the blind leading the blind. How do you know what he is saying is the holy bible truth? Because he is wearing a habit and people who don't know that God said call no man your father, insist on calling him father.
Floyd Knight You have no clue what you are talking about. Take 1 Timothy 2:9 for example, when Pail himself calls Timothy his son. Does that mean Paul is a false teacher? The term father can be used for different contexts
@@booba8930 You don't understand the holy word of God. No where in the holy bible does Paul say he is Timothy's father. Paul love Timothy like a son. Timothy never ever refer to Paul as his father. You Catholics literally misinterpret the holy word of God because you don't have the spirit of understanding from God. So you try to add unto the holy word of God (which can never be done) creating your own thing, your own interpretation of how to live. Further proof that Catholicism is not Christianity and is completely made-up. In your misinterpretation of the holy word of God. Catholics falsely compare the apostles and prophets, in the holy bible(KJV) ordained by God himself to minister his holy word. With the hundreds of thousands catholics priests since Catholicism started. The same Catholic priest were far too many of them are pedophiles, and homosexuals. I'm not saying there are no homosexual pastors in the protestant churches. The difference is that pedophiles and homosexuality is not a profession in protestant churches. Not one Catholic priest was ordained by God to minister his holy word.
Floyd Knight which spirit do you have the spirit of Protestant heritics you twist the bible to justify racism greed deception murder slavery women priest homosexual clergy tens of thousands cults and they all like you claim to have the Holy Spirit we Catholic worship the real Jesus while Protestant worship the American jesus=anti christ
@@tonysaad3072 I'm am not in any way at war with you nor with the individual Catholic. What possible inconceivable reason could you have to say that about me and call me a Protestant heretic. What in the world are you talking about. Racism greed, deception, murder slavery women. I have nothing to do with any of those false accusations. The part about homosexual priest. Is that not prevalent in Catholic priest hood. Does the pope not excommunicate the guilty priest who have been caught terrorizing young children. Those guilty priest are not even charged and arrested but moved to another church to terrorize more children by the authority of pope. The Vatican headquarters of Catholicism, the pope fully in charge just pays off the victims family, and its business as usual. Now lets address what the word Catholic mean, the real meaning. The word Catholic means universal, according to the whole. The whole being of mankind. Also in general. That is the exact definition of the flesh. Catholic doesn't only mean every and anyone can join the worldly organization. The true meaning lies beneath. What about the meaning of the word Vatican. The true origin of Catholicism. The word Vatican means divining serpent. Have you any clue who that is? The divining serpent is the god of this world. Satan., the anti-christ. Catholicism is not in any way shape or form, never has been never will be Christian. You Tony Saad and your Catholicism can't deceive every body. Not people like me who has the spirit of understanding from Jesus Christ. You sure cant' falsely accuse me . Your false accusation are baseless and just pure wickedness. I am in no way judging you the individual Catholic. I'm not and will never be in a position or have authority to judge you. I am a sinner just like you, born in sin shaped inequity, and fallen short of the glory of God. I'll say again. This is not a debate and i'm not at war with you as a individual Catholic. The holy bible tells us to cleave to that which is good and despise that which is evil. Catholicism is evil.
@@5kydragon347 They're considered Christian, and most Mormons and scholars of Religion call them Christian, but there are plenty of non-mormons who'd argue with that
@@patriciamcgeorge2575 In all respect, the only reason I don’t considered them to be Christian is because they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (that he’s God), which is really the whole thing Christianity revolves around.
@@patriciamcgeorge2575 So I was told by missionaries that they don’t believe Jesus is God, believe he is the SON of God and the messiah, but not that he is actually God. Which is very important in Christianity.
THE' APOSTOLIC FATHERS ARE NOT INSPIRED AND DO NOT ALL AGREE. You have been led from the truth of the Apostles and God. .Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring back to their memory everything He taught them . .Read John 14 - 17.When someone says they are converting to a denomination and not Jesus they are going in the wrong direction. John 5 :24. he who hears My word and believes Him who sent me ,HAS eternal life ,and does not come into judgement,but has past out of death into life. Is this the teaching of the R.C. church .
@@wendymitchell8245 : The Apostolic (Church) Fathers were disciples, personal friends, of the Apostles. The Apostles did not forget a single word that Jesus said, nor a single event in His life. This information was passed on to the Church Fathers and other Catholics. Some of this was written down, some was passed on by word of mouth, for two thousand years. This is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition. Perhaps you prefer to believe Luther, Calvin or Cranmer.. But I'll stick with the Apostles and the Church Fathers
@@jefferywallace1391 sola scriptura is not the right way. That is why the Church has the Church and Apostolic fathers who explain exactly what you are alluding to.
I once pointed this out to a former seminarian now Baptist as proof that the Church existed before the Bible, hence we can't be "Bible only" Christians, and he ignored me.
It's a tough one for some to grasp. It's why I have so much backlash on a video I made against sola scriptura. th-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/w-d-xo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit idk, I’m Baptist and I would have ignored something like that also, thinking “we’re not having this argument.” I grasp that Catholics believe Catholic things; Baptists believe Baptist things. Those types of arguments are usually unproductive. Live and let live.
@@blackwater642 However ignoring yet not being able to defend it are two diferent things. The baptist obiviously didnt have any fact nor historical date to prove that the kjv id actually the word of God. When in reality King James was a anglican king.
@@tryhardf844 Hi Mr Benedictine. Baptist churches have congregational governance so each church or pastor chooses whichever version of the Bible he wants to use or recommend, if any. I’ve never attended a KJV only church but I know there are some. Most Baptist preachers I’ve heard used either the NASB, the ESV, or even the old RSV, but there are no hard and fast rules on that. There are as many opinions on Bible translations as there are preachers using them. If asked they usually just quip that “the best translation for you is whichever one you’ll read.” Churches that use the Byzantine text (KJV) instead of the Alexandrian text have their reasons. I believe the Orthodox Church uses the Byzantine Text, and I think it’s the one Erasmus used. Other than that I don’t know enough about the texts to be entitled to an opinion. I know there are some small differences that some people care about, such as the adulterous woman pericope in John. My understanding is that Baptist churches that choose the Byzantine text version often recommend the KJV, NKJV, or the newer MEV, but again, I’ve never been to those churches myself. Most of the Baptists I’ve heard comment on this topic say it really doesn’t matter which text the faithful read at home, either one “contains all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation.” I think most Baptists know who King James was, but even if they didn’t it wouldn’t matter since that wouldn’t effect their salvation. Sorry for this longish post. I hope this helps. I tried to answer you earlier but since every single person in my town was live streaming the LSU- Alabama game my internet was wonky.
@@blackwater642 Not many know who KJV was.You ate correct. But it is worrying that they dont know that they hold him on such regard to scripture that they forget to call it the word of God and instead they call it the "King James Bible"
I am a Reformed Christian but I must say, I admire your work here and the way you present the Christian faith as a proponent of Catholicism. I personally study and hold in high esteem the works of the great Franciscan Friar and philosopher, Duns Scotus, and I know that there is much wisdom to be gained by hearing out your side. Thank you so much for your service to people and know that we are praying for you and standing with you in speaking for Christ and His gospel. God bless, man!
Nikko R. Now that u know the truth you should be making your way home to the Catholic Church.... what the use of knowing the truth and doing nothing about It ? Just a thought ?
I was just talking with a friend last night about the books left out of the Bible and wanted to look into it, and then this video appeared! Thanks for making it.
Daniel Canning The best account you will find on TH-cam is the series by James White who studies the earliest manuscripts and teaches on it . There are videos on , -' The reliability of the New testament text' .and ' The Inspiration, canonization, and transmission of scripture'. This young man is just repeating what he was taught ,without personal investigation. Therefore is not accurate.His opening statement is wrong no Christians agree with him . Many he names are known to be written later and are known Gnostic Heretical writings .The point is the Apostles controlled the writing of the New Testament it was either written by them or by their scribes .
@@wendymitchell8245 It is true that Judaism does not recognize the Apocrypha as scripture but they do celebrate Hanukkah which is in the Apocrypha and it is mentioned in the Gospels. So it's not scripture but does have historical and cultural significance.
