Jesus Doesn't use the DeuteroCannon w/ Gary Michuta
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ต.ค. 2020
- This clip is taken from episode #212 with Gary Michuta: • Why Catholic Bibles Ar...
Did Jesus use the same Old Testament that we do? Why not? Find out in this clip!
SPONSORS
EL Investments: www.elinvestments.net/pints
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/mattfradd/
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com - บันเทิง
This was great. As a Protestant, I can attest that we get some poor theology from missing out on the deuterocanonical books. Daniel is linked to Antiochus in Maccabees which in turn is linked later in Revelation. There are all sorts of weird stuff with the Rapture that comes out of not knowing the history that goes along with Daniel and Revelation. The first time I told my family I did not believe in the secret rapture because of 3.5 years of tribulation were already completed, they stopped talking to me for a bit and thought I was crazy.
The whole dispensational movement is based on errant views from not having all the text.
No, the texts aren't Scripture, contain errors, and Jesus attests to the fact they weren't in the canon. th-cam.com/video/JFsEqwsingU/w-d-xo.html
@@aGoyforJesus could you point some directions to your point instead of showing a long video?
@@danielu.4957 well, the argument we did is somewhat involved because it requires a good bit of Jewish background resources to counter other options & objections. However, to summarize the argument Jesus uses the outline of the traditional Jewish canon of Genesis to 2 Chronicles which doesn't include the Apocrypha.
@@unam9931 this doesn't even remotely square with church history. There was disagreement about them forever in the Christian era, primarily to those who weren't in touch with their Jewish roots. But if you want to accept books in errors in them as Scripture, I can't stop you.
@@aGoyforJesus
That was a good dodge of the question. "Somewhat involved", lol. Just name some "errors" and stop the nonsense.
In tobit. The angel Raphael is mentioned. He says I am one of the 7 angels presented before the Lord. In the book of Revelation... It speaks of the 7 angels presented before the Lord.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn I just finished reading the book of Tobit. I searched TH-cam for commentary on this book and this video came up. I saw that you commented 2 days ago so I thought I would reply. Tobit was such an amazing book. It is such an exciting story and a real page turner. It has everything, including a pet dog. 😂 I love the Bible and all scripture does incredible things for me but this book was pure entertainment.
The Jewish encyclopedia accuses Paul of Hellenism precisely for using books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. The letter to the Romans makes references to the book of Wisdom all the time . The first letter to the Corinthians (10: 9-11) mentions a passage from Judite (8,24-25 in the original vulgate, the Greek variations are different), and Clement, Paul's disciple, quotes the book of Judith too in his letter to the Corinthians still in the first century. Even the Nestle-Aland edition of the greek text confirms the influence of the deuterocanonical.
I cor 10:9-11
9 Nor let us try the Lord, as (A)some of them [a]did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor (B)grumble, as some of them [b]did, and (C)were destroyed by the (D)destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an (E)example, and (F)they were written for our instruction, upon whom (G)the ends of the ages have come.
Judith 8:24-25“Now therefore, O brethren, let us shew an example to our brethren, because their hearts depend upon us, and the sanctuary, and the house, and the altar, rest upon us.
Moreover let us give thanks to the Lord our God, which trieth us, even as he did our fathers.
Is there a different chapter and verse?
1 Corinthians 10,9-11
[9] Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and *perished by the serpents* . [10] Neither do you *murmur* : as some of them *murmured* , and *were destroyed by the Destroyer* .
[11] Now all these things happened to them in figure: and *they are written* for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come
Judith 8,24-25
[24] But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience and the reproach of their *murmuring* against the Lord, [25] *Were destroyed by the Destroyer* , and *perished by serpents* .
Murmuring....
Perished by the serpents...
Destroyed by the Destroyer...
All these things [...] are written...
Jerome used an Aramaic source for translating the deuterocanonicals, and that explain the different reading in the greek text that most modern bibles uses. But the Vulgate, using the aramaic source, match the text that Paul was using.
† Μακκαβαίων † i found the passage in the DRA version of Judith. I wonder why I couldn’t find it before in my other one ?
