast in the Lord (quoting OT, BTW). In Chapter 3, Paul is still continuing this message, and then in 3.21-23 he makes the strong point that Apollos and Paul and Peter belong to all of us, even to those who aren't of the group that says "I follow Peter." I conclude from this, that even those who don't consider Peter to be the first Pope still have Peter as ours, and even those who claim to have Peter as the first Pope, still have Apollos and Paul as long as those followers are followers of Christ first and foremost! For all who trust in Christ, we lack nothing and we lack nobody. It's not as though I were missing out on Peter or any of the other church fathers or councils just for not identifying as a Catholic in the modern institutional religious landscape.
The Christians of the first century were confused, hearing the teachings of Christ for the first time, and immersed in their own Jewish or other faiths.
It's understandable that they could not immediately comprehend the concept of Our Lord's sacrifice, death, resurrection and it's consequences.
We have had almost two thousand years to digest the events of the Scripture.
We have the truth before us, and must decide whether to be part of the one Church that Our Lord established, or a man-made heretical denomation.
Nicely done, however, they ignore Catholics that didn’t agree with the deuteronomical being primary scripture. It is why they needed the council of Trent and even there a substantial group of Catholics voted against the canon with Catholics opposing the deuteronomical books. When books are controversial, they shouldn’t be included.
The "Catholics" that didn't agree with the deuteronomial books, just like those who didn't agree with the Eucharist, generational in baptism, etc, were heretics. They fell by the wayside many centuries before Trident had to revisit the canon due to the Protestant Reformation.
"Catholics that didn’t agree with the deuteronomical being primary scripture."
Which Catholics, when?
"It is why they needed the council of Trent"
Again, who is THEY?
"even there a substantial group of Catholics voted against the canon"
Be specific. Who was this "substantial group??"
"When books are controversial, they shouldn’t be included."
Who decides what is controversial?
Numerous writings have been "controversial" in some way or another.
- 1600 years ago, among others, Hebrews and Revelation were "controversial" (we don't even know for sure who wrote Hebrews)
- 500 years ago, Father Luther held James, Revelation, and 7 Old Testament writings to be "controversial"
He has just burnt his strawman can't name anything because no one to name 😅
@@Sentinal6405 True. Protestantism often falls apart - and sometimes silent - when reasonable questions are asked.
Some of the best presentations about how we got our Bible are those given by Tim Mackie. There are some on TH-cam from August of 2017.
If you want I can tell you how the catholic religion twisted the teachings of the bible
Nah, we’re all good.
Don't bother, Eddy.
Don't waste your time.
We have read enough of your posted comments to know that everything that you say about the Catholic Church is pure heresy.
@@alhilford2345 Thinking that my comment is heresy is because you don’t know your bible
@@alhilford2345Really? Cause there’s half a dozen different heresies most Christians could name at the drop of a hat that you Catholics rely upon that are not just unbiblical but antibiblical!
@@Halloweendmhow can the Catholic Church teach heresy when scripture CLEARLY says the Catholic Church is INFALLIBLE in ALL its teachings?? 🙄
The Bible Society has an account of something that happened in Spain a few centuries ago, when a colporter dropped off a Gospel of Luke in one town. (This account as told in a late 1980's training video presented by Gabino Fernandez Campos of Spain's branch of the Bible Society.) Few in the town were literate, but they started reading the Gospel of Luke in the vernacular, and having audible readings in groups with illiterate people, whether in houses or elsewhere. The people soaked it in, and weren't content to just hear a few chapters, and kept returning for more. In time, there were transformations in how people behaved. The town drunk sobered up. People who were sad, mean or cold towards one another, started being pleasant, friendly, and cheerful. People were more honest and there was less crime, less gossip, less division, and less bickering and complaining. The town's Catholic priest was totally on board with this, and was experiencing transformation himself, as well as rejoicing over the godly changes in the town. (He may or may not have had a Bible, but if he did, it was sure to have been in Latin, and he had little or no training in biblical studies through his theological and clerical formation/ training / education.) Realizing how blessed they were through the readings of the Gospel of Luke, they got together and had a literate person pen a letter to Luke which they sent off to the post office with no location address. The post office delivered it to the central postmaster in Madrid, who opened and read the letter, not knowing how to deliver it. It read something like this: "Dear Mr. Luke, we have read your book The Gospel, and our town has greatly benefitted ... (elaborations) ... Seeing how we gained so much from what you penned, we wonder if you have written any other books that we could acquire and read. ..." The postmaster didn't know Mr. Luke or his address, but got in touch with a Protestant who knew what they were talking about. The Protestant leadership sent someone to that town to explain to them that Luke had been dead for over 1500 years, but they could read his book of Acts. and many more books of the Bible! In talking about the power of the Bible to transform lives and be the written message of God for humanity, the Reformers were not wrong.
The Bible has and will always be lived in the readings during the Mass. You act as though Catholics didn't hear the Gospel because they didn't have their own copies. You have to go back to the 16th century with the Guttenberg press being invented. Prior to that, making copies of the Scriptures was prohibitive.
👍
I don't know that the Bible is designed as a "final arbiter of disputes" when God put it together. If that's the point of this video, that many Catholic early church fathers and later Protestant Reformers viewed the Bible primarily as an arbiter of disputes, when it was never meant to be that at all, then I am on board with this video.