@@abc123fhdi That is right, it is mentioned as a commemorative day ,like the mention in the New Testament of Easter which in context is the pagan festival kept by the Romans ,not the death of Jesus as it was not referring to the time of Passover when Jesus died.
@Steven Wright No they do not all agree with this. The letters written by the Apostles were not written from heaven . It is not who wrote the canon it is who was inspired . John was told by God to write Revelation.(ch.1.).How could the generation at the end of the Apostolic age not know what they wrote . . The Alexandrian Jews allowed them selves more freedom ,the Hebrew canon was similar to our own.
Thank you Fr. Casey. This has been a question on my Dad's mind for many years. Now I can point him to your video for the correct answer. God bless you ALWAYS!
@@PipesPlayer1980 he does not even seem to know they were inspired because they were written by or under the authority of the Apostles . Even Justin Martyr refers to the memoirs of the Apostles being read in the church in his day . They knew the Gnostics were heretics in Apostolic times .False teaching has entered the church through the false writings of the Apocrypha.
Wendy the sheep like to munch on green grass fed to them without questioning the source. Knew a landscaper who had a flock of Sheep and came home with a pickup truck of fresh cut grass. Fed the Sheep and within a day or two had sick Sheep. All that fresh green grass cut and smelling so good also had pesticides sprayed on. This is what I find with the nice man in the brown robe , teaching what he has been taught and not seeing the tiny bit of poison he is spreading.
I remember discussing some of these works in my Survey of the New Testament class. I had read some of these works prior to having taken that class, but there were those in the class who called themselves "pastors" who were thoroughly unaware that these works even existed. Indeed, there are works mentioned in the Bible itself that we do not seem to have copies of to read for ourselves. It is my hope that a few of them might resurface so to see what these works contained.
I am a Protestant and I honestly had no problems with anything you said. The only concern is when someone that does not have the Holy Spirit living in them reads the texts that are not entirely true, they have no way of knowing what is true and false. I could see this causing a lot of trouble
This is not a good argument. The Holy WILL always lead someone looking for truth into truth. It is one of his sole purposes for living in us. To guide us into all truth. If your statement is correct then he isn’t doing his job
Theoretically, you could be correct, however, in practice, the non-canon scripture usually has such an obvious core message and teaching that a simple scribal error or addition would change nothing of its point. E.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham. The question as to why the Jews are the chosen people is finally revealed (they are part angel being descended from Azazel and later from Yahoel (he's a form of God) through Issac). A pretty strong message that a minor error here or there would not change. Also, many non-canon scriptures have unreliable narrators, which means even they are 100% true in the sense they really are what they say they are, you have to take their points with a grain of salt. E.g. The Testament of Soloman (which honestly reads like a self-aware parody of how Christians view demons, being scripture that doesn't take itself too seriously) and The Book of Enoch, which are brilliant books that are filled with mystery and answers to important questions as to the non-human races, but you can't trust their authors to be completely honest/factual about everything (most things though).
What good is it to worship a G-d who misdirects you or allows the person seeking G-d to be lead away form G-d. Like the say goes, With a fiend like that he doesn't need enemies.
Didache should be required reading for any Catholic also its reasoning for being left out makes a ton of sense as it was essentially an instruction manual. It will also give you extra ground to stand on if you ever get into a debate where someone challenges the sacraments of Baptism and Communion. As it is believed to have been in circulation while many of the Apostles were still alive.
What a wonderful history lesson! I think each person can take from it what he/she wants without being judgemental. So many great historical facts to serve as food for thought. Thank you!
Oh yes you're right! Maybe it's about time to make your own canon of scriptures. Like Jehovah's witnesses they made their own translation. Problem solved!
@@sideless6706 Doesn't matter, Watch Tower made their own translation, they deliberately mistranslated some verses to squeezed in their false doctrine. Regardless of what manuscript is your reference before 1950, the translation is way off. The history won't lie. Do your research!
In the sci fi world, we have a concept of of noncanon spinoff media. We know it's not canon and does not match the intent of the creator, but we acknowledge their existence and admit that they can have value as thought pieces.
except for the part where he excludes the 7 books that Luther did not want either! Try this" God I can get to heaven because all I have to do is pay my way in "as that forgives my sins. Tobit 12:9
@@vecturhoff7502 Anyone can still read the books if they want to . No one is saying you can not , what a lot are saying is the sentiments of St. Jerome in the 5th century when he took the 7 books out of the canon and said they were good for historical content ,but not for doctrine . Yes Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated. Catholics get there belief in praying for the dead from 2 Maccabee's 12 and selected verses . Praying for the dead and in the case of Judas in chapter 12 for unrepentant sinners to attain godliness , is not found anywhere else in 73 books of the bible. The virgin birth is found in Isaiah 7:14 and in the new testament . Should we consider the old and the new testaments as confirmation of a belief or just grab a single verse out of some additional books for the old testament and make a doctrine from it?
From Leo: I have read and own many of the extra canonical writing that you have mentioned. I also have studied the Hebrew teachings, including the Talmud. Isaiah 28:10 teaches us that true scripture is line upon line, precept upon precept. Any doctrine that cannot be proven by that criteria is troubling or errant. Some are not called to a lifetime of study. My challenge to the author, as well as all, is pick one Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and study that single gospel, until you can live by it completely. Know for certain what you believe, and live it accordingly.
J & B Slots and More so you dad isn’t your father? Gotcha. And the term father in the church is a honorary term similar to “your honor” or “mr.” And the priest is in persona Christ, meaning they are in the person of Christ.
I’ve read a lot of books from more modern people such as C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton and George McDonald. This doesn’t mean that I find them to be 100% accurate, but they can be helpful to read. C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce is very speculative and leads to many more theological questions, and while helping to wrap my head about difficult issue, it also raises so many more hard questions.
Its also so interesting on a historical standpoint to see how people thought and felt back then. Like I love reading Medieval theological discussions and how it built today’s church and culture.
Apparently, I need to read the Didache. If this text gives instructions on the Eucharist, then it debunks the (Protestant or Humanist) idea that church liturgy was written and imposed upon the church centuries after the time of Jesus.
I believe we should go back to the Church Fathers to find the used arguments to reject the apocryphal writings. This would be helpful these days when a debate arises.
Many are, but many of there works would be considered among them. We are discerning our past right now, recollecting ourselves. God is working in His Church. Praise be to our Eternal, Almighty and Everloving God.
Thank you so much for the information provided Father Casey. God bless you, and guide you through the process / journey of your Priesthood leadership. 🙏👍👌✌️👏♥️💙👼😇💪 I am thankful for your dedication to the Catholic Church. Praise the Lord GOD for ever, and ever 🙏 🙏
Let me count the ways, but hate is a little strong though just differences. 1. Worship of Mary - she is an agent in salvation a mediator between man and Christ. When Christ is our mediator. 2. Peter was the first pope. No. 3. Council of Trent 4. Salvation by faith alone. Dont quote James who compares saving faith and non saving faith. "The demons have faith and shutter" 5. Mortal sins which cause you to lose salvation. But their is no list. 6. Purgatory 7. Immaculate conception; "Mary mother of God" is a statment about Jesus being fully God at birth not about Mary 8. Indulgences - they are still active See debates with James White on diving line for more info.
@Steven Wright yes we interced for each other as equals (brothers and sisters in Christ). The object of our prayers even together is to God and God alone. You cannot tell me that saying, ‘Holy Mary, if thou wilt, hear thy suppliant; I put myself under the shelter of thy shield. When falling in the slippery path, thou art my smooth supporting hand staff. There is no hound in fleetness or in chase, north wind or rapid river, as quick as the Mother of Christ to the bed of death, to those who are entitled to her kindly protection. Amen.’ Is not a form of worship. For God alone is worthy of worship. Thou shou have no other gods before me.
