@@charliedontsurf334 What is your response to the hundreds of different protestants teachings and THOUSANDS of different denominations that deviated from the single teaching the Catholic church established by Christ and his succession of apostles? The fruits are evident: it was Catholics who established the bible, died as martyrs in the first 400 years after Christ, established science, Universities, cared for the sick, widowed, orphans, gave to the poor, fought the Ottoman empire when protestants sided with them, established churches around the world. It was the Catholics by far. It was Martin Luther who wanted to remove 11 bible books, 7 OT and 4 NT (Hebrews, Jude, Revelations and James) because those books did NOT align with his theology. He also sided with the German government against the peasant revolt so most of why he left the church was political. Finally, the 95 theses did reform the catholic church under Pope Pius V in 1566-1572.
@@o.o.2255 It was the Orthodox that fought the Ottomans. Then, they were finally defeated by the Protestant British Empire in 1918. All of the Ivy Leagues were established by Protestants. Luther left the Catholic Church because they wanted to pull a repeat of John Hus. If the 95 Theses reformed the Catholic Church, then why do they still sell indulgences today? To the Churches deviating, I'd say the most well known one is the Catholic Church when the Pope literally contradicted Jesus saying that our hearts are good literally this last week.
@@ChristianDinosaur1616 he later made a video not only saying he doesnt not like E.O tradition, but also making a point of the things he likes about it
Jesus references deuterocanonical books in the new testament. Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.” Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.” Tobit 4:16 (15): “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” (Douay). Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.” Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.” Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?” Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”
glad you believe the whole of sirach, just like Sirach 42:14 A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; women bring shame and disgrace. wow really godly thing to say about people made in the image of God. Or Sirach 42:4-5 4Of exactness of balance and weights, of getting much or little: 5Of the corruption of buying, and of merchants, and of much correction of children, and to make the side of a wicked slave to bleed. Yes beat your slaves until they bleed, what godly book this is clearly inspired scripture! Or 2 Macabees 15:38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. Clearly the Spirit of the Lord would inspire an author saying this. The apocrypha is not scripture.
@@CuntDku Paul also quotes and alludes to Greek philosophers constantly in his writings, so I guess Plato's Republic is Scripture as well lol. It's cool to see how often the Apocrypha is referenced in the NT, but you can't really use that as evidence that the Apostles meant it to be Scriptural. The fact is that only the Tanakh is ever quoted as Scripture until the later church began revering the Septuagint as literally more authoritative than the original Hebrew text (see Augustine's _On Christian Doctrine._)
If anyone's interested in the Catholic perspective, the Shameless Popery podcast has a very informative video called "Did Catholics add 7 books to the Bible? Or did Protestants remove them?" The host, Joe Herschmeyer, delves into the New Testament references to the Deuterocanonical books, as well as other arguments, like the 1400s Council of Florence. I really recommend checking it out whether you're Catholic or not, if you're interested in hearing out the opposing side to Zoomer's view.
@@xwaazes6375 On the same token, just because you made a youtube video, doesnt make you right. Still yet, It is good to look at both sides of the debate.
The Deutorocanon is a product of the second temple Jewish period, which is the version of Judaism that Jesus and his apostles practiced themselves. The gospels record Jesus going to Jerusalem to celebrate Hanukkah which is the feast of the Maccabean revolt. If the Church is the proper continuation of this second temple Jewish religion and the restored Israel as the apostle Paul attests to then the Deutorocanon is part of our tradition as well. That would be my argument for keeping it.
Being part of our tradition is not the same thing as being scripture. The Talmud is part of Jewish tradition, but Jews do not consider it scripture. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are part of Christian tradition, but nobody says that they are scripture. This discussion is not about whether the various versions of the apocrypha/deuterocanon are part of our history/tradition and useful to read. It is about whether they should be considered to have the same authority as the undisputed scriptures.
I wrote a 34-page paper on this issue one time. It only had to be 10-12 pages, but I had too much research to keep it short EDIT: Hey y'all! The browser I use UA-cam on doesn't send me notifications, so I had no idea so many people wanted to read my paper! Thank you for your patience. I don't know how or where to post it, but given time I will do so! Here's a SUPER abbreviated version (what I remember off the top of my head): 1. The Jewish canon was decided hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. Even discounting the Great Assembly (for which there is debate around), the decided canon can be found in the Talmud (look up "Bava Batra 14b-15a"). While the Essenes (a third religious sect, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, not mentioned in the New Testament) had a significantly larger Scriptural canon and held even more writings in high regard without accepting them as divinely inspired, they weren't mentioned for a reason - they were a fringe group viewed as radical (although not as much as the Zealots) for their wider acceptance - or lower standards, as any saw it - of writings . 2. There are irreconcilable theological and historical errors within every book of the deuterocanon (except for one, which I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll correct this when I find my paper). From an angel commanding witchcraft to the same guy dying in 3 different times, places, and manners, these writings cannot be inspired by a flawless God. 3. They are never quoted or recognized as authoritative by the New Testament authors or - most significantly - Jesus. The closest indisputable reference is in Hebrews 11:35-37. This refers to a historical event recorded in 2 Maccabees 7, giving this passage historical credit but no theological credit. Being quoted doesn't mean being accepted, however, as Paul quotes Aratus' poem Phainomena in Acts 17:28, but that doesn't make Phainomena Scripture. I hope, although fairly surface-level and non-exhaustive, that this is satisfactory until I dig that paper up and find somewhere to post it!
St Athanasius didn’t reject all of the Deuterocanonical he included Baruch and he rejected Esther so no he didn’t agree with the current Protestant canon
AAAAND, ultimately, the Church vetoed that as they discerned by deep prayer and meticulous review into 3 piles: 1. Accept 2. Reject 3. Continue discernment It was a process over centuries. Athanasius was right about the 27 NT books
I do not recall any church father ever saying not to read the apocrypha; I recall specifically Luther said you ‘should’ read them even if they don’t count as canon. As well as Augustine quotes the apocrypha all the time.
I dont mean any disrespect to our boy RZ, I just know the protestant position on this conflicts with my own. @burnstick1380 I follow this channel because I am deeply inspired by the work he is doing. I don't agree with his conclusion on this specific issue that doesn't mean I don't like or respect him.
@@igotresult1773 This is false. There was an official hebrew canon. Romans 3:2, Luke 24:44. Christ did not use the septuagint, as he lived in Israel and used scrolls from the temple which was always in hebrew/aramaic.
3:44 how do we know that the church didn't make a mistake in determining which books were penned by an apostle After all you think the Church is fallible
If we’re basing the canon of the Old Testament, fundamentally, off of explicit references in the New Testament, doesn’t that mean we should also remove 10 more OT books that are never directly referenced? That is: Judges Ruth Ezra Esther Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Lamentations Obadiah Jonah Zephaniah
We have intra-biblical and archaeological evidence of which books made up the Hebrew Bible and Flavius Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem (around 95-96 AD), numerates the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible and it is the exact same books of the Protestants canon.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 That’s irrelevant to the point RZ referenced throughout the video, namely: The importance of direct New Testament references to specific OT books in determining what is scripture, and what isn’t. That’s to say, which is more important: that the New Testament authors directly referenced specific books, as was expounded in the video, or that the Hebrew canon contained specific books? Because those two positions lead to different definitions of what is canon, and what isn’t.
@@Vilasiiiii But this is not an isolated argument. Not having citations does not in itself mean that they were not considered Scripture, but it is one more piece in the argument. You are taking a single argument and making it as the whole argument.
Finally finished this on my lunch break. As I expected, I disagree with your conclusion, but I think youve done a commendable job articulating the Protestant position for those of us without deep theological training. Thanks and God Bless you RZ, ☦️
If there was a scroll with the 7 deteorcanonical books in the Septuagint in Jesus' day then this would be a good argument but that's not true. There is not one Septuagint. So one still has to show that Jesus used these books as scripture.
@@jamesascott7040 I have the historical attestation of the Church which have been around for 2000 years. Through Holy Tradition we can know these things.
@@triggered8556here’s the thing though. While it’s true that Christ and His apostles used the Septuagint translation (most likely at least, it’s also possible the NT authors quoted the LXX to reach a Greek audience) then it makes it all the more jarring to see that not a single one of them quotes the deuterocanonical books as scripture. And as the comment above points out, there were many different versions of the Septuagint, and Jesus and His apostles only ever quoted the protocanon/primary canon (same canon). And if you add the fact that the apocryphal books were made during the intertestamental period where God promised through His prophets that there would be a famine of His Word then it’s easy to see why the apocrypha are not inspired. In Maccabees the author even languishes over the death of the prophets and the fact that God had stopped speaking to Israel.
@@jaycefields756 the deuterocanon is referenced multiple times in the NT, what are you talking about? Are you trying to make some argument from silence here or are you just ignorant?
@@triggered8556enlighten me then. Show me where the deuterocanon is referred to as being canon in the NT. If Jesus or His apostles alluded to it that doesn’t mean it’s canon, keep that in mind. The book of Enoch is alluded to in the NT, that doesn’t make it canon. Unless Jesus or His apostles directly quoted the apocrypha or said “it is written” then it doesn’t count. Sorry
@sealsbreakfast9200 I'm currently lutheran, but I identify more as an Anglo-Catholic. Protestants typically don't use Catholic bibles. I'm in the minority.