Very informative insight. I would also like to get your opinion on the way i process the legitimacy of the deuterocannonicals - my answer to their legitimacy is that when Paul called all Scripture "God-Breathed", he was referring to the Old Testament and other writings like the Talmud, etc. He obviously wasn't referring to the New Testament as it was still unwritten. In fact, he wasn't even referring to what would be his letters included in the NT, which protestants rely on to justify their belief system.
I only recently downloaded Catholic Bibles so as to read these books. I began with The Book of Wisdom and it very much felt like scripture and seemed inspired, but I am no expert. But I recognised the reference to 2:17&18 here when he mentioned it. Very interesting and affirming. Catholicism continues to bear up to scrutiny for this prodigal wanderer, newly returned but undenominated.
Trust me when I tell you, Catholicism will bear up to scrutiny.
@@filiusvivam4315 Thank you. So far all the criticisms are toppling like dominos. I deliberately temper my enthusiasm to avoid making rash decisions but I feel a strong calling. I am reading more church history to better understand why the Church Jesus established has been so scattered and I am now more concerned for protestants than for Catholics. I know God is just and I suspect many from many denominations are saved and many unfortunately are in danger, but for my own self I do want to be as close to Christ as possible and as true to His commands as possible and that seems to increasingly tie in with Catholicism and less and less with Protestantism.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 God bless you on your quest for Truth! The one thing I would say about considering catholicism is that right now the Church is in a terrible mess. The Body of Christ is disfigured to such an extent that she is almost unrecognizeable. It is only thanks to God's infinite mercy that there are still some brave souls who want to join us.
As a convert from protestantism, I remember being convinced about the truth of catholicism, as I read and prayed myself into the Truth, but every time I looked at what was called «catholic» in the modern world, it seemed something very different. That was until I discovered the traditional latin Mass. There, for the first time, what I had read about in books and longed for in my soul, was made present.
@@christopherfleming7505 Yeah I was very aware of their mess already, being Irish, but all humans are prone to corruption so I'm more focused on whether the theology is correct. I'm not sure what's going on now with the whole abrahamic faith house in abu dabhi etc. What's bothering you in particular? Also, why is latin mass good? Do you understand latin?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 What bothers me? Where do I start? Perhaps the root of the problem is that worldliness has infected the Church, from the top down. The Pope is best buddies with atheists, abortionists, socialists and population control advocates from the UN. There has been a falling away from the faith, with the post conciliar Popes leading the way. Just think of John Paul II kissing the Koran, or more recently, Francis watching approvingly as pagans worship a Pachamama idol in the Vatican gardens. The actual documents that come out of Rome don't preach the true catholic faith anymore, but a watered-down, trendy version, that aims to appease the mainstream media.
As an irishman, you must be painfully aware of the failure of the present-day bishops to boldly preach the truth to the world. With very few exceptions, they sound and behave like politicians rather than successors of the apostles.
I think the modern Mass of Paul VI is a reflection of a new mindset, that places man at the centre of things, displacing God. In the traditional Mass, if you have the opportunity to go, you will notice that God is at the centre of everything. It doesn't matter which priest says Mass, because all he does is limit himself to the established prayers. You hardly see his face or hear him. The underlying theology is different. The old Mass was always known as the holy SACRIFICE of Our Lord, whereas the new Mass was defined by Paul VI as a «communal meal». Two very different concepts!
I would honestly be shocked if Jesus used any cannon at all. He wasn't in an artillery regiment, as far as I know. Or at least the Evangelists didn't write that down... 🤭
I know it's been three years, but that is still stinking funny.
He did use canon after our lord prayer he quoted macabees
@@brianmachuca5074 it’s a joke because canon is misspelled in the title
Lol!!
Much more importantly gun powder was not invented for like 800 years after Jesus lived 😂
nobody ever realizes, that one of the most important quotes was given by Jesus during the Festival of Lights, which was a festival from the era of the Maccabees. Jesus could have stated, that since This festival is from a period that is not acknowledged as part of the Canonical history of God's people that it was not important. He gave one of the most quoted verses in the New Testament. "I Am the Light of the World"
You're mistaken, He called Himself The Light of the World at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 8). We find Him at the Temple during the Feast of the Dedication in the second half of John 10.