Yeah, in general, the NT Apocrypha fall into 4 categories - (a) Useful for prayer and study, and nearly considered scripture (Epistles of Clement & Polycarp along with the Shepherd of Hermas); (b) The Didache (which was an early catechism & missal); (c) Pious fiction (such as the Protoevangelium of James, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla) and (d) heretical works. Much of Tradition is found in categories (a) and (b), and much tradition concerning the lives of the apostles and of Mary are found in (c). And so these 3 groups are actually somewhat beneficial in reading. In fact, many books in group (a) had more people in the early Church considering them scripture than some of the books we have today (notably Jude and 2nd Peter were often considered dubious), and I believe many of them are used in the Liturgy of the Hours. But definitely stay away from anything in group d.
It was a relatively small group of like minded people with pre existing biases that decided on the criteria and judged the criteria. And these were "people" and therefore imperfect. So I have an issue with the included works being considered the only valid ones and those left out being incorrect. Basically the argument presented for the books chosen is based on the idea that the people who made the decisions were objective, and made no mistakes. In addition to early Churches all using various collections of a wide variety of books, the early Churches had a wide variety of beliefs and practices. There was no monolithic view of Jesus and Church teaching. Then one Church decided that everyone else needed to get on the same page as them or become outcast. Why should we think that this one view is the correct view and the others were wrong? Just because they elbowed their way to the top? I don't think blindly following dogma and doctrine is a good idea. Being told what to think isn't a good idea. These things have always rubbed me the wrong way. One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church long ago and don't belong to any organized religion.
forgotten or lost? the extra-canonical books weren't forgotten or lost, they were banned. of course, any book that's worth the trouble of banning is a book that's worth the trouble of reading. And though the copy of the Gospel of Thomas we have was copied in the 2nd Century, the sayings within the Gospel of Thomas portray a very early version of Jesus' sayings - maybe even more authentic than the way they're recorded in the New Testament. That's not to say that the Gospel of Thomas is any more or less "inspired by God" than the canonical gospels, but I think the church's way of dealing with the extra-canonical scriptures was in error. What the Church fathers should have done instead of banning these books outright would be to use them as esoteric scriptures. In the first and second centuries, Christian churches had both public gospels and secret gospels. The public gospels were gospels anyone could read. Secret gospels were only for people who were already Christians and were mature in their faith. This is how the Church should have treated these extra-canonical texts - and even then, not all of these texts are equal. Christianity should have its own mystical texts to be used as supplements to the New Testament texts. Like the way Judaism uses the Kabbalah - it doesn't add or subtract from the scriptures, it provides an additional dimension of interpretation. And like in Judaism, where someone has to be at least 40 years old before they can study the Kabbalah (to make sure they're safely grounded in Jewish tradition), Christianity could have done something similar to ensure that those who studied these texts were first grounded in the traditional teachings of the Church.
@@michaelhaywood8262 The Gospel of Thomas used to be considered gnostic, but not anymore. There is nothing actually in Thomas that makes it gnostic, in the classic sense of the word. There's no evil creator god, there's no eminations in the pleroma of the Monad, etc - and those are the types of things you find in gnostic literature. But, all that aside, so what? So what if Thomas or any other book is gnostic, it doesn't make them not worth reading. Furthermore, I don't care if the church banned them and declared them heretical, I can decide for myself whether something is heretical or not.
The modern idea that all Gnostics believed in an evil creator and that the physical world is evil is false. There was no monolithic or centralized "Gnostic" teaching. The common thread among the Gnostics was that they believed that one should have their own experience, understanding, and relationship with God. They eschewed dogma and doctrine. There were many different 'sects' or variations on what is called Gnosticism. Some did believe in the evil demi urge and all that. Some believed other things. But the Church Fathers lumped them all together as "Gnostics" and labeled and as all having the same beliefs. The Gnostics were included in the list of Heretics.They ridiculed them and made them out to be as distasteful as possible to the common people so that the common people would shy away from "Gnostic" teaching. And now today we have an erroneous understanding of who the "Gnostics" were and what they believed.
They were destroyed. For nearly 2000 years the only knowledge we had of them came from early church fathers who found them heretical. Fortunately a large cache of early Gnostic gospels were found in 1947, hidden at Nag Hamadi in Egypt, written in Coptic. They have all been translated and are easily available. They prove there were many varieties of early Christian beliefs before Constantine made Christianity the state religion of what remained of the Roman Empire.
So said the Pope. I'm a believer, I'm not here to argue - but too often modern Christians revere Saints and historic Popes and forget they were flawed men too. Any human that claims devine knowledge of scripture is just the Joseph Smith of their time drunk with power. Those popes in that era were some bad hombres
@@JackieDaytona1776 the Catholic Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter is preserved from error by Gods promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it and the keys to bind and loose Heaven and Earth
Early Christians believed that he was both human and divine, and that he had two natures. These statements were defined at the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, respectively.
As a Bible student for nearly 10 years, it is good to have the apocryphal books in The Holy Bible because of their historical and theological value that they contain. For example, the Books of the Maccabees albeit are in Roman Catholic and Byzantine Bibles but they’re not in most Protestant Bibles (Save the original KJV 1611 Bible), they mention the Hellenic period in Judea where the Maccabees had to rebel against pagan and apostasy that plagued the land. The reason why it’s not in the Bibles we have is because many Protestant leaders back in Luther’s day couldn’t find the Hebrew version of Maccabees. In so, they removed it.
That's because Mac.II wasn't actually written in Hebrew, or even in Judea as far as I recall. (IIRC neither was Mac.I but I don't think anyone who doesn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic cares enough about the difference between the two).
does anyone know where I can find the full old testament in the Greek Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls, and the all the works that were left out of the bible mentioned here.
I would love to see a video of the gospel of thomas, where quotes are read and critique if they follow the consistent theology and if they don't, why they don't. I think it would be a good educative exercise.
Is it true that Jesus mentioned certain books but these are not in the accepted Bible now ? If so why ? If they were false, why then did he refer to them ?
Good comments but I wish you would have said directly the canon was chosen by the Catholic Church. So many people don't know that and don't even know that ALL other christian faiths have broke off the Catholic Church, therefore the catholic faith is NOT a denomination, it is the original!
Very interesting! I am searching for good books on the Holy Spirit. I want to really get to know Him. Any recommendations, please? Blessings on you and your ministry
By the way thank you for listing all the other books that are just written writings that have nothing to do with the bible but may be good for reading. I do have epistles of Barnabas and Polycarp they are awesome.
Paul and Thecla!! 🙌 It's quite clear which parts of the text are problematic. There's an ambiguous passage where we aren't sure if Paul is calling marriage evil, or if somebody is misquoting him. Either way it's a clear distortion of what is written in his epistles
Can someone link me to more info on how the canon of scripture was compiled. Maybe official church statements from Hippo or something. I really wanna know
When I was young we weren't allowed to read the Bible ourselves. This was to make sure that we didn't make our own interpretation. Much as Luther did. I still can't make heads nor tails of Revelations. I have heard that many theologians also have trouble with it. Some people say Revelations is so obscure because John was an old man when he wrote, assuming this is the apostle John. Some have said he was taking something like mescal. Whatever, I will wait until the Lord clears it up for me.
@@BagzAndPresident I agree with that. I don't think it is definitive just who wrote it. It still could be the apostle John. We all know he was the only apostle not to be martyred. I don't know when he died.
Fr Casey this is a good intro to a topic that warrants attention. Since the the Bible is supposed to be composed of writings by apostles ( or closely associated, widespread, divinely inspired to be considered canon and not apocryphal). But in all these, who are we to say which writings are canon or not? Written by men, these books were also qualified as canon by men. As humans we , lay or clergy, are imperfect and prone to err. And as the current Bible was a product of many changes, how can we say that the changes cannot continue? That it is a work in progress being truly the living word? Maybe as we learn more about our faith, some of the apocryphal writings would begin to make sense in these times and make it through the 3 qualifications? A devout Catholic here. Cheers
Strange that he doesn’t address the gospels of Judas and Mary! The again they do not fit into his agenda any more than they did into the agenda of those who established the canon. Their picking and choosing had a lot to do with their own prejudices and nothing to do with divine inspiration.