Basically you're chain of arguments goes like this: 1. We infallibly know that the protestant canon of the OT is correct because we look at which OT texts the NT refers to (btw. even if this were true, as you correctly pointed out, the Deuterocanon is mentioned in the NT.) 2. But how do we infallibly know the NT canon is correct? Your answer at 4:11 basically is because the early church assembled the NT canon and Protestants never had a problem with relying on the early church to assemble the NT canon. 3. But how do we know the early church had the authority to assemble the NT canon, yet not consider the church infallible? Well because Jesus relied on the OT canon of the Israelites and they weren't considered infallible either, hence we can assume that god has not established an infallible authority aka a church for this in the New Covenant either. After that, you basically just quoted a few things from the Church Fathers, which doesn't really matter because they essentially disagreed a bit on every theological issue until the Church infallibly settled them. For me the problem with this chain of arguments is that your entire reasoning relies on the argument that the OT was canonized before the coming of the Lord, for which there is simply not enough evidence. Looking at Scripture, History, statements from Church Fathers, as well as Tradition it is in my opinion massively more reasonable to believe that during the time of the old covenant, god delivered progressive revelation to mankind to finally sent his son, who established a church that, guided by the holy spirit, infallibly rule on these issues.
The NT wasn’t exclusively written by apostles (e.g., Mark nor Luke were apostles)The Masoteric text did not exist until over a century after Christ. The overwhelming majority (it’s really not even close) of NT quotes from, and references to, the OT are from the Septuagint. Christ himself quotes from the Deuterocanon. For example, the golden rule is taken from Tobit. He also quotes from Sirach when he says, “you will know them by their fruits.” The errors in this video are easily avoidable.
Jesus isn’t quoting Sirach. He was talking about false prophets and knowing them by their fruit. There are multiple passages in OT canon that warns of false prophets. Written before the Deutercanon books and even for the conversation of argument if Jesus did use a reference he didn’t say “it was written” or “scripture” which means they’re quoting directly from scripture.
@@equipped.thepodcast8038 He is most definitely quoting Sirach (he relies on Sirach multiple times in the Gospels). I’m not aware of anyone in the history of the Church applying the standard you suggest we apply. I’m sure you can understand why we would rely on the 2000 year old Church in this area. And, I believe I can understand why you wouldn’t.
@@cassidyanderson3722 he is not Quoting Sirach in that passage. He is talking about false prophesy and warning about it. I haven’t read Sirach in a min but if I’m write it is no passage talking about warning from false prophesy. Secondly if he is quoting he never says “it is written” so if he was quoting it. It’s a reference not scripture there is a difference.
@nickhueper2906 Since no one is answering you, no. Neither Mark nor Luke were apostles. Mark was most probably Peter's scribe or another helper that traveled and worked with Peter. Basically, the Gospel of Mark is Peter's telling of Jesus's ministry. Luke was a gentile who converted and spent a lot of time with Paul. This lead to him meeting a bunch of the orginal apostles and other figures in both Jesus's ministry and the orginial church found in the wake of His resurrection. More so than any of the other gospels, Luke writes like a historian of the time would have. This means he most likely did thorough interviews of everyone he met which led to him writing a gospel as someone who who probably never met Jesus.
@@triggered8556 and yet the Saduces were still valid Jews. And the Pharisees were still critiqued for following the traditions of men despite having the seat of Moses
And the Essenes had a third one (Protestant canon + Tobit, Sirach, Enoch, Jubilees and some more books) and diaspora Jews a fourth one (the Catholic Old Testament).
@@Flame1500 they were critiqued for their bastardization of tradition. Not all tradition is invalid, because Jesus acknowledges the tradition of the seat of Moses as being true. So tradition in general is not bad, but moving away from the tradition that God revealed to us is bad.
@@triggered8556 but indulgences, rosary, papal executioner, and the treasury of merits and the 1 million “mortal sins” is not handed down by God as it is explicitly contradicted in scripture. Nobody says tradition isn’t important, it’s just not infallible.
1) The Masoretic texts are SIGNIFICANTLY younger than the Septuagint, the Septuagint was compiled 3-1 cent BC while the Masoretic texts were compiled 7-10 cent AD, a millennia difference. While the Masoretic texts are directly sourced from the original Hebrew, giving them translational authority, the original Hebrew canon from the second temple period was lost, so the Septuagint is most likely closer to the original canon than the post temple Masoretic texts. 2) The council of Trent affirmed that what is and isn't scripture isn't limited to what's officially canon, allowing the ECCs to retain their own canons, which isn't a problem for Catholics because we don't have an autistic obsession with scripture. 3) The New Testament isn't as set in stone as you think, there are Miaphysite Orthodox churches that don't include Revelations and a hand full of epistles as canon. 4) There were plenty of "gospels", mostly the Gnostic texts such as the "gospel" of Thomas, that didn't make it into canon. The 4 gospels + epistles weren't included together until the 3-4 cent, and weren't canonized as scripture until the council of Hippo in 393. It took centuries of combing through various texts until the early church fathers could decide on which texts could be considered the definitive word of God. What is authoritatively scripture is only as strong as what is authoritatively tradition.
About your first point: None of the versions of the Septuagint which date from the biblical period and came to us through archeology, have the exact same books as the Catholic Canon. Only later versions. We have intra-biblical and archaeological evidence of which books made up the Hebrew Bible and Flavius Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem (around 95-96 AD), numerates the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible and it is the exact same books of the Protestants canon.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The Septuagint seems to have been a living document, starting with Ptolemy II Philadephus' project to translate the Hebrew into Greek, and continued up until the 1st century AD. For example, Maccabees 4, which isn't in anyone's canon, was written contemporary with the gospels. However, as a compilation of various texts, the Septuagint is much older and more complete than the much later Masoretic texts. The current Catholic canon isn't the same canon from the council of Hippo, as that included both Esdras I and II, but no one cares since the Tridentine interpretation of scripture doesn't limit it to only what's canon. Josephus' list is as arbitrary as anyone's list at that time, everyone had slightly different lists of what was and wasn't the official Hebrew canon, which itself was probably a living, changing canon as much as the Septuagint was. The Protestant idea of Hebrew canon is the autistic conflation of "It's Jewish, therefore it must be original", completely ignoring the difference between the Hebrews and post temple Judaism
@@williampumpernickel4929 That is why that is not the only argument and its not used in isolation. Whasmore, the Palestinian Jewish canon had been widely accepted by most of the early Christian church and throughout much of Christian history.
Hey Zoomer. Catholic here, and I wanted to respond to some of your propositions for the sake of constructive conversation. I don't mean anything personal in them, and I hope the level of discourse can be raised in them. The foundation of our disagreement is entirely solid, I have no objections in your section discussing where and why we disagree; it's by and large a very fair framing. However in your citing of Romans 3:2 I think was flawed. We both agree that Judaism can no longer be trusted because the religion itself has rejected the Messiah, however Jewish authorities only definitively rejected the deuterocanonical books after Christ's resurrection and the foundation of the Church, within the relatively very short period between the crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple. Furthermore, I checked my interlinear New Testament (granted, I am absolutely NOT a scholar, just a novice of a student.) and the word used to mean "were entrusted with" is 'Episteuthesan,' which is a passive verb. Basically, we use past tense in the English because Paul in Romans isn't saying that the Jews are at the present time of writing THE keepers of the writings the same way they were at the time of the Old Covenant. I say that Paul is instead emphasizing the importance of the Jews covenant with God, and how his chosen people is supposed to be close to him. That Christianity is a religion for both Jews and gentiles. I would also like to mention, though you didn't necessarily propose the opposite, that Jesus doesn't quote from every book in the Old Testament. Just as Jesus doesn't quote Joshua or Ruth, he doesn't necessarily need to quote Sirach or Judith for them to be canon. We also see nonscriptural references in the Bible, such as Paul using the language of philosophy in Athens, or Jude quoting Enoch and eluding to Jubilees. All in all I think solely using verified scripture to determine scriptural canon is rather fruitless. For the sake of initial length, I don't want UA-cam to automatically dump my comment as spam, but I'll definitely edit to respond to more. I hope all is well with you, God bless 🙂👍
I usually break out the “if you don’t trust the Church why do you trust your Bible” argument when dealing with crazy people who think the pope is the Antichrist and there is a snake temple in Rome.
While the Pope certainly isn't the Antichrist, he leads a lot of people astray by teaching doctrines opposed to the scripture. Like the most recent example of him "blessing" homosexual unions.