The non-Catholic arguments below about their particular favourite Church father's opinion, as well as that of anti-Christian Jewish leaders of the first century, is a perfect illustration for the need for papal supremacy. Christ promised that He would not leave us orphaned and so instituted a Church structure. The idea that Christians had to wait over a millennium for a stuttering, bisexual Scot to deliver the authentic Scriptures utterly belies that promise, especially for sola scriptura Protestants.
@The Hussar's Jacobitess
Can you explain how you came to this conclusion: "Christ promised that He would not leave us orphaned and so instituted a Church structure."?
Christ not leaving us orphaned seems to me to be a reference to the Holy Spirit in John 14:15-18, 25-27 -
15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.
18 “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you...
25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.
Just finished reading Gary's book 'Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger'. A very good and informative read, I highly recommend it.
Reading wisdom of Sirach. It's so beautiful 😍
I saw an old man once that had a hat that read: KJV, the bible that God uses.
I didn’t know if I should laugh or scream.
Of course a good Anglican could have remarked to the old man that the KJV had the ‘Apocrypha’ (DCs) included, albeit in a separate middle section.
You’re ignorant then and not a Bible believer. The KJV IS the Bible that preserved by God. If you don’t think so, then ok, you’re just a deist who believes in a far away mythical fairy God who does nothing in the world anymore
The guy with the hat was just trying to get a rise out of you. Seems like it worked. That said, the KJV is a very good translation, and it's a shame that Protestants have largely forsaken it for things like the ESV and NIV. And as someone already pointed out, it originally contained all the "Deuterocanonical books." As did the Geneva bible.
Many Protestants are shocked when told this.
Regarding its apocryphal books, the KJV's rendering of Wisdom of Solomon is particularly fine (and accurate) prose.
I'm a Christian (conservative Anglican) who is just now reading the apocrypha. Tobit so far is such a good testimony between a man and God. People have no issue using study Bibles and their notes in teaching, preaching, and learning, but they have an issue with using and reading these books. I never understood why these books can't be used in like manner as notes and historical input, especially if people don't agree they're scripture.
Love the great work, Gary! Keep it up!
I feel like there is so much to research, but I’m trying. I grew up non denominational Christian. My dad really doesn’t appreciate Catholics, because he has always been told it’s wrong. He’s a minister and he always tells me how they don’t have the truth because they get changed the Bible and added books to their version. I don’t blame him for his opinion because he’s just always know what every other Protestant believes.
I honestly did not even know what Protestant meant until recently. I heard the term, but hadn’t ever looked I to it. So a lot of Christians are not educated on the holy mother church that Christ started. We are told that anywhere people gather is church and that our version of the Bible is everything we need. They preach a lot about not changing God’s word, yet that’s exactly what marring Luther did when he broke off from the church and didn’t want those books on our bibles. He effectively changed what we are allowed to read and go by. If we aren’t supposed to add or remove from it then why did that happen and is seen as acceptable by Protestants?
I’ve always been told that Catholics changed the Bible and the one that we have is the true word. It’s sad that so may still believe that. I don’t know half of what I should yet, but I can tell from every answer that has been given by Catholics about the Bible and those books that were removed from ours, that they have the truth. It’s still hard to change my way of thinking from what I’ve always known, but I’m trying. By listening to elders who have researched all of this and who have been through conversion themselves. It’s definitely fascinating and I want to continue to learn. I almost feel like I haven’t been living as God intended according to they way He taught us in the full Bible. I know I’m forgiven, but I do repent. I didn’t know.
This would be a really great one to translate to Spanish
Thank you, Mr Machuta, for your dedication to Our Lord and His word in the scriptures!!!
Thank you.
Anglican bibles still often have The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees & The Second Book of Maccabees. Particularly study bibles.
More power
He said Hebrews 11:2? I could not find the reference to “being attested to” what verse was it ? Thank you
Hey what happened with the Stephanie Gray debate?
Let's take a look on what Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) says in its notes:
Mt 23:35 - That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
NOTE: 23:35 [b] This is probably Zechariah of 2Ch 24,20-22. His murder is the last narrated in the Bible (2Ch was the last book of the Jewish Canon), while Abel's (Gn 4:8) is the first. "Son of Barachiah" must come from confusion with another Zechariah (cf. Is 8:2 LXX).