Some books were left out because they weren’t old enough. Imagine if Ignatius’ letters were in there, his defense of the true presence and orders to obey your bishop. Or the evangium of James, with all its references to Our Lady.
@Jessica G. I saw your response in my notifications, but for some reason, it's not showing up on this page. I just wanted to say 'thanks' and to 'like' your statement. :)
I’ve read about computer problems that can analyze words, grammar, and context to reveal similar authorship. I just wonder if anyone has done this sort of analysis on the books you have mentioned ?
Yes, it is called textual criticism, and why we can be fairly sure that the books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) have a mesh of many different authors. The way sentences are structured, how God is mentioned, what the focus is, etc. are inconsistent throughout the books.
Breaking In The Habit I’m listening to a presentation on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is interesting how phrases used by St. John the apostle and St Paul appear in the Scrolls.
People have to remember that the people of the Biblical times lived in an oral tradition world. They didn't often write things down and in many Hebrew texts there was a cadence that helped them to remember and tell these stories (like rhyme is used in poetry). Some of the arguments for keeping or casting off texts are debatable because there was an assumption that the most important stories were written down. Many of the stories that were passed down into the medieval world and were well known by Christians do not appear in the Bible (such as many of the stories of Enoch such as the battle of the angels). Also certainly many of the letters and works were lost. The Bible as we know it was composed over a long time and wasn't part of the early church. It wasn't until I believe 398 that the Bible was codified. I find it sad that Christians think that revelation/guidance/gospel has ended with the Biblical days. The whole purpose of the Holy Spirit and the living church was to continue.
FOR THE' RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT Dr. JAMES WHITE KNOWS MORE THAN ANY Roman catholic ,but I do not think they would allow you to watch his videos.
@@wendymitchell8245 : It's educational for Catholics listen to James White. We get a good example of the kind of heresies that non-Catholics are being subjected to. Someone who hates the Church as much as he does is not going to preach the truth about Catholicity.
Christian do not agree on what is in the books though. There are over 400 different versions of the Bible in Germanic and Latin languages alone. They differ in order of books, the contents, phrases and words. Eg, the Gospel of Mark has three or four different endings. Most added in the Middle Ages. Mark was added to have a round number of four gospels. The famous story about Casting the First Stone was never in John instil 7th or 8th century. The Roman Catholic Church rejects Hebrews as an Epistle of Paul unlike the Eastern Orthodox. Whereas only of the Epistles were written by the same person whom we can’t know is St Paul or even new St Paul. There is also Genesis 18 22 whose wording was reversed in the 10th century The Bible was changed to reflect changing theology not the other way around - well, a tad of a two way street. This is why we have as many Bibles as differing theologies. How about be honest in how the Bible came to be written and it had scant to do with the Holy Spirit. Don’t blame God on this one
And so there's only one Church who decided which of those written old manuscripts can be included in the Bible as the Word of God, it's the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In my opinion the Apostolic Fathers are authentic early Christian writings and even divinely inspired, I mean the writers are revered even today as Saints of the Church and hence, should be read in Church and in private as well. Not only those but writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Epistle of the Apostles, the Testament of the Lord and the Apocalypse of Peter should also be studied and meditated. Just my thoughts.
You only have to read books like Maccabees to see why it has also been left out and if you read some of those that only just made it you can also see why they were more controversial.
To me, the hard part of all Bible study is interpreting the allegories. Apocalypse is a big example-the imagery is very strange-beasts with horns, star called Wormwood, significance of the number "666". So the question is: what is the value of a book whose meaning is so disputed?
Any compilation it is true that can be more or less or needs correction as some important information come in. All needs thorough sifting before correction after so long a time.
I think that was left out for pretty obvious reasons. It, like other Gnostic texts, teach that "finding salvation in following the Christ" is an individual matter, a personal journey of spiritual growth and enlightenment, rather than following the orders of an organized, hierarchical religion. Also, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene calls out Peter for being a sexist hothead and, of course, a patriarchal church couldn't have that.
I’m not a catholic but I’ve watched so many of these videos, this guy is a great speaker and explains things very well, very interesting content.
the blind leading the blind. How do you know what he is saying is the holy bible truth? Because he is wearing a habit and people who don't know that God said call no man your father, insist on calling him father.
Floyd Knight You have no clue what you are talking about. Take 1 Timothy 2:9 for example, when Pail himself calls Timothy his son. Does that mean Paul is a false teacher? The term father can be used for different contexts
@@booba8930 You don't understand the holy word of God. No where in the holy bible does Paul say he is Timothy's father. Paul love Timothy like a son. Timothy never ever refer to Paul as his father.
You Catholics literally misinterpret the holy word of God because you don't have the spirit of understanding from God. So you try to add unto the holy word of God (which can never be done) creating your own thing, your own interpretation of how to live.
Further proof that Catholicism is not Christianity and is completely made-up.
In your misinterpretation of the holy word of God. Catholics falsely compare the apostles and prophets, in the holy bible(KJV) ordained by God himself to minister his holy word.
With the hundreds of thousands catholics priests since Catholicism started. The same Catholic priest were far too many of them are pedophiles, and homosexuals.
I'm not saying there are no homosexual pastors in the protestant churches.
The difference is that pedophiles and homosexuality is not a profession in protestant churches.
Not one Catholic priest was ordained by God to minister his holy word.
Floyd Knight which spirit do you have the spirit of Protestant heritics you twist the bible to justify racism greed deception murder slavery women priest homosexual clergy tens of thousands cults and they all like you claim to have the Holy Spirit we Catholic worship the real Jesus while Protestant worship the American jesus=anti christ
@@tonysaad3072 I'm am not in any way at war with you nor with the individual Catholic.
What possible inconceivable reason could you have to say that about me and call me a Protestant heretic. What in the world are you talking about. Racism greed, deception, murder slavery women. I have nothing to do with any of those false accusations.
The part about homosexual priest. Is that not prevalent in Catholic priest hood. Does the pope not excommunicate the guilty priest who have been caught terrorizing young children. Those guilty priest are not even charged and arrested but moved to another church to terrorize more children by the authority of pope. The Vatican headquarters of Catholicism, the pope fully in charge just pays off the victims family, and its business as usual.
Now lets address what the word Catholic mean, the real meaning.
The word Catholic means universal, according to the whole. The whole being of mankind. Also in general. That is the exact definition of the flesh.
Catholic doesn't only mean every and anyone can join the worldly organization. The true meaning lies beneath.
What about the meaning of the word Vatican. The true origin of Catholicism.
The word Vatican means divining serpent.
Have you any clue who that is?
The divining serpent is the god of this world. Satan., the anti-christ.
Catholicism is not in any way shape or form, never has been never will be Christian.
You Tony Saad and your Catholicism can't deceive every body.
Not people like me who has the spirit of understanding from Jesus Christ.
You sure cant' falsely accuse me .
Your false accusation are baseless and just pure wickedness.
I am in no way judging you the individual Catholic. I'm not and will never be in a position or have authority to judge you.
I am a sinner just like you, born in sin shaped inequity, and fallen short of the glory of God.
I'll say again. This is not a debate and i'm not at war with you as a individual Catholic.
The holy bible tells us to cleave to that which is good and despise that which is evil. Catholicism is evil.
I am protestant, but come here for the Roman Catholic view. Very well presented, and great information!
I’m glad you are open to our views.😊 We Christians should stick together no more than ever in this godless world.🙏❤️ God bless you Thaddeus.⭐️
I agree, he's very well spoken. It's so easy to reject something when you don't understand it, these turorials make a lot of sense.
"Christians also didn't literally dictate the word of God from heaven or find it in the ground somewhere"
*Angry Mormon noises*
I don’t think Mormons are Christians 😅
@@5kydragon347 They're considered Christian, and most Mormons and scholars of Religion call them Christian, but there are plenty of non-mormons who'd argue with that
@@patriciamcgeorge2575 In all respect, the only reason I don’t considered them to be Christian is because they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (that he’s God), which is really the whole thing Christianity revolves around.
@@5kydragon347 Thing is... They do...
@@patriciamcgeorge2575 So I was told by missionaries that they don’t believe Jesus is God, believe he is the SON of God and the messiah, but not that he is actually God. Which is very important in Christianity.