He does say that tho lol. Also Dyer doesn't create theology, he just asserts the eastern Orthodox position. He doesn't believe there is room for error in it
His video and Ortlund’s video still fail to say that the Protestant canon is correct. They both have to leave out a large amount of data to get to their conclusions
@@CatholicDebater Neither does Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. By the way he gave reasons why it's correct. He quoted the Bible verse and cited history
@@raphaelfeneje486 and his history was entirely mistaken. He appeals to the canon as if it were closed at the time. 1) the sadducees had a 5 book canon at the time, only the Pentateuch, the essenes had over 45 books in their canon, and their was debate over which books should be in the Pharisees canon, with most saying Esther shouldn’t be in it, a few saying it should, and yet others still advocating for the deuterocanon, so that’s false. 2) a dude named Rabbi Akiva in the middle of the second century arbitrarily settled the canon, due to growing debate over whether the Gospels had any merit. Unsurprisingly, he was part of the Pharisees, the only surviving group with a presence after the Jewish civil war, and so he’s untrustworthy(not to mention the main purpose he was doing that was to make sure the Gospels weren’t accepted as canon, so we should just ignore his opinion from the start. to respond to your other point, the Septuagint is the translation that the apostles, biblical writers, and Jesus used when they were quoting things, and Jesus also failed to quote from about 1/3 of the books in the OT, so we can’t use that to validate the canon. Also, he didn’t provide any biblical arguments to support what he said, he appealed mainly to history. If you looked at the Bible, namely to Hebrews 11:35, the original Greek uses the same exact phrasing seen in the martyrdom passages in 2 Maccabees, so we do have a reference there, as well as Jesus observing Hanukkah, which, while not mentioned by name, is included in the Gospels. I wrote an 8+ page article on this, and the Protestant canon isn’t the historical canon. Also, looking at Athanasius, he does quote the deuterocanon as sacred scripture, so RZ is explicitly wrong there. And if Augustine was mistaken on the canon, were the majority of other bishops also mistaken when the canon was listed independently in 4 councils between the 300s and the 1500s, even excluding Trent? We can look at Jerome, who did deny them, and said they were good for teaching, but we can also look at Origen, who believed in universalism. Just because a church father was right about some things doesn’t mean he was right about all of them(like universalism). Jerome then proceeded to submit to the church and accepted he was wrong, translating the deuterocanon into the Latin vulgate. We also see independently in the Dead Sea scrolls that the books which are listed as deuterocanonical are affirmed, and they are written on paper reserved for books considered inspired, not just regular parchment. We can further look at the deuterocanonical books which also prophecy Jesus, and the reformers being unsure of which books to use, as even Calvin referenced Baruch in his work, and so should all Calvinists accept that? I’d assume not. The Catholic canon is correct, and to prove me wrong, you’ll need to show me that I’m gravely mistaken in the history I have provided and show me something from the Bible which precludes the deuterocanon. Also, if you’re going to argue that Judith has historical errors, as RZ did, I’d urge you to take that up with Carey Moore, who wrote a 350 page commentary on the subject, which was Published by Yale Bible Commentaries, so not some fringe Catholic publisher. These same criticisms also apply to Gavin’s case for the canon. Hopefully you guys can see just how erroneous you are in accepting a mere 66 book canon, and learn to accept the deuterocanon as well.
@@raphaelfeneje486 also, the Eastern Orthodox conceded to the Roman canon in the council of Florence in the 1400s, so even among them, there was no debate among the canon lol
its a well known and confirmed fact that jesus, the apostles, and the fathers ALL used the septuigant, which just so happened to contain the deuterocanon, jesus also just so happen to quote the deuterocanon, including a certain golden rule in sirach...
@@williampumpernickel4929 I don't see it in his list, but possibly you are referring to the book of Proverbs which was sometimes called Wisdom. He says, "...καὶ ἑξῆς Παροιμίαι..."
The masoretic text was complied between the 6th and 10th century. The goal of the project was for the Jews to try and recreate what they thought was the most authentic version of their Bible because unfortunately there were no existing copies from before Christianity. By this point Christian Church’s had made many copies of their own Bible in Greek and Latin. The Jews thought the Christian’s had changed the Old Testament to make it seem more likely Jesus was the messiah. The books the Jews thought the Catholics added were the books that dealt with the previous 400-500 years before Christ. So they concluded Christians made up these books after Jesus to retroactively add stories to make it seem more likely he was the messiah. So they removed those books and kept the others for their Old Testament. For one, since the Dead Sea scrolls have been discovered we know for certain that these books existed before the time of Christ. But more over when the Protestant reformation came around many Protestant groups came up with their own Bibles. Martin Luther didn’t believe the book of James was authentic because it directly contradicted one of his core beliefs of Faith Alone. So, he just removed it from his Bible at first, later after backlash he added back in but said it was not conical. King James is the one who commissioned a version of the Bible that used the Jewish version of the Old Testament which many at the time pointed out it was primarily because of how much the Christian Books talk about the importance of marriage. At the time Divorce was not allowed by Christians, but Jews did allow it. The main reason King James left the Catholic Church and started the Church of England, that conveniently he became the head of, was to divorce his wife to remarry someone else. Most of the Protestants that left England for America rejected the King James version of the Bible because they felt everything he had done was so corrupt. It wasn’t until years later that the growing number of different bibles was obviously causing problems for Protestants. It’s hard to justify your beliefs from the Bible alone when everyone has different versions of the Bible. Because early America was very antagonistic to Catholic and Orthodox Christians and most people held a cultural affinity for England eventually the King’s James version of the Bible was adapted by most Protestant groups as their Bible of choice. Now it would be almost impossible to change that since the core claim is that the Bible is the only infallible authority, but if they unfortunately made the same mistake the Jews did by throwing out the original Scriptures leading up to Christ’s coming then it discredits the validity of their foundational claim.
Actually King James the first wasn’t the one who split from the Catholic Church. You must be thinking of King Henry VIII (he’s the fat one). King James was a Protestant, but he was a couple monarchs after Henry broke away from Rome to get a divorce.
Unfortunately, the stance here doesn't add up: the very first ruling on the canon reflects the Catholic/Orthodox canon, not the Protestant one. Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees are all mentioned by name, Wisdom and Baruch are listed under Books of Solomon, and Sirach is part of Jeremiah. As far as Jesus or the NT never quoting or alluding to them--thats wrong too.
Where did you learn your protestant views? I find it difficult to find the background and history of these debated topics from the protestant perspective. Any books, websites, resources, etc. would be appreciated!
I remember he said that he gets um from Dr.Jordan B. Copper (but rz also look up other theologian's but I don't remember which other theologian's btw)God bless you brother or sister in Christ and may you have a blessed day 🙏🙏🙏
I like some of Redeemed Zoomer's videos, but man, was this one disappointing. Just going through the main arguments he proposes: 1. The New Testament quotes the books of the Old Testament, but it never quotes the deuterocanonical books. He basically refuted this claim himself, pointing out that there are lots of books in the protocanon that the New Testament doesn't quote. His justification is that, since he already assumes that Esther, judges, etc. is part of the canon, then it doesn't matter that they aren't quoted. But since books from the deuterocanon aren't part of the canon, then the fact that they aren't quoted shows they aren't part of the canon. This is just begging the question. 2. Some deuterocanonical books have historical errors. This is no different than atheist saying the bible contains errors. I find it hilarious that Zoomer hand waives away allegorical reading of Judith, when he has made videos begging Christians to read Genesis allegorically. Just another double standard protestants hold toward the deuterocanon. 3. Protestants are following Athanasius' canon. This just isn't true. Athanasius does not include Esther in his canon, and he includes Baruch. 4. Augustine only believed in the apocrypha out of ignorance. He said that the Hebrew canon was correct. This is also just not true, and I'm really wondering if Zoomer has even read Augustine. I'll just Let Augustine speak for himself: **Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, ch. 12)** Augustine is not basing his canon on his incorrect understanding of the Jews, he is basing it on what the actual Christians all over the world, and especially in the Apostolic Churches, believe. Also, Augustine is famous for believing that the Greek septuagint is inspired. I really don't know where Zoomer is getting his information about Augustine. That's basically all the arguments he presents in the video, then at the very end he gets to the core justification of the title of the video 5. The (contemporary) Old Testament canon held by the jews at the time of Jesus is the protestant canon, and the new testament teaches that canon is correct. To make this point he has to show that the Jewish OT canon at the timewas 1. unified, 2. the same as the protestant Canon, and 3. Affirmedby the new testament. For justification for (1), he appeals to Paul saying that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. It's a big assumption to suppose that this means that there was one, unified, correct Jewish canon. We know that different sects of Jews at the time of Jesus debated the books of scripture. Reading Paul to suggest a unified Jewish canon, as opposed to simply meaning that the Jews were given divine revelation, is a theologically motivated eisegesis. As for (2), he again just assumes it. And for 3, he falls back on the question begging of his first argument. I also have to point out that his view of the church is very strange. He thinks that the Church has been entrusted to preserve the New Testament canon, but not the Old. Given his other comments, it seems strange that he thinks the post-christian Jews got something right that the vast majority of the Church got wrong until the reformation (and still gets wrong today, since the protestant canon is still the minority among Christians). There are a lot of other problems, like his belief in a binary Hebrew/Greek canon.
Redeemed Zoomer will eventually have to bite the bullet and say the entire church was wrong until luther came around, and when he does he'd be contradicting (John 16, 17, 18)
@@Hallowed_Knight Protestants love to say " The church is the people not an institution, God preserved His people but not an institution." You just ask them" Where were they before Luther came to reform the church?"
The reason that they were removed was because Protestants saw that Jews didn't use those books anymore but there is a reason for that. So the Septuagint was mostly use by Hellenised Jews and when Christianity came about many of these Hellenised Jews converted and essentially the divine nature of these books in Judaism died out as more Eastern Jews never even heard of those books
@@applegaming2345 Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
The book of Jude does not contain a verse that directly corresponds to Corinthians 10:10. While both verses may touch upon themes of faithfulness, trust, and perseverance, they are not directly related in terms of content or context. There are no records of any interpretation by the Church Fathers that attributed 1 Corinthians 10:10 to this passage on Jude, for example. That is a typical Catholic retroactive reasoning. Usually, the Roman Catholic Church define its dogmas and interpretations and then start to look at what the church fathers said and the scriptures to try to see it there.
1 Corinthians 10:10: nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Judith 8:25: The Lord our God is putting us to the test, just as he tested our ancestors, and we should be thankful for that. Where's the connection?