The main problem with Luther quoting deuterocanonical books to confirm doctrine is not that he was hypocritical, but that it all became a big argument over doctrine. But it is an ancient rhetorical strategy to quote an opponent's own works in order to show them a fallacy in their thinking, even if the person correcting the fallacy does not confide in the opponent's works being thus used. This happens when Christians point out things in the Koran that work against Islamic doctrine, or when Catholics point out things in the New World Translation (JW Bible) that lend support to the Trinity, etc.
Looks like Gary has lost weight!
You have a serious problem asking where the bible came from, because not even that guy with you in the studio also has a force information about the bible. He will only give you what you what he also thinks what is right for you according to your imagination.
What is right then? What’s the “force information”?
@@TheCordialCatholic The catholic only transfered the information from the scrolls to the bible while doing that they also added their own information with which they are busy misleading the innocent souls to hell. For example they tell you about Mary the mother of Jesus being one to pray to instead of Jesus. There is only one God and one midiator His Son Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. That's what Jesus tought to the deciples and the apostles. You left evangelism and joined the cult that focuses on traditio and not biblical ones rather men tradition . You no longer have the right to share the gospel of Christ. Look at what the so called true church is spreading now und the man known as the vicar of Christ? Is that gospel? Do the digging and see yourself the sexual abuse by the so called priest, yet every Sunday you go to confess your sins to them. The took their vows like it's really God's calling while they sleep around more than you who are legally married. Go find out how many children they have behind the curtain. My own late cousin left two, the late bishop of the same diocese also left 4. Another one from our home area has two now. So stop deceiving yourself that you made the right decision. Focus on being a Christian ie Jesus Christ believer. I have always wondered many people saying am proud to be a Catholic instead of being proud to be a Christian. You have been misled by the name Catholic and the do called tradition. The Catholic is there to mislead and control the world, no deference with Islam, check in one of their catekisim they are in relationship with Muslims
@@VICTORCHIRWA Perhaps before claiming Christianity consider asking yourself if you really are one Christians do not bear false witness Do not lie and do not commit Calumny , You have done all . Study your comments carefully
@@VICTORCHIRWAAnd while you're about it try and research simple Christian history may assist you from making idiotic remarks
So Augustine looks to which books the churches were using, and the churches basically looked to which books the Jews (like Paul and Jesus) were using, plus the NT books. But that doesn't go to the core matter about what criteria the Jews used to form the pre-NT canon, and basically the Catholics are about as much enlightened or in-the-dark about that as the later Protestants and modern Jews are. That's why it's nice to have the scholarship and communication skills of folks like Tim Mackie to teach us about those things. It is really hard to point to anything like an "original manuscript" of a book like Jeremiah or Isaiah. Those books were almost certainly at least the second edition, if not perhaps the twentieth or fiftieth editions, or anthologies of prior works that got put together. A whole lot of editing and insight and inspiration went on for those works we have today, not just one man or woman sitting down at a table and writing a book like that from start to finish. We also may have inspired books in multiple manuscript traditions at the same time, such as when we look at Aramaic NT books, or when we compare the Peshitic, Masoretic, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. The whole process of looking at them together under the illumination that the Holy Spirit brings, and in fellowship as diversely gifted disciples of Christ, is all part of what God wants to use in our lives to shape us as His children and use us in being a light to the world! That is what the early Apostles seemed to have done, and they passed on to us that we are to do the same. See, for instance, Paul's exhortation to Timothy about the Scriptures, or the examples of the sermons, or Jesus' command to study the Scriptures, ... this is all a living process in addition to it being a static canon, just as a human body has both skeleton (fixed structure) and organs (organic function/process), ... or just as the human body has both anatomy and physiology. As the body of Christ we are similarly created by God to have fluid growth (Spirit-led) at the same time that we have rigid standards (Spirit-set). I borrow somewhat from Christian Schwarz's Natural Church Development model.
I’m certainly glad Tim Mackie came to save the day.
Around minute 53, a NT reference to Maccabees is pointed out, but Heiser's work shows that there are at least several references to Enoch, and there is reference in Jude to Enoch, yet Enoch is not canonical for Catholics. Heiser says, "Guess what, people in that culture read books, and didn't just read the Bible."
apocrypha is gnostic
the roman catholic church persists in this self-serving error that they provided the bible to the world. the scriptures have been provided to us by God himself. scriptures already existed, and the watermark (date) beginning of the corruption of the Christian church into the roman catholic church is questionable anyway.
Please explain to me where the Christians you speak of existed PRIOR to the Reformation. Where did they congregate to pray? Who were their leaders? Thank you
@@TheMenghi1 the original church began it's compromises with the roman empire, probably in the late 4th century, certainly early 5th century with the acceptance of the 4 doctrines of mariology in a pagan compromise with rome for mutual political gains. the scriptures already existed, so the consolidation of the "bible" by the existing church is presenting the bible to the world. this also denies that God had anything to do with presenting His word to us. the roman catholic church has since created many false doctrines, many established if not hundreds of years after Christ's life on earth, more likely at least 1,000 years after Christ. the "real" Christians are not saved by their leadership, nor which building they congregate in.