I read the Apostolic Fathers this summer and they helped to push me unto converting to Roman Catholicism!
Amen
THE' APOSTOLIC FATHERS ARE NOT INSPIRED AND DO NOT ALL AGREE. You have been led from the truth of the Apostles and God. .Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring back to their memory everything He taught them . .Read John 14 - 17.When someone says they are converting to a denomination and not Jesus they are going in the wrong direction.
John 5 :24. he who hears My word and believes Him who sent me ,HAS eternal life ,and does not come into judgement,but has past out of death into life.
Is this the teaching of the R.C. church .
@Bod MBPsS that is like saying Jesus is not God.
@@wendymitchell8245 : The Apostolic (Church) Fathers were disciples, personal friends, of the Apostles.
The Apostles did not forget a single word that Jesus said, nor a single event in His life. This information was passed on to the Church Fathers and other Catholics.
Some of this was written down, some was passed on by word of mouth, for two thousand years.
This is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition.
Perhaps you prefer to believe Luther, Calvin or Cranmer..
But I'll stick with the Apostles and the Church Fathers
@TOOTHLESS WONDERS I agree on this.
Such a mighty man of God.. our church needs priests like you Father..
Agreed.
Matthew 23:9, KJV: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Jesus says this in scipture.
@@jefferywallace1391 and what do you call your birth father? Sigh.
The Bible has the answer your looking for. Read it.
@@jefferywallace1391 sola scriptura is not the right way. That is why the Church has the Church and Apostolic fathers who explain exactly what you are alluding to.
I once pointed this out to a former seminarian now Baptist as proof that the Church existed before the Bible, hence we can't be "Bible only" Christians, and he ignored me.
It's a tough one for some to grasp. It's why I have so much backlash on a video I made against sola scriptura. th-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/w-d-xo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit idk, I’m Baptist and I would have ignored something like that also, thinking “we’re not having this argument.” I grasp that Catholics believe Catholic things; Baptists believe Baptist things. Those types of arguments are usually unproductive. Live and let live.
@@blackwater642
However ignoring yet not being able to defend it are two diferent things.
The baptist obiviously didnt have any fact nor historical date to prove that the kjv id actually the word of God.
When in reality King James was a anglican king.
@@tryhardf844 Hi Mr Benedictine. Baptist churches have congregational governance so each church or pastor chooses whichever version of the Bible he wants to use or recommend, if any. I’ve never attended a KJV only church but I know there are some. Most Baptist preachers I’ve heard used either the NASB, the ESV, or even the old RSV, but there are no hard and fast rules on that. There are as many opinions on Bible translations as there are
preachers using them. If asked they usually just quip that “the best translation for you is
whichever one you’ll read.”
Churches that use the Byzantine text (KJV) instead of the Alexandrian text have their reasons. I believe the Orthodox Church uses the Byzantine Text, and I think it’s the one Erasmus used. Other than that I don’t know enough about the texts to be entitled to an opinion. I know there are some small differences that some people care about, such as the adulterous woman pericope in John. My understanding is that Baptist churches that choose the Byzantine text version often recommend the KJV, NKJV, or the newer MEV, but again, I’ve never been to those churches myself. Most of the Baptists I’ve heard comment on this topic say it really doesn’t matter which text the faithful read at home, either one “contains all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation.”
I think most Baptists know who King James was, but even if they didn’t it wouldn’t matter since that wouldn’t effect their salvation. Sorry for this longish post. I hope this helps. I tried to answer you earlier but since every single person in my town was live streaming the LSU- Alabama game my internet was wonky.
@@blackwater642
Not many know who KJV was.You ate correct.
But it is worrying that they dont know that they hold him on such regard to scripture that they forget to call it the word of God and instead they call it the "King James Bible"
I am a Reformed Christian but I must say, I admire your work here and the way you present the Christian faith as a proponent of Catholicism.
I personally study and hold in high esteem the works of the great Franciscan Friar and philosopher, Duns Scotus, and I know that there is much wisdom to be gained by hearing out your side.
Thank you so much for your service to people and know that we are praying for you and standing with you in speaking for Christ and His gospel.
God bless, man!
Thanks so much! I'm a big fan of Scotus' as well!
Nikko R. Now that u know the truth you should be making your way home to the Catholic Church.... what the use of knowing the truth and doing nothing about It ? Just a thought ?
there is no gospel in the Roman church ., no assurance of salvation.
Thanks, Father may God bless you.
How can i find that books?
@@leotom2022 what did the Roman and spanish inquisitions do and for what reason.?
I was just talking with a friend last night about the books left out of the Bible and wanted to look into it, and then this video appeared! Thanks for making it.
Daniel Canning The best account you will find on TH-cam is the series by James White who studies the earliest manuscripts and teaches on it . There are videos on , -' The reliability of the New testament text' .and ' The Inspiration, canonization, and transmission of scripture'.
This young man is just repeating what he was taught ,without personal investigation. Therefore is not accurate.His opening statement is wrong no Christians agree with him . Many he names are known to be written later and are known Gnostic Heretical writings .The point is the Apostles controlled the writing of the New Testament it was either written by them or by their scribes .
@@wendymitchell8245 It is true that Judaism does not recognize the Apocrypha as scripture but they do celebrate Hanukkah which is in the Apocrypha and it is mentioned in the Gospels. So it's not scripture but does have historical and cultural significance.
@@abc123fhdi That is right, it is mentioned as a commemorative day ,like the mention in the New Testament of Easter which in context is the pagan festival kept by the Romans ,not the death of Jesus as it was not referring to the time of Passover when Jesus died.
@Steven Wright No they do not all agree with this. The letters written by the Apostles were not written from heaven . It is not who wrote the canon it is who was inspired . John was told by God to write Revelation.(ch.1.).How could the generation at the end of the Apostolic age not know what they wrote . .
The Alexandrian Jews allowed them selves more freedom ,the Hebrew canon was similar to our own.
Next you should chat about all the changes and additions to the Books within the Bible. That is way more intersecting.
Seriously the best Christian channel on the faith. I'm not even Catholic, yet. But such great information and sharing.
Rosary is powerful. Has helped me. Can't wait till I convert.
Brilliant. I have lately been subjected to conspiracy nonsense by non-believers of "New Age" leanings, and this has been very reaffirming. Thank-you.
Thank you Fr. Casey. This has been a question on my Dad's mind for many years. Now I can point him to your video for the correct answer. God bless you ALWAYS!
PIPESPLAYER this information is totally wrong.
@@wendymitchell8245 NO, it is NOT!
@@PipesPlayer1980 he does not even seem to know they were inspired because they were written by or under the authority of the Apostles . Even Justin Martyr refers to the memoirs of the Apostles being read in the church in his day . They knew the Gnostics were heretics in Apostolic times .False teaching has entered the church through the false writings of the Apocrypha.
Wendy the sheep like to munch on green grass fed to them without questioning the source. Knew a landscaper who had a flock of Sheep and came home with a pickup truck of fresh cut grass. Fed the Sheep and within a day or two had sick Sheep. All that fresh green grass cut and smelling so good also had pesticides sprayed on. This is what I find with the nice man in the brown robe , teaching what he has been taught and not seeing the tiny bit of poison he is spreading.
I remember discussing some of these works in my Survey of the New Testament class. I had read some of these works prior to having taken that class, but there were those in the class who called themselves "pastors" who were thoroughly unaware that these works even existed. Indeed, there are works mentioned in the Bible itself that we do not seem to have copies of to read for ourselves. It is my hope that a few of them might resurface so to see what these works contained.
Thats why they should become Catholic...
I am a Protestant and I honestly had no problems with anything you said. The only concern is when someone that does not have the Holy Spirit living in them reads the texts that are not entirely true, they have no way of knowing what is true and false. I could see this causing a lot of trouble
This is not a good argument. The Holy WILL always lead someone looking for truth into truth. It is one of his sole purposes for living in us. To guide us into all truth. If your statement is correct then he isn’t doing his job
Theoretically, you could be correct, however, in practice, the non-canon scripture usually has such an obvious core message and teaching that a simple scribal error or addition would change nothing of its point.