4:16 actually no There was no closed canon among all Jewish sects at the time of Jesus The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch Evidence jesus when he was proving the resurrection to the Sadducees He didn't use the obvious unequivocal statements found in daniel but a more vague passage in Exodus Luke 20:37-38 New International Version 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” 4:37 that shouldn't be interpreted as "The jews have the right old testament Canon" Because not all of them had the same Canon 6:48 no not only where there some sects that had a canon smaller than the protestant canon There were also sects which accepted more books Like the Essenes
While I ultimately agree, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Reformers referring to Wisdom 2 as a prophesy of Jesus on the cross. I’m best described as conservative Anglican but while I ultimately affirm a 66 book canon, the references made to the Book of Wisdom and even possibly to Sirach, Wisdom and Baruch by St. Paul, St. James and some early Church Fathers including St. Augustine do give me some pause and stop me from writing the Deuterocanon off completely, in addition to Hebrews 11 including some similarities to the Maccabean martyrs.
Something can be a prophecy without being scripture. We have plenty of mentions in scripture of prophets whose prophecies are not recorded in scripture. The school of the prophets in the time of Elijah and Elisha, Philip's daughters, and the prophets who Paul instructs in 1 Corinthians 12-14 being the ones that immediately come to mind.
@@stephengray1344 that is true, but there doesn’t seem to be much distinction in how they’re referenced in comparison to the scriptures that we have now. At the very least, the deuterocanon is generally viewed as “wise books”, even by those who don’t see them as inspired. The modern evangelical take of them being useless isn’t a historical one. I think my general point is that it’s more nuanced than I first thought when I looked into this. It’s a topic I d9 think is worthy of discussion considering that they were presented differently to how the Book of Enoch was, which was basically written off by the second century.
@@samueljennings4809 I don't disagree with you. Much of modern day evangelicalism has taken sola scriptura to an unhealthy extreme (sometimes called solo scriptura). And it is more nuanced than many takes (on both Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox sides) would suggest. I was just pointing out something that seemed to be a weak point in the reasoning of your initial comment.
But after all, what is the criteria for a scripture to be inspired or not? As you mentioned, the wisdom books have prophecies that are cited by the church fathers, but other books like Esther has no direct relation with the new testament but is still considered part of the cannon for everyone, why is this?
He made a reference to numbers by saying he is the bread that comes from heaven above. He is saying he is better than the manna that came down from heaven so the Jews could eat and not die while in the desert.
The Jewish canon? The Greek Septuagint was established by Jewish Scribes. Scribes remember worked for the Rab’s, Rabbi’s and Rabban’s. This was the 49 OT books (not 39). St Augustine correctly believed; therefore, the Jewish canon was what Jesus and the apostles used that existed before the temple was burned (along with its’ books, that is the Greek Septuagint. The dead sea scrolls (OT books included the 7 deuterocanonical books) of the Essene Jews (which some theorize Jesus more closely associated with) to confirm this. Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage x2 (367, 392, 397, and 416 AD, respectively) ESTABLISHED the 73 books of bible (not 66) WELL BEFORE Council of Trent in 1500’s. The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the canon to remind and refute the heretical protestant reformation.
To be completely honest this really sounds like your saying the books were removed and it was justified. If this is true I just cant see how thats not destructive logic. Why not then start removing other books that one might see as uninspired based on the evidence.
Because the only opinion that matters to Zoomer is his own. In his eyes he is elect and any argument against his position is an attack on his election.
That’s unfortunately the thing whenever I see someone saying the apocrypha isn’t scripture. They’re justifying taking entire books out of scripture to fit their beliefs about what the Bible is.
Zoomer, there are some books in the Old Testament that Lord Jesus never quotes, for example the Song of Songs. That means that He did not approve it, and therefore you really don't have any reason to conclude that it should be in the Canon.
He isnt saying we can only use books that jesus himself quoted. As he said in the video, romans 3:2 shows that we can rely on the jewish canon of the time, just as jesus and his apostles did.
The Council of Carthage (AD 397) which St. Augustine attended recognized the Deuterocanonical books as canonical pending ratification by the See of Rome.
I feel like Zoomer doesn't know what the infallibility of the Church means, because he references the Jewish authorities as not being infallible (because of their hypocrisy, sin and shortsightedness) despite Christ literally teaching the apostles that the teachings of the Pharisees are true. (Matthew 23:1-3) Infallibility is not about the person carrying the authority as given to them by God, it's a protection by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, which the church needs to be coherent. The Pharisees weren't infallible because of their character or good deeds, but because God promised to guide his people with his teachings, even if through imperfect people.
Martin Luther's translation moved the apocryphal texts in-between the Old and New Testaments, but he did not remove those texts from the Bible. Luther approvingly quoted the apocryphal texts. Luther took a conservative view that they are "good" but lesser cannon. The difference between the Lutheran tradition and the Roman Church are the Trentine novelties Rome introduced. Luther's viewpoint during Luther's lifetime was an approved, Catholic viewpoint. Even Luther's position on James, Jude, and Revelation are not novel views. Many, even in the early church, viewed them as lesser cannon due to not being written by one of the Twelve Apostles or Paul. Today the largest confessional Lutheran denomination in the United States-the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod-has the apocrypha within their cannon and publishes a special edition with study notes (excluded from the general study bible due to ignorance by the laity on its proper use). Most Lutherans in America today either follow the general evangelical view (presented here as the Protestant viewpoint) or the viewpoint Luther and the early Lutherans. It is my understanding the Anglicans have a similar viewpoint.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 I'm not completely sure, but I'm pretty sure the rule was that a new testament text had to be either written by eyewitnesses or people who directly knew eyewitnesses. I think John knew many eyewitnesses. Don't completely take me on that though. I could be wrong.
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful video. You are correct that this subject was long debated in the church. However, I have seen convincing summaries of references to the deuterocanonical books in the NT. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I am impressed with your work. I refer Protestants to your channel whenever I get the chance. I think the subject matter you discuss is rarely considered by Protestants who are quick to indicate that anything that is debatable doesn’t matter. I think you will agree that this is terribly unsatisfying. You do not seem to be one of these types. We need more Protestants like you.
"Well the Pharisees were the keepers of the Old Testament so we should use the Hebrew Bible" Paul used the Septuagint (as opposed to his own renditioning of the Hebrew in references passages into Greek) "If we need to find out which book should and should not be canon, we just need to see which books the NT uses" Jude directly quotes from the Book of Enoch, which is not canon outside of Ethiopian Orthodoxy. Obviously the metric is not the degree of reference or use. "I don't think it's that big of a deal if a certain church gets the wrong canon of scripture" Having a wrong scripture is arguably a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it is very important if you believe the Bible is the word of God to believe strongly in one true canon "The book of Judith has historical errors" As does almost every other book of the Old and New Testament, we can't even properly pin the historical date for the birth of Christ because of it, recording accurate history was not their purpose. "They're not the same level of inspiration as the other books" You can't write off certain books as being uninspired by the Holy Spirit because they aren't present in the version used by the people who rejected and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, especially when the apostles would use the version which includes them.
I would certainly not rest your case on whether Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of the masoretic text or the Septuigent, considering the Masoretes didn't start working on their version of the text until the 7th century AD, and also considering that Jesus and the Apostles all quoted out of the Septuigent 340/373 of the times they quoted scripture.
On a related note, is there a video about why the book of enoch is referenced quite a number of times in the bible when it's not scripture, and why those few isolated books give so much information about the supernatural? It's been bugging me for a long time.
I have been struggling with this very question dude, you have no idea how much I’ve been researching this recently. I am convinced God put this here exactly for what I (and likely many others) are going through. Thank you and God Bless
this guy is wrong, search up when the masoretic text developed, it came from the 6 to 10th century, meanwhile the septuagint with the deuterocanon came out in the 4th century, the church always had 73 books not 66 books
Its part of the protcanon because it's part of the masoretic text. It also has three extra chapters that are part of the septuagint so it's slightly longer in the catholic and orthodox churches.
I appreciate this argument. Too many times in this debate people just stick to their talking points and never have more than on response to the other side.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
@@nics8040 So it took me a really long time to get any kind of answer to this too. For me, it was watching the History Channel's "Banned from the Bible." It took 15 years to find a scholar who could answer this question. His name is Dr. David Falk of the Vancouver School of Theology. He said that the Septuagint included many works that were not scripture like the Talmud. He speaks both Koine Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew, and is an Egyptologist. He said that the Apocrypha has many more historical issues than the rest of the Bible, and he explained the difference. His UA-cam channel is "Ancient Egypt and the Bible." He is bar none the best Christian source on anything related to Egypt. He also said that we should read the Apocrypha and Enoch to get the zeitgeist of the New Testament.
This ultimately just comes down to authority. If you believe there is no institution on earth today to infallibly declare the canon, then you have to default to only the books that we can say with certainty are canonical. Also, it doesn’t make sense that St Augustine wasn’t aware of the Jewish canon since he had great respect and knowledge of St Jerome, and therefore would have known about his argument against the deuterocanon based on its absence in the Hebrew canon.
I like your video, but you made a mistake in the city of God. St. Augustine explicitly says that the Deuterocannon is accepted by the church, but not the Jews. "From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils” [NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, City of God, Book XVIII. 36].