@@manuelpompa-u5e:
Not true.
The Church was established in 33AD, and, by the year 107AD, was already known as the "Catholic Church".
It's a historical fact!
" the scriptures have been provided to us by God himself. "
God works his agency through men, through his Church.
@@alhilford2345 actually this is false, as the word "catholic" was not even mentioned until the 2nd century.
Mike Heiser did not regard the book of Enoch (one of the books of Enoch) as Scripture, yet he used it quite frequently to back up his theology and biblical understanding. I take the same approach when I read scholarly books that tell me about ancient near east culture. I don't regard those works as Scripture, nor do I hold the same views as all those ANE people groups, but it sure does a lot to help in my theological formation and biblical understanding. We are foolish to think that the only theological formation and biblical understanding we can get is only found in the Bible itself (or even in Catholic tradition), and not from other sources that help us learn and grow. It's especially true when those other sources are helping us learn and grow in biblical knowledge and application. Most Protestants I know agree with that way of valuing (giving importance to) tradition and new information, much of which may go back to Jewish and ancient traditions that pre-date the Gentile Catholic church fathers, but were part of Jesus' and Apostolic Jewish tradition. A lot of tradition that Jesus and the Apostles recognized and included got lost along the way once most of the western church consisted of only Gentile-background believers. That unfortunate loss had a huge impact on both western Catholics and western Reformers. There is a chance to recover those golden nuggets today, and use them to enlighten our theology and biblical interpretation.
Gnosticism
The presence of references or allusions in the NT doesn't affirm those books alluded to, not because that criterion is totally arbitrary (it's not), but because that criterion is only one of several that received consideration at the Councils (Councils per Wikipedia are several in number: AD 382, 393, etc.). The same is true of the Reformers. I am at about minute 12 in the video when posting this comment.
Can you provide a direct citation to the criteria used to determine canonicity at these councils? Where are you getting this knowledge directly that these councils used quotations as a factor to determine canonicity? Either way, several Protocanonical books fail to meet this criteria too.
These guys are either lying or don't know the scripture. Eloi eloi is from psalms.
So you wise guy no more than them Your comment shows don't
That the Bible put itself together by self-referencing? That would be very hard for anyone to try and explain. I don't think Protestant Reformers try to do that when it comes to the formation of the Tenakh or the New Testament. One of the reasons bolstering the acceptance of the Bible is the unity and inter-referencing, but that is a post-compilation observation, not a description of how it got put together. Nobody claims that the Book of Job is in the Bible because the Book of Deuteronomy refers to it, for instance. Though one might say that the conversion of Gentiles through the use of Israelites called to speak God's word to them, well, yes, that is a good thing to point out. Deuteronomy (among other OT books) sets the stage for that, and Job is a related narrative. But I don't recall hearing that the Jews argued that Job should be in the Tenakh based merely on it being a narrative related to books in the Torah in that sense. They really viewed the book of Job as having been inspired by God, and sacred in its nature, worthy of preservation and inclusion.
If the Bible was more clear and if God was more active these endless discussions would be totally unnecessary. An omniscient and all powerful God should be able to lead all truth loving Christians to the true church. You perhaps believe that people knowingly choose to stay in heresies. Many Jehova's Witnesses were executed in concentration camps during the second world war. They were executed because they refused to stop preaching to their fellow prisoners. They would not have ended up in concentration camps if they had been Catholics or members of the Orthodox Church.
They were heretics because God was either unwilling or unable to talk to them and lead them to the true church. They were heretics without knowing that they were heretics and now they are burning in hell.
"Many Jehova's Witnesses were executed in concentration camps during the second world war."
Many other Christians died for their faith, no less many priests.
"You perhaps believe that people knowingly choose to stay in heresies."
When one decapitates scripture from the faith from which it came, the result is doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division. Witnesses for example really don't follow scripture and how it was understood for 2000 years, they follow a group of 9 men who decide for them how it is to be understood. And these 9 men are admittedly fallible and not inspired. Their doctrine does change. What was true, is now false. As examples, Witnesses are no longer the Locusts in Joel, Jesus is no longer to be worshiped, and heaven is limited to 144,000 (which is taken literally, while scripture itself describes this group as celibate Israelite men ... that's figurative! Go figure!!
Yes the infallible Pope Francis is right: religions lead to God
He was not infallible when he said that. Why did you not learn about the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility before making this comment?
Pope Francis has never spoken infallibly.
I was the orthodox Church but whatever.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Yes the Catholic church is orthodox.
The NT Apostles and NT-era bishops came a considerably long time after the OT-era Jewish traditions and decisions that established most of what we today call the biblical canon. Yes, we can trace certain things back to Catholic bishops and the Apostles of Jesus (the Reformers do the same), but then we shouldn't stop there, because their decisions were based on a work of the Holy Spirit that goes way back at least to the time of Moses, if not earlier in the case of a book like Job. This video lacks that expression of awe over what the Holy Spirit was doing in the formation of our canon long before the days of Jesus' earthly ministry.