I personally think Jesus showed 2 things here: 1st of all, that the Canon was already closed in his days; 2ndly, that the Proto-Jewish Canon (or the Veritas Hebraica, as Jerome says) is the only authoritative source for the Old Testament. All the rest are equivalent to the Pseudepigrapha, Jewish Fables and Apocripha. That's why I prefer the Protestant take on this matter.
Is the Systematic Theology by Fiorenza and Gavin a good systematic theology to help understand Roman Catholicism?
¿Have you already read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not a difficult book to read, actually, and it brings a lot of other useful references from the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The Dead Sea scrolls have the dueteralcanonical books in it. So what’s his point?
The point is that protestant's strongest argument against deuterocanonicals is that the canon should come from jewish authorities which ironically is a group of post Christ crucifixion pharisees, instead of from early church of christians like catholics believe so.
Daniel Ustarez lets not forget that among the chief priests they only accepted the Pentateuch as scriptural. The Pharisees accepted the prophetical books yet another group (don’t remember their name) accepted extra books beyond the dueteralcanonical books I think. So there really wasn’t a fixed canon of scripture back then. Interesting.
Saducees make a clear allusion to the Book of Tobias when asking the Lord about the resurection and marriage of a woman who had 7 brothers for husbands (Tob 3). Nowhere does Jesus rebuke their scriptures.
The OT canon list given by Melito of Sardis in the late 100s excludes the deuterocanonical books. Also excludes the book of Esther, possibly by accident.
It also doesn't include Nehemiah or Lamentations, though it is possible they were included in Esdras/Jeremiah. It also isn't clear if Wisdom is Proverbs or Wisdom of Solomon. So I would argue that Melito's canon isn't as clear cut as Protestants like to say it is.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 You're correct, it's not clear on these books, although it would be a singular case to exclude Nehemiah. But the main point is that Melito pretty clearly excludes the deuterocanonicals, as do all the OT canon lists before the late 4th century.
the dueterocanon was used by the Church Fathers (I know there was dispute as to which books were canon, and that some Fathers changed their minds over time as well) but canon lists simply arent the only rule nor should they be @@stephenwright4973
Melito may be reporting on the latest decision on the rabbinical canon, for use to establish common ground for debate. Why else would a bishop like Melito have to travel all the way to Judaea to get his information? If for some reason he didn't trust his own Old Testament canon read in church each Sunday, from which books were cited in his (surviving) homily, there was a synagogue in Sardis, his hometown.@@stephenwright4973
Please interview Fr Mark Goring pls pls pls
Why Fr Mark Goring?
@@tomgreene2282 why not
This isn't an issue im versed in, but it seems that the new testament authors can use non canonical book, like they do with Enoch, so seeing a reference to Wisdom doesn't prove anything by itself. non canonical doesn't mean bad, or even false, it's just about which works are read publically in the liturgy
Well, if it is about being read publicly, then you have a small issue with at least one of the books. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus (Ecclesia meaning Church). It was called so because it was very popular reading in churches during first few centuries.
Furthemore, the word canon means rule, so canonical books are those, which are approved for liturgy. For the Greek Orthodox Church for exemple, we can technically say that the NT Book of Revelation is not canonical, because they do not use it in their Divine liturgy. Yet it is still considered an inspired book and can be found in every Orthodox Bible. What is even more interesting is that actually orthodox Bibles have even more books that the catholic ones like 3rd and 4th Macabees.
@@filipschweiner1989 I don't know much about this issue, so i have no strong opinion. I'm an Anglican and we keep the deuterocanononical/apocrypha in the Bible for personal use (it's literally still there is the book), it's just we can't form Doctrines on their basis. So that might kind of be like the way Orthodox see Revelation?
I never threw away the deutercanon, i just never considered it scripture, the torah, the prophets and writings are said to be scripture, and deuterocanon was good for learning how the 2nd temple period judeans would have regonized these things so it was good for historical and contextual learning.
The next most hard to swallow pill though is when you read the historical accounts of jesus coming in 66 ad to some degree and realize revelation isnt all in the future but at least partly a recap of the past.
Dig on in then
I always read that Jesus was quoting from the Jewish Scriptures and they included the deuterocanonicals.