E.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham. The question as to why the Jews are the chosen people is finally revealed (they are part angel being descended from Azazel and later from Yahoel (he's a form of God) through Issac). A pretty strong message that a minor error here or there would not change.
Also, many non-canon scriptures have unreliable narrators, which means even they are 100% true in the sense they really are what they say they are, you have to take their points with a grain of salt. E.g. The Testament of Soloman (which honestly reads like a self-aware parody of how Christians view demons, being scripture that doesn't take itself too seriously) and The Book of Enoch, which are brilliant books that are filled with mystery and answers to important questions as to the non-human races, but you can't trust their authors to be completely honest/factual about everything (most things though).
@@Joetriumph1 if you have the Holy Spirit in you, there’s no doubts or questions. You know it for a fact more than you know anything else
What good is it to worship a G-d who misdirects you or allows the person seeking G-d to be lead away form G-d. Like the say goes, With a fiend like that he doesn't need enemies.
@@Joetriumph1 those who worship God must worship in spirit and truth. Those who “worship” Jesus aren’t led away.
Didache should be required reading for any Catholic also its reasoning for being left out makes a ton of sense as it was essentially an instruction manual. It will also give you extra ground to stand on if you ever get into a debate where someone challenges the sacraments of Baptism and Communion. As it is believed to have been in circulation while many of the Apostles were still alive.
Bern I’ve read it as a non Catholic
Bern It is not inspired .
Wendy Mitchell neither are the gospels
@@BagzAndPresident they say so and it fits with the Old testament prophecies.
Can you do the old testement duetrocannoncial books?
What a wonderful history lesson! I think each person can take from it what he/she wants without being judgemental. So many great historical facts to serve as food for thought. Thank you!
Good morning ! Pretty weather and cold in Salem Arkansas along the South Fork River.
Right On. I just took a course on the Gnostic Scriptures. Great visuals!!! Love the library background
I am learning from you father Casey. Thank you. God bless you throughout your missionary life.
Dear Fr Casey ! This is precious information! Thank you. God bless you ! 😇😇
In other words, we have the "director's cut" Bible.
Oh yes you're right! Maybe it's about time to make your own canon of scriptures. Like Jehovah's witnesses they made their own translation. Problem solved!
Anyone can be a director, God gave us a free will. That’s what Martin Luther did. He and his collaborators made their “director’s cut.”
@@edmiro2988 Woah slow down there have you ever seen what Jehova's witness actually believe.
@@sideless6706 Doesn't matter, Watch Tower made their own translation, they deliberately mistranslated some verses to squeezed in their false doctrine. Regardless of what manuscript is your reference before 1950, the translation is way off. The history won't lie. Do your research!
If you really want a "director's cut" bible, get the old King James (the only english translation based on inspired greek texts).
In the sci fi world, we have a concept of of noncanon spinoff media. We know it's not canon and does not match the intent of the creator, but we acknowledge their existence and admit that they can have value as thought pieces.
Red son
good video! I appreciate you discussing some specific examples at the end
The 7 letters of saint ignatius are a must to read so beautifull
except for the part where he excludes the 7 books that Luther did not want either! Try this" God I can get to heaven because all I have to do is pay my way in "as that forgives my sins. Tobit 12:9
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 He´s talking about the new testament, the books removed in the protestant bible were on the O.T
@@vecturhoff7502 Anyone can still read the books if they want to . No one is saying you can not , what a lot are saying is the sentiments of St. Jerome in the 5th century when he took the 7 books out of the canon and said they were good for historical content ,but not for doctrine . Yes Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were reinstated.
Catholics get there belief in praying for the dead from 2 Maccabee's 12 and selected verses . Praying for the dead and in the case of Judas in chapter 12 for unrepentant sinners to attain godliness , is not found anywhere else in 73 books of the bible.
The virgin birth is found in Isaiah 7:14 and in the new testament . Should we consider the old and the new testaments as confirmation of a belief or just grab a single verse out of some additional books for the old testament and make a doctrine from it?
0:54 dang he really called Mormons RIGHT on out 👀🤭😂
From Leo: I have read and own many of the extra canonical writing that you have mentioned. I also have studied the Hebrew teachings, including the Talmud. Isaiah 28:10 teaches us that true scripture is line upon line, precept upon precept. Any doctrine that cannot be proven by that criteria is troubling or errant. Some are not called to a lifetime of study. My challenge to the author, as well as all, is pick one Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and study that single gospel, until you can live by it completely. Know for certain what you believe, and live it accordingly.
A great explanation Father.
CALL NO ONE ON EARTH FATHER
@@BagzAndPresident do you call your dad by his name?
J & B Slots and More so you dad isn’t your father? Gotcha. And the term father in the church is a honorary term similar to “your honor” or “mr.” And the priest is in persona Christ, meaning they are in the person of Christ.
Ismug Ireson dad is what you call your birth dad
But Father is reserved only for God the Father
Why are y’all both mad? It’s only in the scripture
ItsNando20 Jesus said CALL NO ONE ON EARTH FATHER
Great video! Cleared up a lot of things. Thank you for this one!
Very informative, thank you so very much. You have given me quite a large reading assignment...WOW
To sum up: it’s the Catholic Church who selects the books of the Bible and give them authority.
I’ve read a lot of books from more modern people such as C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton and George McDonald. This doesn’t mean that I find them to be 100% accurate, but they can be helpful to read. C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce is very speculative and leads to many more theological questions, and while helping to wrap my head about difficult issue, it also raises so many more hard questions.
Thank you father Casey, God bless you
Its also so interesting on a historical standpoint to see how people thought and felt back then. Like I love reading Medieval theological discussions and how it built today’s church and culture.
Apparently, I need to read the Didache. If this text gives instructions on the Eucharist, then it debunks the (Protestant or Humanist) idea that church liturgy was written and imposed upon the church centuries after the time of Jesus.
That and the letters of St. Ignatius convinced me that those teachings were much earlier than Protestants often think.
I hope the aliens get a few copies of the National Enquirer :D
I believe we should go back to the Church Fathers to find the used arguments to reject the apocryphal writings. This would be helpful these days when a debate arises.
Many are, but many of there works would be considered among them. We are discerning our past right now, recollecting ourselves. God is working in His Church. Praise be to our Eternal, Almighty and Everloving God.
Thankyou Father, your channel provide so much valuable answers to my questions.
AWESOME as ALWAYS father!
Thank you so much for the information provided Father Casey. God bless you, and guide you through the process / journey of your Priesthood leadership. 🙏👍👌✌️👏♥️💙👼😇💪 I am thankful for your dedication to the Catholic Church. Praise the Lord GOD for ever, and ever 🙏 🙏
I really need to get myself a Catholic Bible. I want to read all these books
Thanks so much for the video I learned a lot
nadav from the holy Land
God bless you Fr Casey . India
Jharkhand Simdega.
I’m still so curious on why so many Protestants are hateful towards Catholics
Angel Gutierrez years and years of propaganda being taught in many Protestant churches, while not having any theological discussion with Catholics
Let me count the ways, but hate is a little strong though just differences.
1. Worship of Mary - she is an agent in salvation a mediator between man and Christ. When Christ is our mediator.
2. Peter was the first pope. No.
3. Council of Trent
4. Salvation by faith alone. Dont quote James who compares saving faith and non saving faith. "The demons have faith and shutter"
5. Mortal sins which cause you to lose salvation. But their is no list.
6. Purgatory
7. Immaculate conception; "Mary mother of God" is a statment about Jesus being fully God at birth not about Mary
8. Indulgences - they are still active
See debates with James White on diving line for more info.
@Apu Apustaja well then show me theological from the Bible or historical proofs.
@Apu Apustaja these are standard catholic beliefs. Go to Catholic Answers .com
@Steven Wright yes we interced for each other as equals (brothers and sisters in Christ). The object of our prayers even together is to God and God alone. You cannot tell me that saying,
‘Holy Mary, if thou wilt, hear thy suppliant; I put myself under the shelter of thy shield. When falling in the slippery path, thou art my smooth supporting hand staff. There is no hound in fleetness or in chase, north wind or rapid river, as quick as the Mother of Christ to the bed of death, to those who are entitled to her kindly protection. Amen.’