Unfortunately, the Old Testament Canon was still not established when the New Testament apostles were alive and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Keep doing research Glenn. Peace be with you, brother. ⛪️🙏🏼✝️😃🕊️📖
Imagine criticizing a video because it doesn’t “feel” aweful 😂
St. Clement of Rome appealed to the story of the Phoenix in one of his epistles to the Corinthians. That doesn't make the Phoenix story divinely inspired or true. Clement's point was not to teach the Corinthians that the Phoenix story was true, but to convey a concept about godly thinking and living. Had St. Clement later realized that the Phoenix story wasn't true, he may have regretted including it, but it wouldn't have changed the point of his message. Historical Apostles and Reformers may likewise have used certain writings in their arguments that they later came to regret having used, once they realized maybe something wasn't right about it. St. Peter at one time (after the resurrection of Christ) refused to eat with Gentiles, and he was likely basing it on the book of Jubilees, which he probably did not consider to be canonical. I say this because Luther seems to have had ambiguous or developing views about some deuterocanonical works, but to say that he is only human like St. Peter, St. Clement, and others, and subject to changing his mind and saying things he later regretted, as well as being subject to using things in ways that are fitting for one context, but would not be fitting in every context.
There seems to be something missing from the conversation so far (I'm at about twenty-two minutes through). Just because early churches and Jesus used the Septuagint, does not mean that they revered every book in the Septuagint as sacred scripture on par with the Tenakh. I can read a Bible that includes commentaries in it, while discerning that even if many many churches use that same Bible, we all know when using it which parts are the canon and which parts are the additional non-canonical writings included in the collection. Isn't it quite possible that the fourth century Gentile church leaders, once detached from Judaism, failed to be aware of such a distinction likely part of the common knowledge of Jewish Jesus and the Jewish Apostles, and simply assumed that because certain books were in their Jewish Septuagint collections that they also looked at all those books as of equal stock and value in God's kingdom? Don't the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, include works that the Catholics do not consider canonical, even though those books are in the Dead Sea collections? Should Catholics now add to the canon based on what was found on Qumram? ... adding after original post: There are books of the Septuagint which are not included in the Catholic Bible - third and fourth Maccabees, and First and Second Esdras. There also are DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) which are not in the Catholic canon. I think the way the DSS discovery changed arguments about the canonicity is poorly presented in this video; there is a lot more nuance to it, and the change is on a fairly narrow point, not a broad sweeping rebuttal to the canonicity arguments in either direction. I could be wrong about what changed, but I believe I'm right that if someone wants a good explanation of what changed, this video is not the place to find it.
It was the Holy Spirit that led the Catholic Church to determine, in AD 382, which books are Scripture.
You should watch Gary Michuta’s videos and re-watch this video. I agree, the LXX does not perfectly align with the Catholic bible. It does have non-canonical books in it. This is, in my opinion, even worse for the Protestant case. The Jewish literature at the time was even LARGER, and they have stripped away not only the margins, but some of the books that the earliest apologists used as divine scripture too!
Esther is referred to in the NT in John 5:1. "The only feast on Shabbat between AD 25 and AD 35 was Purim, AD 28." citation from Bibloscope. Plus there are numerous biblical motifs from other parts of the Bible that come up in Esther, such as falling into one's own trap, God saving a remnant from captivity, Gentile rulers honoring God and God's people, etc. One for Israel ministry compares it to approaching the throne of grace when the king (Jesus) could kill us for being in his holy presence, ... and the creation of a new law that does not void the old one, but does overpower the old one, ... the raising up of Esther from orphan to queen and of Mordecai from death row to great honor, ... themes in I Samuel 2.7-8 also reflected in Mary's Magnificat.
I will watch the video later. Just wanted to mention that it was reading the Bible that caused me to convert to Catholicism. I had read the Bible for years, was Presbyterian for 55 years when I converted. I used a NIV or NRSV Bible and saw the authority of the Church over my Protestant understanding that scripture was the authority. So I had to go where the truth was. Which was Catholicism.
I just watched your older video with Kenny Burchard on the saints and was great!
Wonderful.
Maybe for the sake of those who might not understand how to understand the word Tradition. It is very important to know that it is
not just like cultural traditions we have and which are different in other cultures. We are talking here about Sacred Tradition with a capital T.
Those Traditions are the oral teachings of the Apostles .
Then it wasn’t the Holy Bible you were reading. Or you fell asleep reading it and didn’t finish! No one reading the Bible and keeping it in their heart and mind would turn to the Catholic Church!
@@Halloweendm you are speaking exactly word for word, the words (mantra) of the enemies of the Church .
You would not have had ANY Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. Therefore the bible is Catholic. What ever you all did to it is your problem.
To start with , the bible is NOT a novel which you just read from beginning to end. Nobody does that and it would make no sense unless you have teachers who explain things to you. Those times were different. Unless you know the history of that area and how things are written according to how people would understand it then, you would not understand it.
First of all ,you have to understand the OLD Testament . Why? Because it prophecies what is going to happen during New Testament times.
Second of all ,the New Testament fulfils the OLD Testament .
Thirdly, you have to know HOW to read the Scriptures .
there are two SENSES.
One is LITERAL : meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and -discovered by exegesis -following the rules of sound interpretation.
THE other one is SPIRITUAL: meaning allegorical , moral, anagogical.