That word should have only one 'n'... 😊
The different groups of jews did not agree on anything. There was not one set of books which all the jews agreed upon.
And the reason they wound up rejecting some books is because the AD 130 Jews thought that they were written in Greek, but we have evidence they were written in Hebrew.
Rabbinical Judaism was also reacting against Christianity, and so they removed books that supported the Christian position.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 yes exactly , the original ones were written in Hebrew and were found hidden in the caves of Nag Hamadi. in the 1900's (I forgot which year exactly. Strange how nobody mentions that in the Protestant churches. The truth always comes out in the end.
The historic Protestant position on the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, whether Lutheran or Anglican (not so much Continental Reformed), is more nuanced than "Apocrypha bad and not Scripture". In fact, Anglicans do consider it Scripture according to both the 39 Articles AND especially the Books of Homilies. In the Books of Homilies, there are homilies that quote the Deuterocanon (plenty of that, actually), and even claim that the Holy Spirit speaks through it. Tobit is cited in this way, as is the Wisdom of Solomon.
What is Jesús Molina doing here? Haha
Don't forget Enoch
Don’t Jesus mock the religious authorities in his time and call them vipers? Doesn’t that suggest maybe he didn’t support everything. Curious
I don't know what protestants you talk to... I'm from a Pentecostal church, that's where I got baptized and came to know Christ. Now I do not hold on to a denomination for other reasons(organisational and the "pacifism" that is not biblical) but when it comes to doctrine, we fell in line with orthodoxy and early church beliefs and do not leave a single letter or phrase in Scripture out!
There is one Christian Bible, the full one with 73 books. Removing the deuterocanon is one of the reasons protestant theology doesn't jive with orthodox Christianity.
Where are the credible sources of outside corroboration of these stories in the text?
Many of the Church Fathers disagree on which of these books were and weren’t canonical. Jerome didn’t consider any of the apocryphal books as canon. In my opinion, I agree with the King James position that they are valuable and wise books to read, but should not be used to establish doctrine.
First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’t defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea’s definition. This doesn’t make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.
And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.
But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.”
taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
maybe so, but here we are again down to mere opinion when you yourself have admitted that many early church fathers also disagree with you and Jerome. So you haven't really given a good argument to why someone who disagrees with you should change their mind, and this whole mess is probably better solved by say an ecumenical council which is how all these things are solved such as the doctrine of the trinity, etc.
Le fidèle I believe you’re factually incorrect here friend. Further, you leave out the Eastern Fathers as well, in which there were several that rejected the Apocrypha. And I’m not sure why you included Augustine. He excluded the Apocrypha from canon authority in The City of God (I can find the passage later if you’d like to know.) My reading of Jerome seems to hold that he thought the Apocrypha as lesser books. I may be wrong, since I haven’t read him in years, but that was my understanding at the time.
Delawanna So agreeing with Luther on certain things means I side with those who rejected Jesus? That doesn’t follow. If that were the case, agreeing with any Old Testament position would be agreeing with those who rejected Jesus. That puts all believers in a world of trouble.
The OT canon description given by Josephus in the first century matches the Jewish/Protestant list, and clearly excluded the deuterocanonical books, although acknowledging their usefulness.
Nope, there's no such thing as jewish canon, not until the masoretic text (9th - 10th century). Even if it were true, why would Christians obey the authority of Josephus over the authority of the apostles and the Church fathers?
@@jimmoriarty6964 My friend, you need to study this topic more. Prior to Augustine, the consensus OT canon list among Christian fathers matched the 22-book canon described (not listed, but the description leaves no way to include the deuterocanonicals) by Josephus--whom I mention only because he gives the oldest canon list we have.
St. Athanasius's AD 367 festal letter agrees with the Protestant view of the OT canon, and also the Protestant view of the deuterocanonicals: books profitable to read, but not infallible. The Fathers freely quoted the deuterocanonicals and sometimes called them Scripture, but when we examine their actual canon lists we find that they placed the deuterocanonicals in a category outside the 22-book OT.
Most of the Fathers agree with Athanasius up to the late 3rd century. The book of Esther was sometimes excluded, I think
All the Church Fathers do seem to include Baruch in their 22-book OT canon, because their Greek sources always included it as part of Jeremiah. Jerome, one of the few Hebraists among the Fathers, realized that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Baruch, so he excluded it from Jeremiah. (I have read Baruch and I could wish it were Scripture, but oh well, God knows best.)