Is not a form of worship. For God alone is worthy of worship. Thou shou have no other gods before me.
Yeah, in general, the NT Apocrypha fall into 4 categories - (a) Useful for prayer and study, and nearly considered scripture (Epistles of Clement & Polycarp along with the Shepherd of Hermas); (b) The Didache (which was an early catechism & missal); (c) Pious fiction (such as the Protoevangelium of James, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla) and (d) heretical works. Much of Tradition is found in categories (a) and (b), and much tradition concerning the lives of the apostles and of Mary are found in (c). And so these 3 groups are actually somewhat beneficial in reading. In fact, many books in group (a) had more people in the early Church considering them scripture than some of the books we have today (notably Jude and 2nd Peter were often considered dubious), and I believe many of them are used in the Liturgy of the Hours. But definitely stay away from anything in group d.
Thank you
I am an atheist, but I enjoy the hell out of your videos.
It was a relatively small group of like minded people with pre existing biases that decided on the criteria and judged the criteria. And these were "people" and therefore imperfect. So I have an issue with the included works being considered the only valid ones and those left out being incorrect.
Basically the argument presented for the books chosen is based on the idea that the people who made the decisions were objective, and made no mistakes.
In addition to early Churches all using various collections of a wide variety of books, the early Churches had a wide variety of beliefs and practices. There was no monolithic view of Jesus and Church teaching. Then one Church decided that everyone else needed to get on the same page as them or become outcast. Why should we think that this one view is the correct view and the others were wrong? Just because they elbowed their way to the top? I don't think blindly following dogma and doctrine is a good idea. Being told what to think isn't a good idea.
These things have always rubbed me the wrong way. One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church long ago and don't belong to any organized religion.
Very important information for me from this part of the world.thanks bother may God bless
forgotten or lost? the extra-canonical books weren't forgotten or lost, they were banned. of course, any book that's worth the trouble of banning is a book that's worth the trouble of reading. And though the copy of the Gospel of Thomas we have was copied in the 2nd Century, the sayings within the Gospel of Thomas portray a very early version of Jesus' sayings - maybe even more authentic than the way they're recorded in the New Testament. That's not to say that the Gospel of Thomas is any more or less "inspired by God" than the canonical gospels, but I think the church's way of dealing with the extra-canonical scriptures was in error.
What the Church fathers should have done instead of banning these books outright would be to use them as esoteric scriptures. In the first and second centuries, Christian churches had both public gospels and secret gospels. The public gospels were gospels anyone could read. Secret gospels were only for people who were already Christians and were mature in their faith. This is how the Church should have treated these extra-canonical texts - and even then, not all of these texts are equal. Christianity should have its own mystical texts to be used as supplements to the New Testament texts. Like the way Judaism uses the Kabbalah - it doesn't add or subtract from the scriptures, it provides an additional dimension of interpretation. And like in Judaism, where someone has to be at least 40 years old before they can study the Kabbalah (to make sure they're safely grounded in Jewish tradition), Christianity could have done something similar to ensure that those who studied these texts were first grounded in the traditional teachings of the Church.
The so-called ;Gospel' of Thomas is a Gnostic book.
@@michaelhaywood8262 The Gospel of Thomas used to be considered gnostic, but not anymore. There is nothing actually in Thomas that makes it gnostic, in the classic sense of the word. There's no evil creator god, there's no eminations in the pleroma of the Monad, etc - and those are the types of things you find in gnostic literature.
But, all that aside, so what? So what if Thomas or any other book is gnostic, it doesn't make them not worth reading. Furthermore, I don't care if the church banned them and declared them heretical, I can decide for myself whether something is heretical or not.
@@jflaugher Exactly.
The modern idea that all Gnostics believed in an evil creator and that the physical world is evil is false. There was no monolithic or centralized "Gnostic" teaching. The common thread among the Gnostics was that they believed that one should have their own experience, understanding, and relationship with God. They eschewed dogma and doctrine. There were many different 'sects' or variations on what is called Gnosticism. Some did believe in the evil demi urge and all that. Some believed other things. But the Church Fathers lumped them all together as "Gnostics" and labeled and as all having the same beliefs. The Gnostics were included in the list of Heretics.They ridiculed them and made them out to be as distasteful as possible to the common people so that the common people would shy away from "Gnostic" teaching. And now today we have an erroneous understanding of who the "Gnostics" were and what they believed.
They were destroyed. For nearly 2000 years the only knowledge we had of them came from early church fathers who found them heretical. Fortunately a large cache of early Gnostic gospels were found in 1947, hidden at Nag Hamadi in Egypt, written in Coptic. They have all been translated and are easily available. They prove there were many varieties of early Christian beliefs before Constantine made Christianity the state religion of what remained of the Roman Empire.
So the books in the Bible are put together and confirmed by an authority
God gave Pope Damascus Authority and inspration in the compilation of the Bible.
@@AarontheGreatXCII-kn4gj no he did not .
@@wendymitchell8245 yes God did
So said the Pope. I'm a believer, I'm not here to argue - but too often modern Christians revere Saints and historic Popes and forget they were flawed men too. Any human that claims devine knowledge of scripture is just the Joseph Smith of their time drunk with power. Those popes in that era were some bad hombres
@@JackieDaytona1776 the Catholic Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter is preserved from error by Gods promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it and the keys to bind and loose Heaven and Earth
I need that "Jesus holding a rifle" image.
It’s a false image. Jesus would never had needed a scope.
I love these videos. Please don't stop Catholicsm in Focus
Could you also make a video like this on the pseudepigraphia?
wish 1 clement was included in the canon tbh would've buttressed arguments for catholicism
I'm not sure it would. If some people won't take Jesus at his word, why would they believe a letter from the bishop of Rome?
Basilica Clement was not an Apostle .Jesus commissioned them to bring his word.
@Steven Wright Romans 16:22 I Tertius ,who wrote this epistle. That was usual to hire a scribe .Otherwise their little fingers would hurt.
You are fantastic. I love watching your videos.
Excellent review!
Enlighten me - Which of the gospels was written by one of the twelve disciples ?
Probably none. Or very little.
This probably sounds like a dumb question but is there any books that include the removed new testament letters or gospels? Would love to have it
There are many of these. One is the Gospel of Thomas which is worth reading. There are You Tube videos about why it was not included.
Also letters between Jesus and a King
Could someone help me at 4:40 "of only one nature"??? Did early Christians believe Jesus was only of one nature?
Early Christians believed that he was both human and divine, and that he had two natures. These statements were defined at the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, respectively.
As a Bible student for nearly 10 years, it is good to have the apocryphal books in The Holy Bible because of their historical and theological value that they contain. For example, the Books of the Maccabees albeit are in Roman Catholic and Byzantine Bibles but they’re not in most Protestant Bibles (Save the original KJV 1611 Bible), they mention the Hellenic period in Judea where the Maccabees had to rebel against pagan and apostasy that plagued the land. The reason why it’s not in the Bibles we have is because many Protestant leaders back in Luther’s day couldn’t find the Hebrew version of Maccabees. In so, they removed it.
That's because Mac.II wasn't actually written in Hebrew, or even in Judea as far as I recall. (IIRC neither was Mac.I but I don't think anyone who doesn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic cares enough about the difference between the two).
Awesome✝️
does anyone know where I can find the full old testament in the Greek Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls, and the all the works that were left out of the bible mentioned here.
This always made me curious how different the world would be if all books were accepted or some of the other books were accepted of the books.
I would love to see a video of the gospel of thomas, where quotes are read and critique if they follow the consistent theology and if they don't, why they don't. I think it would be a good educative exercise.
Is it true that Jesus mentioned certain books but these are not in the accepted Bible now ? If so why ? If they were false, why then did he refer to them ?
The only books I can think of Christ referring to is the Torra, which is the Christian old Testimate.
This is essential sharing. Thanks so very much.