Please correct my logic if you believe its wrong but do the quotes of the old testament in the new testament not line up more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic? If this is the case we see the apostles choosing to use the Septuagint which includes the apocrypha when they are writing the New Testament. Also we know from history the apostles used the Septuagint and even just from pragmatism since after Christianity spread beyond Judea, the gentiles and diaspora Jews they preached to pretty much only spoke Greek, so it wouldn't make sense to use Hebrew text when trying to convert people who don't speak Hebrew. So, if your statement is correct that Jesus gives the authority for the New Testament through the apostles, wouldn't that imply the Septuagint as a whole is considered authoritative since the Apostles favored it as scripture both when writing the new testament and when preaching to those outside Judea? Also Romans 3:2 says the Jews were entrusted with the words of God, Paul is speaking about how they are the chosen people of God and received divine revelation from him, he isn't making a claim about which canon is correct. But even if he was, the Septuagint was produced by Jews and was used widely in the Jewish diaspora of that time. So to present this dichotomy between the "Jewish Masoretic Text" and the "Non-Jewish Septuagint" is kinda silly.
Hey man, love your vids! Just a quick question about the server.... Can you pleeeease make it so that people can play on the server with a cracked account? Not really in the financial state to buy the game :/ (dont wanna make this sound like a sob story) If you could make it so you cracked accounts could access the server, Me and many others will be more than happy! God bless my friend! ☦️✝️🙏
Just a slight correction: the Orthodox Church doesn’t have an Old Testament canon. We all use the same Old Testament books plus or minus Esdras and 4th Maccabees, but it was never officially canonized.
The New Testament also quotes many non-canonical books to both parties, I think a better way of seeing if a quote is scripture related if it follows it with "thus says the Lord" or something similar
Hey zoomer I really think your next video should be about the unpardonable sin. This is a scary topic for a lot Christians and it would be nice to hear your thoughts on it.
Jesus also quotes the book of Enoch, that’s not in your cannon or the Catholic cannon so are you going to add that book? If not, how does this alone not break your argument?
@@WastelandArmorer yes, but he isn’t Ethiopian orthodox. If Jesus is what validates his cannon of scripture like he says, why doesn’t he have the books of Enoch or Maccabees, despite Christ referencing them? Why does he retain works like Songs of Solomon despite Christ not referencing them? It’s a self defeating argument from RZ is the point.
When you mention that verse in which God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, what Jews specifically? There were pharisees, sadducees and other "denominations" of jews who had different canons of the OT. Also, Jesus and his disciples quoted the Septuagint, which invalidates your argument.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
I appreciate the clarification. I think the deuterocancons were probably scripture. Hebrews lifts a passage from 2 Maccabees almost verbatim. Jean Calvin called Baruch scripture and Prophetic. And Wisdom has the most direct prophecy of Jesus and his future actions down to that he will die, how and why. By how I mean that it would be slow and humiliating, not specifically that it would be by crucifixion.
It also predicted who The first 12 verses of chapter two Indicate that the evil men don't believe in the resurrection of the dead ie the Sadducees And even though Jesus had beefs with both the Sadducees and the pharisees The Sadducees were the ones controlling the temple (the high priests were all Sadducees) And they were the ones who put him on trial
I like our Anglican take on it, as set out in the 39 Articles. 'And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine [...]' Useful, good to read, but not authoritative. So I think we're about where you're at, even if our Bibles are that bit fatter (or we've got a separate book filling up shelf space).
I love that take. I’m considering Anglicanism, because I love Catholicism, but can’t bring myself to believe in Purgatory, icon veneration, or their doctrines around Mary.
@@orionc.5407Isn't the anglican churches, as a whole, going into the same progressive hole as the american mainline protestants? Especially the american Episcopal Church.
@@ricardoribeiroprudencio7871 im a member of the episcopal church and yes, it is rough. But i know the gates of hell cannot prevail so ik anglicanism will not die out. Theres still gafcon and many other conservative denominations also
@@hismajesty6272 I was an Anglican for most of my life and every parish I attended venerated icons. You can’t accept the 7th Ecumenical Council (which the Anglican Church does) and not venerate icons.
In addition to the complete Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, Codex Alexandrinus (early 5th c.) includes Tobit, Judith, Esdras A, Esdras B, 1-2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, Hypothesis of Psalms by Eusebius, Book of Odes, Wisdom, Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, Daniel with Additions, Psalms of Solomon, and 1st and 2nd Clement.
To your point about references, Jude references and actually quotes Enoch yet both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox reject Enoch. So you can’t go based off of references if you’re talking about the new referencing the old defining the cannon if books referenced are still rejected
The NT isn't entirely written by Apostles though. Mark, Luke & the author of Hebrews. Jesus also didn't quote from every book of the OT. Lastly, Modern Judaism finds it roots after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. It forced them to rethink how they were suppose to think and worship after said losses
6:44 The jews being entrusted the oracles of God doesn't mean they get to be the ultimate authority to determine the Canon, even less so decades after the Lord arose to the Heavens. It means that the Prophets were given to them and that the books were written by them. The Apostles quoting from the Septuagint instead of from the hebrew Bible shows which Canon they accepted. Of you read the context of Romans 3:2 it is not talking about what books are Scripture, but rather that the jews are blessed by God even if many of them are unfaithful.
Wow, who would've thought some dude playing Minecraft is wrong about theology once again, as most comments have extensively shown. Waiting for the video when you start taking Christianity seriously.
There is no LXX canon. The LXX is the Hebrew scriptures in Greek translation plus those written in Greek, but there is no estimation as to how to regard them from one to another, and the collections varied.
@@mj6493 "There is no LXX canon." 😑 "The LXX is the Hebrew scriptures in Greek translation plus those written in Greek," Utterly false the dead sea scrolls confirm that they had Hebrew origins "but there is no estimation as to how to regard them from one to" 🙄Seriously Simply put the Septuagint is a translation of the Jewish scriptures The question is why would the apostles rely on a translation that not only includes extra non biblical books but also adds sections to already existing books Why would they do this unless they know that its contents where scriptural "and the collections varied." The versions available to the apostles and the fathers in the first and second century all contained the deutrocanon
A Protestant saying Protestant things, now that's controversial.
"A Arian saying Arian things , now that's controversial"
*It was*
As a Catholic, I can empathize with my protestant brothers and sisters.
I too am a Protestant - a protestor of protestant heresies.
@@o.o.2255 So what is your response to Luther's 95 Theses?
@@charliedontsurf334 What is your response to the hundreds of different protestants teachings and THOUSANDS of different denominations that deviated from the single teaching the Catholic church established by Christ and his succession of apostles?
The fruits are evident: it was Catholics who established the bible, died as martyrs in the first 400 years after Christ, established science, Universities, cared for the sick, widowed, orphans, gave to the poor, fought the Ottoman empire when protestants sided with them, established churches around the world. It was the Catholics by far. It was Martin Luther who wanted to remove 11 bible books, 7 OT and 4 NT (Hebrews, Jude, Revelations and James) because those books did NOT align with his theology. He also sided with the German government against the peasant revolt so most of why he left the church was political. Finally, the 95 theses did reform the catholic church under Pope Pius V in 1566-1572.
@@o.o.2255 It was the Orthodox that fought the Ottomans. Then, they were finally defeated by the Protestant British Empire in 1918. All of the Ivy Leagues were established by Protestants. Luther left the Catholic Church because they wanted to pull a repeat of John Hus. If the 95 Theses reformed the Catholic Church, then why do they still sell indulgences today?
To the Churches deviating, I'd say the most well known one is the Catholic Church when the Pope literally contradicted Jesus saying that our hearts are good literally this last week.
As a Martin Luther himself I can confirm that I'm a bit unstable
Verily it is written Martin had no chill and was a sperg
ua-cam.com/video/YmU2qV1HskU/v-deo.htmlsi=EZEAnjZHikW0Keyc
How are the poop throwing fights with Satan?
@@TCZ17090 ask Mccarick
I am sure this comment section will be calm and have no uncharitable comments at all
RZ actually has a surprisingly calm viewership
@@gerald.bostian Have you see the last video? The one arguing against orthodoxy?
@@ChristianDinosaur1616 he later made a video not only saying he doesnt not like E.O tradition, but also making a point of the things he likes about it
@@gerald.bostian Usually, though when he target the Orthodox or Catholic Churches his viewers do get up in arms a bit.
Jesus references deuterocanonical books in the new testament.
Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.”
Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.”
Tobit 4:16 (15): “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” (Douay).
Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”
Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.”
Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.”
Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”
Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”
Thanks for sharing for this. I was looking for something like this.
He also references the books of Enoch
where?@@CuntDku
glad you believe the whole of sirach, just like Sirach 42:14 A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; women bring shame and disgrace. wow really godly thing to say about people made in the image of God. Or Sirach 42:4-5 4Of exactness of balance and weights, of getting much or little: 5Of the corruption of buying, and of merchants, and of much correction of children, and to make the side of a wicked slave to bleed. Yes beat your slaves until they bleed, what godly book this is clearly inspired scripture! Or 2 Macabees 15:38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. Clearly the Spirit of the Lord would inspire an author saying this. The apocrypha is not scripture.
@@CuntDku Paul also quotes and alludes to Greek philosophers constantly in his writings, so I guess Plato's Republic is Scripture as well lol. It's cool to see how often the Apocrypha is referenced in the NT, but you can't really use that as evidence that the Apostles meant it to be Scriptural. The fact is that only the Tanakh is ever quoted as Scripture until the later church began revering the Septuagint as literally more authoritative than the original Hebrew text (see Augustine's _On Christian Doctrine._)
If anyone's interested in the Catholic perspective, the Shameless Popery podcast has a very informative video called "Did Catholics add 7 books to the Bible? Or did Protestants remove them?"
The host, Joe Herschmeyer, delves into the New Testament references to the Deuterocanonical books, as well as other arguments, like the 1400s Council of Florence. I really recommend checking it out whether you're Catholic or not, if you're interested in hearing out the opposing side to Zoomer's view.