Why should Protestants bow to the authority of Augustine's error of ignorance?
What province was Josephus a bishop over and what authority did he have to list our scripture? Also no, many other sources list different numbers of books in the OT.
@@Malygosblues Josephus had no ecclesial authority, he was merely a disinterested reporter which makes his testimony valuable. St. Athanasius has great credibility as a Christian hero, and he agreed with Josephus's canon list. St. Athanasius said of his canon list (which agreed with Protestants except he omitted Esther, and thought that Baruch was part of Jeremiah): "These [books] alone are the springs of salvation, in these books alone the teaching of piety is proclaimed, let no one add or subtract anything from them." He would have called the Roman Catholics the innovators.
It wasn't until 1546 at the Council of Trent that it was decreed by the infallible Catholic Church that Protestants were anathema for agreeing with St. Athanasius (and other early church fathers) that the Deuterocanonicals are useful but not canonical. You are welcome to tell us that we're wrong (and bound for hell, apparently) for not submitting to the infallible Council of Trent, but you cannot honestly say (as Catholics constantly do) that we ripped up the Old Testament that had been universally recognized for 1500 years. That charge is a lie and a slander.
Dude is still living under rabbinic authority lmao
Christ never quoted anything out of the New Testament, so by that protestant line of reasoning we should throw out the entire New Testament.
Typically to quote something that is written it has to be written first and unless I am extremely mistaken the New Testament was not written until after Jesus’ death and resurrection so I don’t see how this argument works
Earliest palestian Christians DIDNT use the Apocrypha. Early Christian writers used similar phrases and concepts, theological vocabulary. from the Apocrypha like they did " borrowing " from PHILO. This Does not mean canonicity for Apocrypha or Philo. The gentle Christians used Apocrypha cos it was part of the LXX tradition. Gentlile Christians were NOT Palestinian Rabbinical scholars
You people cant read, the 39 articles for the kjb literally says they arent necessary for salvation and that is true, they say you can read them, thry just arent inspired for your salvation...meaning if you just read the 66 books (i agree some probably arent necessary) youre good for salvation. This is why people have issue with catholics
Wisdom 9:18 = heresy
We can (many of us) read. However, why should we trust the 39 articles established by a King of England or a particular translation of the Bible that he had printed? Was he the holder of an office established by Jesus (Matthew 16, cf. Isaiah 22: office of chief steward)?
Reading books does not grant salvation. 66 books leads to an incomplete and therefore flawed theology, and a flawed view of salvation history. Some of the open, debated questions of protestantism are answered in the other 6 books. Unfortunate.
Wisdom 9:18 is the divine wisdom, the holy spirit, which is received at baptism. It's directly foreshadowing the gift of the holy spirit to the apostles. 😑
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 they aren't apostolic
Why don't Jews recognize the other books as Scripture?
Not a fan of Catholic theology
Because they are jews, not Christians
They were recent and popular in the time of Jesus.
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Christians were heavily using the Deuterocanon and drew upon its connections to Christ, so Jews rejected it.
They also rejected it because some of the books were not written in Hebrew, but they mistakenly believed some were not written in Hebrew which likely were originally hebrew.
I realize this isn't exactly the type of answer you're looking for but a careful reading of Wisdom of Solomon chapter 2 may shed light on why they reject that particular book. It's an *overt prophecy* condemning the 1st century Jewish rulers for hypocrisy, lawlessness, and for killing "the Just Man." Their rejection of other books are for other reasons.
> <
Peace & blessings
We have evidence, including Jesus’ words, that the Jewish canon was closed prior to the second century. Oh, and the Sadducees didn’t have a 5 book canon. That’s a misunderstanding from Origen.
No you don’t.
@@dandeliontea7 yes, we do
@@aGoyforJesus you do not. “Abel to Zechariah” isn’t a statement about the canon no matter how much you wish it was.
@@dandeliontea7 it’s not a statement about the canon. It utilizes the canon. I have discussed this in depth on my channel with a playlist for you of you’re interested.