The TOOLS for interpretation of the bible are:
Sacred Tradition: Oral Teachings of the apostles
and
Magisterium : the official teaching authority of the church, constituted by the Pope and the bishops in union with him. It's authority comes from christ and it's guidance comes from the Holy spirit.
Therefore we have 3 legs to the stool .
The Bible
Sacred Tradition
Magisterium.
You only have the Bible and each one of you understands it differently, therefore the result is thousands of different churches while HE only instituted ONE. That is the Catholic Church. Catholic means Universal in Greek. Christ came for all of us that is why it is Universal.
@@ilonkastille2993 You arrogant little Satan worshipper! One nauseating thing your false church does just about more than anything else is take credit for the Bible! Your false church didn’t even exist when the Bible was completed. It would be centuries after the last book was written before your unholy church showed up! All your council did was confirm and close the canon of the Bible! As much as you charlatans would like it to be so, the book is called the Word of God, not the Word of the Catholics!
You arrogant snakes! You dare to take credit for the work God did in bringing His Word into the world?! Blasphemy and heresy all rolled into one putrid package! Begone thot of the devil!
The extra books in the catholic Bible Clearly Contradict basic teachings of the Bible and that's why they are not part of the acceptable 66 Sacred Canon of Scripture. The book of Maccabees talks about praying for souls of dead soldiers. The Bible Clearly 🚫 forbid that. Ecclesiastes 9 : 5, 6 ,10 the dead Knows Nothing! Other books not in the Sacred 66 teaches spiritism and witchcraft and the Bible Clearly teaches that witchcraft, communicating with the dead are strictly FORBIDDEN 🚫 by God! We do well to stick to the 66 Sacred Scriptures books inspired by God. The other books can be read for pleasure or similar to Greek mythology and literature But Not as Sacred Scriptures!.
I read them all. Interesting reading but Most Definitely Not Sacred Scriptures! God be with you all and save you all with the precious blood of Jesus! In Jesus Most Precious and Most Holy and Most Blessed and Most Beautiful and Most Powerful name Way way Way above All other names 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 Amen 🙏 !!!!!!!
Wait a minute. The “extra” books contradict Scripture? Those “extra” books were considered Scripture as early as the 4th century.
@@TheCordialCatholic Yes so why were they Not considered Scriptures in the1st century when disciples and the apostles were Still alive or their children or grandchildren were Still around. 3 or 4 hundred years later heresies and false doctrines were plaguing the church just as Jesus, Peter and Paul predicted would happen. And It is quite obvious to Anyone who reads the Extra books and compares the doctrines/ teachings of those extra books with the teachings/ doctrines of the 66 recognized Sacred Scriptures that contradiction abound. They can't both be right. It's either a rainy day or a non rainy day. A snowy day or a non snowy day . They can't both be true At the same time. Either the 66 books are divinely inspired or the extra books. They can't be both divinely inspired And Contradict each other! May God gives us all wisdom to choose Wisely His Holy Word to read, study and to put in practice 🙏! In Jesus Most Precious and Most Wonderful and Most Beautiful and Most Holy and Most Blessed name way way Way above All other names 🙏 Amen 🙏!
@@michaelstanley4873 You are putting the carty before the horse. The Church selects and ratifies the canon under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It convened councils just for that purpose. Your attempt to attack Catholic doctrine is out of sequential order. If the Church selects the canon as mentioned, how is the doctrine understood by that Church in error? Where were the protestants of that era? Why was purgatory, the communion of Saints, belief in the Holy Eucharist contradicted or not practiced. You might try to quote some of the ancient Fathers of the Church, but they were all Catholic.
"The book of Maccabees talks about praying for souls of dead soldiers."
You start with your protestant exegesis lens and judge the writing by your lens, decapitating scripture from the Church from which scripture comes. Rather, start with the teaching of the Church - which existed 1500+ years before protestantism - and from which scripture comes, the same Church that decided the canon itself, that copied and translated the text, and guarded its meaning. So when you reject intercessory prayer, the Church says that's its your interpretation of scripture which is in error.
@@michaelstanley4873How is it possible to add extra books to a book you have already written? Get real man your church is a Johnny come lately
I think it was the Coptic church
I'm not looking for what church to believe, but which human is actually the Messiah we should trust in. (Obviously the human we should trust in is Jesus, who is also God!) Then all who trust in that Messiah, we all become the church,, his body by virtue of having trusted in the head, and receiving His Spirit!
So why not believe in the Messian when he speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, consuming his substance to be one with Him? Look, for 16 centuries that's what Christians did-- be it in the East and the West. The Protestant Reformers were all over the place when it came to following the time-honored tenets and beliefs of Christianity. I trust the early Chruch such as we read about in the Didache. I trust the Sacred Traditions of the both the East and West.
I think it was the Ethiopian church
I don't know so much about the story of the Bible. What I only know is the that the 66 books in the Bible are the only books apptoved by the scholars not of the catholic scholars and they rejected the 7 books which was added bt the RCC. I am not reading those books which was added by the RCC for I be confused if I will read those books. I believe the scholars that compiled the 66 books wre guided by the Holy Spirit of God. The 7 books added by the RCC might be weitten by false prophets that is why the scholars who approved the 66 books does not want to include in the Bible.
catholic fables
Reformer wrong?? Is words of Jesus Christ?? Which denomination Bible is not words of Almighty God and Jesus Christ??