Just because you have a podcast doesn't make you right.
@@xwaazes6375 On the same token, just because you made a youtube video, doesnt make you right. Still yet, It is good to look at both sides of the debate.
@@firedeath1154 the Catholics have won this debate though, like very very handily
Yeah, good idea!
@@xwaazes6375 where did I say he was right? I'm just recommending a related video on this topic from a different perspective.
The Deutorocanon is a product of the second temple Jewish period, which is the version of Judaism that Jesus and his apostles practiced themselves. The gospels record Jesus going to Jerusalem to celebrate Hanukkah which is the feast of the Maccabean revolt.
If the Church is the proper continuation of this second temple Jewish religion and the restored Israel as the apostle Paul attests to then the Deutorocanon is part of our tradition as well. That would be my argument for keeping it.
Being part of our tradition is not the same thing as being scripture. The Talmud is part of Jewish tradition, but Jews do not consider it scripture. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are part of Christian tradition, but nobody says that they are scripture. This discussion is not about whether the various versions of the apocrypha/deuterocanon are part of our history/tradition and useful to read. It is about whether they should be considered to have the same authority as the undisputed scriptures.
There’s a lot more arguments for it, and I ultimately agree we should keep it, and wrote a 12 page paper on it lol
@@stephengray1344 and they should
@@stephengray1344”undisputed scriptures” is begging the question.
And didn’t the apostles use the Septuagint? Which included the Deutorocanon?
I wrote a 34-page paper on this issue one time. It only had to be 10-12 pages, but I had too much research to keep it short
EDIT: Hey y'all! The browser I use UA-cam on doesn't send me notifications, so I had no idea so many people wanted to read my paper! Thank you for your patience. I don't know how or where to post it, but given time I will do so!
Here's a SUPER abbreviated version (what I remember off the top of my head):
1. The Jewish canon was decided hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. Even discounting the Great Assembly (for which there is debate around), the decided canon can be found in the Talmud (look up "Bava Batra 14b-15a"). While the Essenes (a third religious sect, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, not mentioned in the New Testament) had a significantly larger Scriptural canon and held even more writings in high regard without accepting them as divinely inspired, they weren't mentioned for a reason - they were a fringe group viewed as radical (although not as much as the Zealots) for their wider acceptance - or lower standards, as any saw it - of writings .
2. There are irreconcilable theological and historical errors within every book of the deuterocanon (except for one, which I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll correct this when I find my paper). From an angel commanding witchcraft to the same guy dying in 3 different times, places, and manners, these writings cannot be inspired by a flawless God.
3. They are never quoted or recognized as authoritative by the New Testament authors or - most significantly - Jesus. The closest indisputable reference is in Hebrews 11:35-37. This refers to a historical event recorded in 2 Maccabees 7, giving this passage historical credit but no theological credit. Being quoted doesn't mean being accepted, however, as Paul quotes Aratus' poem Phainomena in Acts 17:28, but that doesn't make Phainomena Scripture.
I hope, although fairly surface-level and non-exhaustive, that this is satisfactory until I dig that paper up and find somewhere to post it!
Thats cool, do you have the link to it?
I'd love to take a read of that if you're willing to share.
I'd like to ask if you can provide a link to your paper too.
Yeah thatld be interesting
i would be glad if the link is provided
St Athanasius didn’t reject all of the Deuterocanonical he included Baruch and he rejected Esther so no he didn’t agree with the current Protestant canon
AAAAND, ultimately, the Church vetoed that as they discerned by deep prayer and meticulous review into 3 piles:
1. Accept
2. Reject
3. Continue discernment
It was a process over centuries. Athanasius was right about the 27 NT books
I do not recall any church father ever saying not to read the apocrypha; I recall specifically Luther said you ‘should’ read them even if they don’t count as canon. As well as Augustine quotes the apocrypha all the time.
doing 0 push-ups for every like this comment gets
Bet
0 push ups? Why not -1?!
Thank you for mocking these types of comments on these videos. I’m tired of seeing them.
Cap
This doubled my faith in humanity and gave it to the next person.
Oh boy, im going to disagree with this one... will hear you out though.
making your mind up before listening to the argument is... interesting...
@@burnstick1380 holding a view in a well established generational argument is not at all intellectually dishonest. Quite the opposite.
I dont mean any disrespect to our boy RZ, I just know the protestant position on this conflicts with my own. @burnstick1380
I follow this channel because I am deeply inspired by the work he is doing. I don't agree with his conclusion on this specific issue that doesn't mean I don't like or respect him.
@@JMRolf1 Likewise, I’m Protestant but often watch Trent Horn.
@@brendonhillappeal to tradition is not an argument
Paul used the Septuagint, that’s enough for me
(Also Augustine)
Christ used the hebrew that's enough for me
@@jenex5608New Testament was written in Greek, is it not canon?
@@unoriginalclips9923but the Old Testament was not in Greek it’s in Hebrew. So the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) is wrong
@@jenex5608and the LXX as well. Remember there is no official Hebrew canon yet at those times..
@@igotresult1773 This is false. There was an official hebrew canon. Romans 3:2, Luke 24:44.
Christ did not use the septuagint, as he lived in Israel and used scrolls from the temple which was always in hebrew/aramaic.
3:44 how do we know that the church didn't make a mistake in determining which books were penned by an apostle
After all you think the Church is fallible
3:06 Jesus didn't quote all of the protocanon
Should we remove the ones he didn't quote?
Also paul quotes pagan poets
Should we accept them ?
If we’re basing the canon of the Old Testament, fundamentally, off of explicit references in the New Testament, doesn’t that mean we should also remove 10 more OT books that are never directly referenced? That is:
Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Jonah
Zephaniah
We have intra-biblical and archaeological evidence of which books made up the Hebrew Bible and Flavius Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem (around 95-96 AD), numerates the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible and it is the exact same books of the Protestants canon.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 That’s irrelevant to the point RZ referenced throughout the video, namely: The importance of direct New Testament references to specific OT books in determining what is scripture, and what isn’t.
That’s to say, which is more important: that the New Testament authors directly referenced specific books, as was expounded in the video, or that the Hebrew canon contained specific books? Because those two positions lead to different definitions of what is canon, and what isn’t.
@@Vilasiiiii But this is not an isolated argument. Not having citations does not in itself mean that they were not considered Scripture, but it is one more piece in the argument. You are taking a single argument and making it as the whole argument.
Nitpicking here, but Jonah is directly referenced by Jesus.
@@jaihummel5057 And some stories written in Judges too
Finally finished this on my lunch break. As I expected, I disagree with your conclusion, but I think youve done a commendable job articulating the Protestant position for those of us without deep theological training. Thanks and God Bless you RZ, ☦️
I like we can agree to disagree and cooperate with each other as fellow brethren in Christ.
Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which contains the deuterocanon. That’s good enough argument for me.
If there was a scroll with the 7 deteorcanonical books in the Septuagint in Jesus' day then this would be a good argument but that's not true. There is not one Septuagint. So one still has to show that Jesus used these books as scripture.
@@jamesascott7040 I have the historical attestation of the Church which have been around for 2000 years. Through Holy Tradition we can know these things.
@@triggered8556here’s the thing though. While it’s true that Christ and His apostles used the Septuagint translation (most likely at least, it’s also possible the NT authors quoted the LXX to reach a Greek audience) then it makes it all the more jarring to see that not a single one of them quotes the deuterocanonical books as scripture. And as the comment above points out, there were many different versions of the Septuagint, and Jesus and His apostles only ever quoted the protocanon/primary canon (same canon). And if you add the fact that the apocryphal books were made during the intertestamental period where God promised through His prophets that there would be a famine of His Word then it’s easy to see why the apocrypha are not inspired. In Maccabees the author even languishes over the death of the prophets and the fact that God had stopped speaking to Israel.
@@jaycefields756 the deuterocanon is referenced multiple times in the NT, what are you talking about? Are you trying to make some argument from silence here or are you just ignorant?
@@triggered8556enlighten me then. Show me where the deuterocanon is referred to as being canon in the NT. If Jesus or His apostles alluded to it that doesn’t mean it’s canon, keep that in mind. The book of Enoch is alluded to in the NT, that doesn’t make it canon. Unless Jesus or His apostles directly quoted the apocrypha or said “it is written” then it doesn’t count. Sorry
I don't see how anyone can read the Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 and not recognize it as inspired by God, this passage is clearly prophetic.
Amen. I'm protestant, but the reformers screwed up the canon. They had no authority to remove those books. That's why I use catholic bibles.
@@legacyandlegend curious as to what denomination you identify most with? I didn't know any Protestants actually used Catholic bibles.
@sealsbreakfast9200 I'm currently lutheran, but I identify more as an Anglo-Catholic. Protestants typically don't use Catholic bibles. I'm in the minority.
Basically you're chain of arguments goes like this:
1. We infallibly know that the protestant canon of the OT is correct because we look at which OT texts the NT refers to (btw. even if this were true, as you correctly pointed out, the Deuterocanon is mentioned in the NT.)
2. But how do we infallibly know the NT canon is correct? Your answer at 4:11 basically is because the early church assembled the NT canon and Protestants never had a problem with relying on the early church to assemble the NT canon.
3. But how do we know the early church had the authority to assemble the NT canon, yet not consider the church infallible? Well because Jesus relied on the OT canon of the Israelites and they weren't considered infallible either, hence we can assume that god has not established an infallible authority aka a church for this in the New Covenant either.