Excellent analysis - thank you.
Very informative
Maccabees is the fulfillment of the prophecies of David whom was thrown in a pit with lions and was councillor to the Assyrian King.
Alexander.
Apostolic Councils developed the books in the Bible.it recognizes the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of The Church
Never proven
Good comments but I wish you would have said directly the canon was chosen by the Catholic Church. So many people don't know that and don't even know that ALL other christian faiths have broke off the Catholic Church, therefore the catholic faith is NOT a denomination, it is the original!
Very interesting! I am searching for good books on the Holy Spirit. I want to really get to know Him. Any recommendations, please?
Blessings on you and your ministry
Brother Casey where did yo look for the covers of each book in the NT? Looks cool though.
Did Constantine the Great had an influence as to what books should be included in the Bible?
No, the books of the Bible was settled by then.
So like we have books taken out of the bible but also other denominations also have books taken out of the bible. What's the difference?
By the way thank you for listing all the other books that are just written writings that have nothing to do with the bible but may be good for reading. I do have epistles of Barnabas and Polycarp they are awesome.
We did not take them out, there was no Bible for them to be in at the time.
The Bible was settled in the 4th century and remained so until the 1500 when Martin Luther decided he knew better than everyone else.
@@jaqian Indeed.
Very nice keep up the good work God bless you and your family 👉✝
Paul and Thecla!! 🙌
It's quite clear which parts of the text are problematic. There's an ambiguous passage where we aren't sure if Paul is calling marriage evil, or if somebody is misquoting him. Either way it's a clear distortion of what is written in his epistles
Paul told people to not marry in his epistles lmao
Can someone link me to more info on how the canon of scripture was compiled. Maybe official church statements from Hippo or something. I really wanna know
When I was young we weren't allowed to read the Bible ourselves. This was to make sure that we didn't make our own interpretation. Much as Luther did. I still can't make heads nor tails of Revelations. I have heard that many theologians also have trouble with it. Some people say Revelations is so obscure because John was an old man when he wrote, assuming this is the apostle John. Some have said he was taking something like mescal. Whatever, I will wait until the Lord clears it up for me.
John of Patmos is NOT John the Apostle
@@BagzAndPresident I agree with that. I don't think it is definitive just who wrote it. It still could be the apostle John. We all know he was the only apostle not to be martyred. I don't know when he died.
@@BagzAndPresident As far as I know, they were one in the same.
Fr Casey this is a good intro to a topic that warrants attention. Since the the Bible is supposed to be composed of writings by apostles ( or closely associated, widespread, divinely inspired to be considered canon and not apocryphal). But in all these, who are we to say which writings are canon or not? Written by men, these books were also qualified as canon by men. As humans we , lay or clergy, are imperfect and prone to err. And as the current Bible was a product of many changes, how can we say that the changes cannot continue? That it is a work in progress being truly the living word?
Maybe as we learn more about our faith, some of the apocryphal writings would begin to make sense in these times and make it through the 3 qualifications?
A devout Catholic here. Cheers
Strange that he doesn’t address the gospels of Judas and Mary! The again they do not fit into his agenda any more than they did into the agenda of those who established the canon. Their picking and choosing had a lot to do with their own prejudices and nothing to do with divine inspiration.
I love these videos,
Please explain to me how Paul, almost half of the new testament, is apostolic? He never met Jesus and yet he felt he could correct Peter, the Rock.
Some books were left out because they weren’t old enough.
Imagine if Ignatius’ letters were in there, his defense of the true presence and orders to obey your bishop. Or the evangium of James, with all its references to Our Lady.
I still want to know what's inside the book of Nathan
I always follow u father thank u for your guidance please thank u.
what do you think about the gospel of thomas
Could you do i video why the catholic have a few more books in your Old Testament then the others aka Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. Thanks
Whoa, this is cool! :D
@Jessica G. I saw your response in my notifications, but for some reason, it's not showing up on this page. I just wanted to say 'thanks' and to 'like' your statement. :)
@@curiousworld7912 Aw, thank you! :)
I’ve read about computer problems that can analyze words, grammar, and context to reveal similar authorship. I just wonder if anyone has done this sort of analysis on the books you have mentioned ?
Yes, it is called textual criticism, and why we can be fairly sure that the books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) have a mesh of many different authors. The way sentences are structured, how God is mentioned, what the focus is, etc. are inconsistent throughout the books.
This is a good degree of what is done to scholarly analyze the early works. Not the only thing, but one pillar to be sure.
Breaking In The Habit I’m listening to a presentation on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is interesting how phrases used by St. John the apostle and St Paul appear in the Scrolls.
People have to remember that the people of the Biblical times lived in an oral tradition world. They didn't often write things down and in many Hebrew texts there was a cadence that helped them to remember and tell these stories (like rhyme is used in poetry). Some of the arguments for keeping or casting off texts are debatable because there was an assumption that the most important stories were written down. Many of the stories that were passed down into the medieval world and were well known by Christians do not appear in the Bible (such as many of the stories of Enoch such as the battle of the angels). Also certainly many of the letters and works were lost. The Bible as we know it was composed over a long time and wasn't part of the early church. It wasn't until I believe 398 that the Bible was codified.
I find it sad that Christians think that revelation/guidance/gospel has ended with the Biblical days. The whole purpose of the Holy Spirit and the living church was to continue.
FOR THE' RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT Dr. JAMES WHITE KNOWS MORE THAN ANY Roman catholic ,but I do not think they would allow you to watch his videos.
@@wendymitchell8245 :
It's educational for Catholics listen to James White.
We get a good example of the kind of heresies that non-Catholics are being subjected to.
Someone who hates the Church as much as he does is not going to preach the truth about Catholicity.
Christian do not agree on what is in the books though. There are over 400 different versions of the Bible in Germanic and Latin languages alone. They differ in order of books, the contents, phrases and words. Eg, the Gospel of Mark has three or four different endings. Most added in the Middle Ages. Mark was added to have a round number of four gospels.
The famous story about Casting the First Stone was never in John instil 7th or 8th century. The Roman Catholic Church rejects Hebrews as an Epistle of Paul unlike the Eastern Orthodox. Whereas only of the Epistles were written by the same person whom we can’t know is St Paul or even new St Paul.
There is also Genesis 18 22 whose wording was reversed in the 10th century
The Bible was changed to reflect changing theology not the other way around - well, a tad of a two way street. This is why we have as many Bibles as differing theologies.
How about be honest in how the Bible came to be written and it had scant to do with the Holy Spirit.
Don’t blame God on this one
And so there's only one Church who decided which of those written old manuscripts can be included in the Bible as the Word of God, it's the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Excellent! Thankyou! Pax Christi :-)
In my opinion the Apostolic Fathers are authentic early Christian writings and even divinely inspired, I mean the writers are revered even today as Saints of the Church and hence, should be read in Church and in private as well. Not only those but writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Epistle of the Apostles, the Testament of the Lord and the Apocalypse of Peter should also be studied and meditated. Just my thoughts.
They’re great and incredibly useful! A different category than scripture, but all amazing reading that is very beneficial.
You only have to read books like Maccabees to see why it has also been left out and if you read some of those that only just made it you can also see why they were more controversial.
To me, the hard part of all Bible study is interpreting the allegories. Apocalypse is a big example-the imagery is very strange-beasts with horns, star called Wormwood, significance of the number "666". So the question is: what is the value of a book whose meaning is so disputed?
Well said.
What about the book of Enoch? Even though it's not in the bible is it looked on in favor?
Any compilation it is true that can be more or less or needs correction as some important information come in. All needs thorough sifting before correction after so long a time.
That was a smooth dig at the Mormons at the very beginning. When you said dictated or dug out of the ground. LOL
Dictation and digging are how all religions started.
What about the gospel of Mary Magdalene?
I think that was left out for pretty obvious reasons. It, like other Gnostic texts, teach that "finding salvation in following the Christ" is an individual matter, a personal journey of spiritual growth and enlightenment, rather than following the orders of an organized, hierarchical religion. Also, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene calls out Peter for being a sexist hothead and, of course, a patriarchal church couldn't have that.