The Jehovah Witnesses’ bible is not THE Bible! The Catholics don’t have the proper Bible. Mormons too have a bunch of books because they don’t see the Bible as sufficient! Is 3 denominations enough?
_lauging in Greek_
Lord forgive the arrogance of our Catholic brothers.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Don't be concerned for your Catholic brothers, we are very content, knowing that we are in the Church that Our Lord Himself established.
@@alhilford2345 If you are content with the Pontiff denying Christ as the sole path, who am I to disturb you felicity?
Kyrie eleison ☦️
There are rabbinical works that point to Jesus being God, and point to the Messiah being a Joseph figure, etc. etc. I would definitely cite these as apologetics that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, even though I don't count those works as part of the Bible. I think God inspires a lot of people and a lot of messages and thoughts outside of what is recorded in the Bible, but I think like the Church Fathers that when all is said and done, we must use the Bible as the standard against which to test those people and messages to see if they are beneficial in our walk as believers. (or detrimental, or basically neutral). There is no one formula for testing, and the Holy Spirit's role is greater than the role of our intellect, but in some measure the Bible is often setting the path for how to weigh and discern those other people and messages. It's important to get a global familiarity with God's voice and character in the Bible, not just pick out certain verses that seem to refute or support particular ideas. We should be saturating ourselves with who God is and what He desires, through the pages of Scriptures, in accordance with the example of even biblical folk who had been doing the same thing. When Paul wrote his epistles, he did so saturated with the Torah and prophets. When James wrote his epistle, he did so saturated with the teachings of Christ and the book of Proverbs. When Paul was prophesied over by people during his jourmeys, their words were not in the Bible, yet Paul was able to discern their words as inspired by God on a different level from the inspired Scriptures he had pored over as a Pharisee. In the Romans 15 council, a decision had to be made in accordance with Scripture, but not according to a formula based on any one particular Scriptural passage ... they knew from Scripture what the voice of the Holy Spirit was like, so they were able to recognize the Spirit's voice when He spoke to them directly outside of what they could read in the Scriptures. Jesus said that he would send Another (a Vicar) to lead us into all understanding once He (Jesus) had gone to heaven and couldn't be on earth himself to sort us out. That Vicar of Christ on earth is the Holy Spirit, who is Lord and should not be ignored or usurped by any other pretend vicar.
The Catholic Church, or rather the unified church of the east and west, gave us the Bible. But they did not give us the scriptures. The Scriptures are God breathed. The assemblance of God breathed scriptures, the Bible, was assembled by the early church, not the Roman Catholic Church which did not yet exist.
Where does each book, epistle and letter claim inspiration for itself? Where is Gods stone tablet listing 66 books? You REALLY need to read "Where We Got The Bible" by the Rev. Henry G. Graham.
@@TrollHammer-g4q :
An excellent book!
The early church was the Catholic church
A Protestant response. The Roman Catholic Church did not create a list of scripture and present it to Christians. But the historic church that led to the modern Roman Catholic Church and other Communions did hold councils periodically to declare certain things were or were not canon, in response to specific heresies. Many of these councils could be interpreted as political in addition to theological, but they were based on generally accepted traditions of the churches in attendance. This usually comes up as an argument against Sola Scriptura, to make the point that the books in the bible are canon because of church tradition, and therefore Sola Scriptura depends on church tradition. But it does nothing to require Roman Catholic traditions, instead of Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, etc traditions
The biblical canon was determined by the Council of Rome in AD 382.
Jerome’s Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate commissioned by Pope Damasus had all 73 books in it.
The problem of the canon proves the Roman Catholic Church is a different argument. The argument of the problem of the canon in regards to protestantism is that it disproves Sola Scriptura and therefore protestantism.
@@fantasia55 Not a universal council.
@@Spiritof76Catholic So? So did Luther’s German translation.
A Protestant response. Saying "Protestants removed books from the Bible during the Reformation" is as misleading as saying "Catholics added books to the Bible at the Council of Trent." Both statements assume a fixed OT canon prior to the 16th century, which these traditions then either subtracted from or added to. But there was no fixed, settled OT canon in the early or medieval church. Disputes endured, including among leading Catholic theologians, and including after the Council of Florence (e.g., Cardinal Jiménez, Cardinal Cajetan). Even where the deuterocanonical books are included within the canon, they are often given a subordinate status -- e.g., many church fathers saw them as a kind of "second-tier Scripture." Thus, the deutero-canonical books always had a contested or ambiguous status. Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: "in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." So whichever view is correct, it remains false to say Protestants "removed" books from the Bible. (You cannot remove something from a place it does not yet occupy.) Rather, the Protestants followed one earlier tradition (following Jerome and numerous Eastern Fathers) and the Roman Catholic Church followed another earlier tradition (following Augustine and numerous early councils). We can debate which of these traditions is correct, but neither of them had taken dominance by the early 16th century. Hopefully remembering this will help our discussion.
Catholics follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382.
It was closed by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It doesn't matter if individual member of the Catholic Church disagreed with it or not.
@@felipeneves9571 How convenient.
@@paulsmallwood1484 It's not convenient, it's just how the Church works. If you don't even know how the Church works, why are you arguing against that which you do not know?