After that, you basically just quoted a few things from the Church Fathers, which doesn't really matter because they essentially disagreed a bit on every theological issue until the Church infallibly settled them.
For me the problem with this chain of arguments is that your entire reasoning relies on the argument that the OT was canonized before the coming of the Lord, for which there is simply not enough evidence.
Looking at Scripture, History, statements from Church Fathers, as well as Tradition it is in my opinion massively more reasonable to believe that during the time of the old covenant, god delivered progressive revelation to mankind to finally sent his son, who established a church that, guided by the holy spirit, infallibly rule on these issues.
The NT wasn’t exclusively written by apostles (e.g., Mark nor Luke were apostles)The Masoteric text did not exist until over a century after Christ. The overwhelming majority (it’s really not even close) of NT quotes from, and references to, the OT are from the Septuagint. Christ himself quotes from the Deuterocanon. For example, the golden rule is taken from Tobit. He also quotes from Sirach when he says, “you will know them by their fruits.” The errors in this video are easily avoidable.
What, weren’t Mark and Luke apostles 😂
Jesus isn’t quoting Sirach. He was talking about false prophets and knowing them by their fruit. There are multiple passages in OT canon that warns of false prophets. Written before the Deutercanon books and even for the conversation of argument if Jesus did use a reference he didn’t say “it was written” or “scripture” which means they’re quoting directly from scripture.
@@equipped.thepodcast8038 He is most definitely quoting Sirach (he relies on Sirach multiple times in the Gospels). I’m not aware of anyone in the history of the Church applying the standard you suggest we apply. I’m sure you can understand why we would rely on the 2000 year old Church in this area. And, I believe I can understand why you wouldn’t.
@@cassidyanderson3722 he is not
Quoting Sirach in that passage. He is talking about false prophesy and warning about it. I haven’t read Sirach in a min but if I’m write it is no passage talking about warning from false prophesy. Secondly if he is quoting he never says “it is written” so if he was quoting it. It’s a reference not scripture there is a difference.
@nickhueper2906 Since no one is answering you, no. Neither Mark nor Luke were apostles.
Mark was most probably Peter's scribe or another helper that traveled and worked with Peter. Basically, the Gospel of Mark is Peter's telling of Jesus's ministry.
Luke was a gentile who converted and spent a lot of time with Paul. This lead to him meeting a bunch of the orginal apostles and other figures in both Jesus's ministry and the orginial church found in the wake of His resurrection. More so than any of the other gospels, Luke writes like a historian of the time would have. This means he most likely did thorough interviews of everyone he met which led to him writing a gospel as someone who who probably never met Jesus.
One thing I would say is that the sadduces and pharisees had different canons of scripture yet they were both considered validly Jewish.
They had valid authority, the Seat of Moses.
@@triggered8556 and yet the Saduces were still valid Jews. And the Pharisees were still critiqued for following the traditions of men despite having the seat of Moses
And the Essenes had a third one (Protestant canon + Tobit, Sirach, Enoch, Jubilees and some more books) and diaspora Jews a fourth one (the Catholic Old Testament).
@@Flame1500 they were critiqued for their bastardization of tradition. Not all tradition is invalid, because Jesus acknowledges the tradition of the seat of Moses as being true. So tradition in general is not bad, but moving away from the tradition that God revealed to us is bad.
@@triggered8556 but indulgences, rosary, papal executioner, and the treasury of merits and the 1 million “mortal sins” is not handed down by God as it is explicitly contradicted in scripture. Nobody says tradition isn’t important, it’s just not infallible.
1) The Masoretic texts are SIGNIFICANTLY younger than the Septuagint, the Septuagint was compiled 3-1 cent BC while the Masoretic texts were compiled 7-10 cent AD, a millennia difference. While the Masoretic texts are directly sourced from the original Hebrew, giving them translational authority, the original Hebrew canon from the second temple period was lost, so the Septuagint is most likely closer to the original canon than the post temple Masoretic texts.
2) The council of Trent affirmed that what is and isn't scripture isn't limited to what's officially canon, allowing the ECCs to retain their own canons, which isn't a problem for Catholics because we don't have an autistic obsession with scripture.
3) The New Testament isn't as set in stone as you think, there are Miaphysite Orthodox churches that don't include Revelations and a hand full of epistles as canon.
4) There were plenty of "gospels", mostly the Gnostic texts such as the "gospel" of Thomas, that didn't make it into canon. The 4 gospels + epistles weren't included together until the 3-4 cent, and weren't canonized as scripture until the council of Hippo in 393. It took centuries of combing through various texts until the early church fathers could decide on which texts could be considered the definitive word of God. What is authoritatively scripture is only as strong as what is authoritatively tradition.
About your first point:
None of the versions of the Septuagint which date from the biblical period and came to us through archeology, have the exact same books as the Catholic Canon. Only later versions.
We have intra-biblical and archaeological evidence of which books made up the Hebrew Bible and Flavius Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem (around 95-96 AD), numerates the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible and it is the exact same books of the Protestants canon.
Enjoy Jesuits works adding and subtraction of the Bible....
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The Septuagint seems to have been a living document, starting with Ptolemy II Philadephus' project to translate the Hebrew into Greek, and continued up until the 1st century AD. For example, Maccabees 4, which isn't in anyone's canon, was written contemporary with the gospels. However, as a compilation of various texts, the Septuagint is much older and more complete than the much later Masoretic texts. The current Catholic canon isn't the same canon from the council of Hippo, as that included both Esdras I and II, but no one cares since the Tridentine interpretation of scripture doesn't limit it to only what's canon. Josephus' list is as arbitrary as anyone's list at that time, everyone had slightly different lists of what was and wasn't the official Hebrew canon, which itself was probably a living, changing canon as much as the Septuagint was. The Protestant idea of Hebrew canon is the autistic conflation of "It's Jewish, therefore it must be original", completely ignoring the difference between the Hebrews and post temple Judaism
@@pedroguimaraes6094Josephus only names one of the many canons of the time
@@williampumpernickel4929 That is why that is not the only argument and its not used in isolation. Whasmore, the Palestinian Jewish canon had been widely accepted by most of the early Christian church and throughout much of Christian history.
Hey Zoomer. Catholic here, and I wanted to respond to some of your propositions for the sake of constructive conversation. I don't mean anything personal in them, and I hope the level of discourse can be raised in them.
The foundation of our disagreement is entirely solid, I have no objections in your section discussing where and why we disagree; it's by and large a very fair framing. However in your citing of Romans 3:2 I think was flawed. We both agree that Judaism can no longer be trusted because the religion itself has rejected the Messiah, however Jewish authorities only definitively rejected the deuterocanonical books after Christ's resurrection and the foundation of the Church, within the relatively very short period between the crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple.
Furthermore, I checked my interlinear New Testament (granted, I am absolutely NOT a scholar, just a novice of a student.) and the word used to mean "were entrusted with" is 'Episteuthesan,' which is a passive verb. Basically, we use past tense in the English because Paul in Romans isn't saying that the Jews are at the present time of writing THE keepers of the writings the same way they were at the time of the Old Covenant. I say that Paul is instead emphasizing the importance of the Jews covenant with God, and how his chosen people is supposed to be close to him. That Christianity is a religion for both Jews and gentiles.
I would also like to mention, though you didn't necessarily propose the opposite, that Jesus doesn't quote from every book in the Old Testament. Just as Jesus doesn't quote Joshua or Ruth, he doesn't necessarily need to quote Sirach or Judith for them to be canon. We also see nonscriptural references in the Bible, such as Paul using the language of philosophy in Athens, or Jude quoting Enoch and eluding to Jubilees. All in all I think solely using verified scripture to determine scriptural canon is rather fruitless.
For the sake of initial length, I don't want UA-cam to automatically dump my comment as spam, but I'll definitely edit to respond to more. I hope all is well with you, God bless 🙂👍
imma still say og bible is 73 books. the bible didn’t even exist at first til the church made it
Pretty much.
I'm protestant and I agree. Protestants screwed up the canon. That's why I use catholic bibles.
@legacyandlegend KJV has the books too, they are online.
@@tylere.8436 They were originally printed with the kjv. However, they weren't part of the canon. They were in an appendix marked apocrypha.
I usually break out the “if you don’t trust the Church why do you trust your Bible” argument when dealing with crazy people who think the pope is the Antichrist and there is a snake temple in Rome.
While the Pope certainly isn't the Antichrist, he leads a lot of people astray by teaching doctrines opposed to the scripture. Like the most recent example of him "blessing" homosexual unions.
I think Redeemed Zoomer is awesome. The fact that he said, "if I'm wrong about that..." shows humility. You'll never hear Dyer say that.
He does say that tho lol. Also Dyer doesn't create theology, he just asserts the eastern Orthodox position. He doesn't believe there is room for error in it
Fair's fair
Dyer has said it on numerous occasions. Don’t be a sleazy, slimy liar.
@@t-rizzle0509 Hey now brother let's be kind.