@@aGoyforJesus I’ve heard the argument you use, however the actual evidence doesn’t support the Canon ending with 2 Chronicles even if it’s true that Jesus was using a Rabbinic name conflation. Have you read Ed Gallagher’s paper on that passage?
The best (really the only) argument in favor of the deuterocanonical books is their inclusion in the Septuagint. We have very few explicit OT canon lists provided by Christians from the 1st and 2nd centuries, but where early Christians do speak on the matter, they seem to agree pretty closely with the Jewish/Protestant OT canon. Basically the Protestant position is the conservative one, which apparently was the dominant one up until very late antiquity: use the deuterocanonical books for instruction, but not to establish doctrine.
Unfortunately, Catholics are never allowed to take the conservative view, because they are forced to nod along with the ever-evolving sacred traditions enunciated by their infallible pope.
It’s one piece of evidence. There’s plenty of reason to reject these books.
@Brian Bachinger
Off the top of my head:
-there weren't a bunch of different canons running around. The process mirrored the NT canonization process. Some people had a few questions about some books on the margins, but there are no indications that there was any argument over any Apocryphal book to take them out in any Jewish literature whatsoever. The sacred books were laid up in the Temple (priests were largely Sadduccees btw)
-Jesus in his comments "Abel to Zechariah" confirms the outline of the OT canon of Genesis to 2 Chronicles.
-Melito of Sardis asks the Palestinian (Jewish) church to clarify what books are in the OT canon. Besides the fact that he doesn't go to the pope (none existed at that time but that's a different debate), it's striking he doesn't just go to the Septuagint store. He asks the Jews what their canon is. No Apocryphal books in the answer.
-There are theological and historical errors in these books. Most Catholic apologists today have to water down the concept of Scripture to include works of fiction in order to try to keep the idea that their canon is correct. There's no data that I know of to suggest that when Rome canonized these books, they viewed these as anything other than actual historical works. How you would derive doctrine from fiction, I'm not sure.
-they came from an era when there were no recognized public prophets. This is like expecting Scripture for the NT from a non-apostolic era.
-One of the Macabbees apologizes about the quality of its writing. Does that sound like something written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
These questions are already answered long time ago. The protocanonical have the same historical difficulties, beggining in Genesis. Sorry Abel to Zacariah dont confirm nothing. Where did Jesus says that this is about the scriptures? Whe dont even know who this Zacariah is...
detroitcatholic.com/news/gary-michuta/did-jesus-give-us-bible-bookends
"even if Jesus did refer to the Zechariah in Second Chronicles, was Chronicles always the last book in the Jewish Bible?This point is even more speculative than the first. There is only one Jewish list in all of antiquity that places Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Bible (b. Baba Bathra, 14b). Every early Church fathers, who attempted to reproduce the contents of the Jewish Bible, ended his list with either Esther or Ezra-Nehemiah. None of them put Chronicles last. Even the oldest complete Hebrew Bibles (the Aleppo and Leningrad codices) place Chronicles first among the Writings, not last. The earliest evidence of any Jewish writing putting Chronicles last, outside of b. Baba Bathra 14b, is from the 13th century..."
Did prophecy ended 400 years ago?
shamelesspopery.com/did-prophecy-end-in-400-b-c/
The sacred books are layed out in the temple.... yes, by sadduccees that only considers the Pentateuch.
There were doubts among the Jews about these books, mainly because they were used by christians:
"In a work called Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13, Akiba says: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands."
The II A.D anti-christian rabbi is quoting the Gospels alongside the deuterocanonical for a reason... they were in the christian bible!
Even in the third century the jewish canon were not universaly recognized, the Talmud quotes the Book of Sirach two times as scripture:
www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.92b.13?with=all&lang=bi
www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.13a.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Origen in the III century says that some rabbis didnt consider Tobit as scripture anymore, giving us the impression that this is some recent thing, and in his investigations of the jewish canon list (quoted by Eusebius) he listed the book of maccabees in the jewish canon, and there is no sign of Esther.
Pints, just an observation. There is an arrogance about you. That you have all knowledge and there is no need to learn new things. It’s in your facial expressions, eyes, tone of voice, and movements.
Empty your cup of stale water and fill it with fresh water.
I think it's just him playing the devil's advocate