@@felipeneves9571 You aren’t “the Church”. If you don’t know what the Church is,why are you discussing this? Rome isn’t “the Church”.
How could they give us the Bible when forty two inspired by God writers put in down on manuscripts, it’s only the 1611 King James Bible has the word of God “textus receptus”
Catholic Church does not trust the Scriptures. Catechism page 31, section 81-82
I'm curious.
Who are those forty-two 'inspired by God' writers?
Now, go back to page 31.
Better yet, to to page 30, the beginning of this section so that you get the big picture!
Read pages 30, 31 and 32.
Have you noticed that nowhere does it say that the Catholic Church does not trust scriptures.
Could you be misinterpreting it?
@@alhilford2345 God inspired real people to write the Bible. It was God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) to forty authors over 1,500 years from different walks of life including fisherman, physicians, and shepherds.
Do your own research on this topic.
@@alhilford2345 it says they are uncertain about scripture, same meaning that they don’t trust it.
"the 1611 King James Bible"
Had all the Catholic Old Testament writings in it, as well as a list of Catholic feast days!
Nevertheless, Roman Catholicism denies that the Bible should be the foundation of faith.
Because the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is not the foundation of faith!
@@alhilford2345 //Your Eucharist is not God.
Jesus said that there is no salvation for those who do not eat and drink his flesh and blood because he said that the group of saints who confess and follow him as Lord will become the church and follow his command to commemorate his sacrifice with bread and wine. I do not deny the establishment of the church. However, you who have become concubines of the Roman Empire are not.
If a priest cannot change bread and wine into human blood and flesh through consecration, do not claim that it is flesh and blood!
Do not claim that bread and wine, not faith, saves!
Jesus lamented Thomas' lack of faith, but did not reject his request by personally reaching out and touching his hands, feet, and side.
I think it was the Eastern Orthodox Church
The Bible wasn't allowed to be read by layman. Only Priests had access to it. It was Martin Luther who started the first German Bible. William Tyndale was burned at the stake by the church for translating the Bible. If it wasn't for these men, we don't get to read the Bible. Give glory to God, who inspired the Apostles to pen the gospels and the letters. I believe the church was in opposition to God will by keeping it from the people. But his will eventually fulfilled. Everyone can read the word of God.
Cool story bro...
@S7ARK_ You have Google. Don't be lazy and look it up. Ignorant is not an excuse.
@@phillip6078:
If the Bible was not allowed to be read by a layman, then why did Catholic monks, in abbeys and monasteries, devote their whole lives to making hand-written copies of the Holy Bible?
Why did the Catholic Church translate the Bible into every known language of the day?
Priests, who were educated men, read the Bible to congregations because most of the population could not read, even by the nineteenth century.
Before the invention of the printing press, the cost of a book was way beyond the means of the average person, but they heard the Bible read in Church, and they learned scripture stories from the art work, statues and stained glass windows.
@@phillip6078:
Are you aware that when Luther produced his German version of the Bible there were already SIXTEEN German translations available?
What's more, THIRTEEN of those were published before Luther was even born!
Unfortunately, those Bibles did not meet with Luther's approval; they were Catholic, and he rejected everything Catholic, just as Protestants do today.
@alhilford2345 Copies were made to preserve not distributing to people. Do you agree that only the church can interpret Scriptures? Can a rich man, who can afford the Bible able to attain the Bible? It's all an excuse to not allow layman to have the Bible in their homes. Martin Luther is an example of what they fear. Knowledge is power.
Nope. The Church ≠ Roman Catholic Church (RC). The Church recognized the same canon Protestants accept at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 3rd century. The RCC did not come to be until the middle ages, and by the time of the reformation, The RCC was so corrupt, the reformation was an absolute necessity.
There is no RCC.
Our Lord Jesus established ONE Church, and, by the year 107AD, that Church was already known as the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is comprised of several RITES, one of which is the Latin Rite.
Many people mistakenly call this Rite 'ROMAN CATHOLIC'
@@alhilford2345 To claim there is no RCC is hilarious and a denial of reality. The Church referred to in AD 107 is not the RCC. That did not come into existence until around 700 years after Christ's ascension.
You are wrong
@@johnyang1420 Keep wishing
Still don't know what the Gospel is, it's the only thing God wants from you! But that's probably because you do not know God, you only know what is not God which means the old covenant doesn't mean much to you. That probably why you don't know God!
Sounds like you have no clue who God is or what his Gospel message is about.
@@wordforever117
What are you? 3 years old?
I've yet to hear a catholic say what the gospel is or for that mater, what to bind or loose means!
The gospel has nothing to do with the doctrines of the catholic church But they think God is pleased with all their doctrines for the simplicity of Christ escapes them for they listen to men and not God. Seems they haven't learned a thing from the old covenant and as such they will never understand the new but if they repent they may understand what Gods will is!
@@richardjackson7887 Oh so it sounds like you have done very little research in that case. I'd recommend starting with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a very good source for beginners and can be used as an index to get you deeper into the teaching documents of the Catholic Church when you are ready...you'll find the references in the footnotes. Good luck!
@@wordforever117
Been their and done that, probably way before you were born. Haven't you learned anything?
Acts 5:29 KJV ...Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
@@richardjackson7887 If you haven't heard a Catholic explain their understanding of the gospel yet, then by your own admission you have NOT done even basic research.
The Jews before the time of Christ gave Christians the Old Testament Scriptures.
There were at least five Jewish canons in Jesus lifetime.
God gave us the Bible and it is God who preserved it for all eternity. Psalm 12:6,7. The Catholic Church claims its tradition of men is equal to the Word of God. Blasphemy. Catholics don't even take Bibles to church. And Pope Francis, based on his comments about more tan one way to God, doesn't believe the Bible.
You are apparently confused and/or mistaken. How is the text reference you shared germane to the conversation? What is your basis for saying that Church Tradition is "equal to the Word of God?" What does that mean?
Remember, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, {Tradition} rather than written, instruction. Not everything that is true is in the Bible, although what is in The Bible is true (albeit interpreted in myriad ways.
The Catholic Mass, (the Catholic Worship Service) order is not followed by many Protestants, especially Evangelicals. The Mass is a service of a Liturgical Worship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, not a Bible Study, which is a different event. There is always a reading from the Old Testament, A Psalm (usually sung), The Gospel Reading is always read by the Priest, and then a reading from the New Testament. The Scripture readings are always related to one another, and then the Homily (Sermon) by the Priest is based on the readings. There are missals for the congregation to follow along with the service. The Catholic Church has existed for centuries; most of which time the congregation did not own or couldn't afford Bibles. There is no "Bible Study Style" sermon, with a leader saying, let's turn to this or that Scripture. There is no need to bring a Bible to follow the Mass service.
Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass just to experience what happens? There are Mass services all over on YT.
@@cindiloowhoo1166 Same thing every week .Stand up, sit down, kneel. Routine. Same old, same old tradition. Then some eat God for a day. No wonder your pope doesn't believe the Bible when it says there's only one way to God through Jesus. I was brought up Catholic and attended Catholic school.
@@johnbrowne2170 The purpose of The Mass is to Worship Our Lord as a Common Body, and partake of The Eucharist. I do not know where, or if, you worship, or what your entertainment expectations are. You could go to Mass on Saturday evening, then to a "Bible Study Church" on Sunday, or follow probably any number of Bible Studies and Chat Groups online, I usually prefer YT to FB. Sometimes one gets out of an experience what they put in, whether your family worship habits, school, or Mass ~~
@@cindiloowhoo1166 The Catholic Church teaches Scripture plus apostolic tradition. At least it did when I was Catholic. You disagree?
@@johnbrowne2170 The Church Fathers were a big part of interpreting and teaching - St Paul did not have a Bible in his hand as he went on his mission trips. Not sure what exactly you mean by apostolic tradition. There is Apostolic Succession. Whatever Church or Philosophy that meets as a group has someone studying and preparing a message that may be wonderful enough to have others pass it along too. You might enjoy listening to Steve Ray or Jimmy Akin, There was quite some time between the time Jesus ascended back up to heaven and when "The Bible" was canonized. And even now, there are different views as to what Books should be included. Don't get hung up on a denomination. I am an RCIA convert from a fundamentalist borderline almost cult. There are approximately 45,000 denominations, each of whom thinks they are right, and everyone else may be going to hell. Nevermind following The Denomination. Look to follow Jesus and He will put you where you can best be fed spiritually for your needs. 8 BILLION people on The Planet right now, we all dont need the same brain food, or digest it the same way...
Wake up!the Catholic church did not compiled the bible! The Catholic bible which is called" The Latin Vulgate" ,is just a translation ,Jerome only copied it,from the Hebrew n Greek translation,from AD 382-400,which was officially finished in AD 405.
The Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest copies which existed ,which was dated around
AD 330-350, and the Codex Vaticanus in AD 350-360, this disproves the claim of the Catholic church.
And mind you ! It was the the disciples with the likes of Luke and his companions were the first who compiled and set it in order.
see Luke 1:1-2 KJV,
You just can't compiled something or hangover something out of oral traditions, for it's is clearly mentioned "a declaration", clearly it was written.
And the word bible comes from the Greek word " ta biblia" which means books.
Apostle mentioned the books n the parchments which he left from Troas. 👉1 Timothy 4:13 KJV, He was referring to the gospel.
LOL ....THIS IS GARBAGE 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wrong and false or non existent sources you are relying on 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot I'm sorry you're the garbage, the Latin Vulgate is just a translation 🤭 loser!
@@ronaldcatapang5739:
But who told Jerome which scripts, memoirs and letters he should translate?
There were hundreds of 'scriptures' available in those first two hundred years of the Church, and they were being used and quoted for teaching, missionary work and public liturgy (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
Unfortunately, much of this 'scripture' was fake, heresy, absolute lies!
The Church must only teach the truth, so theologians discerned which of the writings were inspired by the Holy Ghost and were the word of God.
These were the manuscripts, on parchment and vellum, that were given to St. Jerome to translate into to common tongue of the day, Latin, so that everyone, everywhere, could read the Bible.
It is the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church that tells the world that the 73 books of the Bible are the inspired word of God, and it is the heresy of the Protestant Reformation that removed those books that don't support Protestant doctrines.
@@alhilford2345 'memoirs "? My goodness! 😑 seek theraphy