You need to stop caring about the EO so much
You and Gavin Ortlund are a breath of fresh air to protestanism, honestly. God bless you ✝️🙏❤️
His video and Ortlund’s video still fail to say that the Protestant canon is correct. They both have to leave out a large amount of data to get to their conclusions
@@CatholicDebater Neither does Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. By the way he gave reasons why it's correct. He quoted the Bible verse and cited history
@@raphaelfeneje486 and his history was entirely mistaken. He appeals to the canon as if it were closed at the time. 1) the sadducees had a 5 book canon at the time, only the Pentateuch, the essenes had over 45 books in their canon, and their was debate over which books should be in the Pharisees canon, with most saying Esther shouldn’t be in it, a few saying it should, and yet others still advocating for the deuterocanon, so that’s false. 2) a dude named Rabbi Akiva in the middle of the second century arbitrarily settled the canon, due to growing debate over whether the Gospels had any merit. Unsurprisingly, he was part of the Pharisees, the only surviving group with a presence after the Jewish civil war, and so he’s untrustworthy(not to mention the main purpose he was doing that was to make sure the Gospels weren’t accepted as canon, so we should just ignore his opinion from the start. to respond to your other point, the Septuagint is the translation that the apostles, biblical writers, and Jesus used when they were quoting things, and Jesus also failed to quote from about 1/3 of the books in the OT, so we can’t use that to validate the canon. Also, he didn’t provide any biblical arguments to support what he said, he appealed mainly to history. If you looked at the Bible, namely to Hebrews 11:35, the original Greek uses the same exact phrasing seen in the martyrdom passages in 2 Maccabees, so we do have a reference there, as well as Jesus observing Hanukkah, which, while not mentioned by name, is included in the Gospels. I wrote an 8+ page article on this, and the Protestant canon isn’t the historical canon. Also, looking at Athanasius, he does quote the deuterocanon as sacred scripture, so RZ is explicitly wrong there. And if Augustine was mistaken on the canon, were the majority of other bishops also mistaken when the canon was listed independently in 4 councils between the 300s and the 1500s, even excluding Trent? We can look at Jerome, who did deny them, and said they were good for teaching, but we can also look at Origen, who believed in universalism. Just because a church father was right about some things doesn’t mean he was right about all of them(like universalism). Jerome then proceeded to submit to the church and accepted he was wrong, translating the deuterocanon into the Latin vulgate. We also see independently in the Dead Sea scrolls that the books which are listed as deuterocanonical are affirmed, and they are written on paper reserved for books considered inspired, not just regular parchment. We can further look at the deuterocanonical books which also prophecy Jesus, and the reformers being unsure of which books to use, as even Calvin referenced Baruch in his work, and so should all Calvinists accept that? I’d assume not. The Catholic canon is correct, and to prove me wrong, you’ll need to show me that I’m gravely mistaken in the history I have provided and show me something from the Bible which precludes the deuterocanon. Also, if you’re going to argue that Judith has historical errors, as RZ did, I’d urge you to take that up with Carey Moore, who wrote a 350 page commentary on the subject, which was Published by Yale Bible Commentaries, so not some fringe Catholic publisher. These same criticisms also apply to Gavin’s case for the canon. Hopefully you guys can see just how erroneous you are in accepting a mere 66 book canon, and learn to accept the deuterocanon as well.
@@raphaelfeneje486 also, the Eastern Orthodox conceded to the Roman canon in the council of Florence in the 1400s, so even among them, there was no debate among the canon lol
@@CatholicDebater You mean the same Council that was rejected by the Eastern Orthodox and wasn't recognized as ecumenical?? LOL.
its a well known and confirmed fact that jesus, the apostles, and the fathers ALL used the septuigant, which just so happened to contain the deuterocanon, jesus also just so happen to quote the deuterocanon, including a certain golden rule in sirach...
As a Catholic, I will always feel bad for my Protestant brothers because they can’t read chapter 2 of Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture.
Plenty of Protestants read the Deuterocanon. We just don't make doctrine out of them.
“Jesus gave authority to the Apostles”
So you’re saying that the Council of Nicaea was correct in its canonical decisions. Thanks!
Yep i agree with this one, but we still use the Apocrypha as life lessons
This is the Anglican stance.
Classic anglicanism. Too catholic to be protestant, too protestant to be catholic.
Deuterocanonical books contain Messianic Prophecy yet aren’t inspired - am I missing something?
@@TheDallasDwayne that is correct, my church talks about an Apocryha where Peter tries find the smallest stone and then tries to carry a small boulder
Dude literally like last week I was thinking about how I wanted you to do a video on this topic!!! Thank you 💙
St Athanasius sees Baruch as Scripture.
Baruch was thought to have been part of Jeremiah. That's why.
@@mj6493 it's not the only deuterocanonical book he saw as Scripture btw
@@williampumpernickel4929 Almost though. He included Ezras as part of Ezra/Nehemiah. Check me on that though. I could be wrong.
@@mj6493 he also counted Wisdom as Scripture
@@williampumpernickel4929 I don't see it in his list, but possibly you are referring to the book of Proverbs which was sometimes called Wisdom. He says, "...καὶ ἑξῆς Παροιμίαι..."
The masoretic text was complied between the 6th and 10th century. The goal of the project was for the Jews to try and recreate what they thought was the most authentic version of their Bible because unfortunately there were no existing copies from before Christianity. By this point Christian Church’s had made many copies of their own Bible in Greek and Latin. The Jews thought the Christian’s had changed the Old Testament to make it seem more likely Jesus was the messiah. The books the Jews thought the Catholics added were the books that dealt with the previous 400-500 years before Christ. So they concluded Christians made up these books after Jesus to retroactively add stories to make it seem more likely he was the messiah. So they removed those books and kept the others for their Old Testament.
For one, since the Dead Sea scrolls have been discovered we know for certain that these books existed before the time of Christ.
But more over when the Protestant reformation came around many Protestant groups came up with their own Bibles. Martin Luther didn’t believe the book of James was authentic because it directly contradicted one of his core beliefs of Faith Alone. So, he just removed it from his Bible at first, later after backlash he added back in but said it was not conical.
King James is the one who commissioned a version of the Bible that used the Jewish version of the Old Testament which many at the time pointed out it was primarily because of how much the Christian Books talk about the importance of marriage. At the time Divorce was not allowed by Christians, but Jews did allow it. The main reason King James left the Catholic Church and started the Church of England, that conveniently he became the head of, was to divorce his wife to remarry someone else.
Most of the Protestants that left England for America rejected the King James version of the Bible because they felt everything he had done was so corrupt.
It wasn’t until years later that the growing number of different bibles was obviously causing problems for Protestants. It’s hard to justify your beliefs from the Bible alone when everyone has different versions of the Bible. Because early America was very antagonistic to Catholic and Orthodox Christians and most people held a cultural affinity for England eventually the King’s James version of the Bible was adapted by most Protestant groups as their Bible of choice.
Now it would be almost impossible to change that since the core claim is that the Bible is the only infallible authority, but if they unfortunately made the same mistake the Jews did by throwing out the original Scriptures leading up to Christ’s coming then it discredits the validity of their foundational claim.
Actually King James the first wasn’t the one who split from the Catholic Church. You must be thinking of King Henry VIII (he’s the fat one). King James was a Protestant, but he was a couple monarchs after Henry broke away from Rome to get a divorce.
Unfortunately, the stance here doesn't add up: the very first ruling on the canon reflects the Catholic/Orthodox canon, not the Protestant one. Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees are all mentioned by name, Wisdom and Baruch are listed under Books of Solomon, and Sirach is part of Jeremiah.
As far as Jesus or the NT never quoting or alluding to them--thats wrong too.
Where did you learn your protestant views? I find it difficult to find the background and history of these debated topics from the protestant perspective. Any books, websites, resources, etc. would be appreciated!
@Tylerlikesjesus Thats a good one! I was hoping there was some collection of modern protestant views that anyone could recommend.
I remember he said that he gets um from Dr.Jordan B. Copper (but rz also look up other theologian's but I don't remember which other theologian's btw)God bless you brother or sister in Christ and may you have a blessed day 🙏🙏🙏
I like some of Redeemed Zoomer's videos, but man, was this one disappointing. Just going through the main arguments he proposes:
1. The New Testament quotes the books of the Old Testament, but it never quotes the deuterocanonical books.
He basically refuted this claim himself, pointing out that there are lots of books in the protocanon that the New Testament doesn't quote. His justification is that, since he already assumes that Esther, judges, etc. is part of the canon, then it doesn't matter that they aren't quoted. But since books from the deuterocanon aren't part of the canon, then the fact that they aren't quoted shows they aren't part of the canon. This is just begging the question.
2. Some deuterocanonical books have historical errors.
This is no different than atheist saying the bible contains errors. I find it hilarious that Zoomer hand waives away allegorical reading of Judith, when he has made videos begging Christians to read Genesis allegorically. Just another double standard protestants hold toward the deuterocanon.
3. Protestants are following Athanasius' canon.
This just isn't true. Athanasius does not include Esther in his canon, and he includes Baruch.
4. Augustine only believed in the apocrypha out of ignorance. He said that the Hebrew canon was correct.
This is also just not true, and I'm really wondering if Zoomer has even read Augustine. I'll just Let Augustine speak for himself:
**Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, ch. 12)**
Augustine is not basing his canon on his incorrect understanding of the Jews, he is basing it on what the actual Christians all over the world, and especially in the Apostolic Churches, believe. Also, Augustine is famous for believing that the Greek septuagint is inspired. I really don't know where Zoomer is getting his information about Augustine.
That's basically all the arguments he presents in the video, then at the very end he gets to the core justification of the title of the video
5. The (contemporary) Old Testament canon held by the jews at the time of Jesus is the protestant canon, and the new testament teaches that canon is correct.
To make this point he has to show that the Jewish OT canon at the timewas 1. unified, 2. the same as the protestant Canon, and 3. Affirmedby the new testament. For justification for (1), he appeals to Paul saying that the Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God. It's a big assumption to suppose that this means that there was one, unified, correct Jewish canon. We know that different sects of Jews at the time of Jesus debated the books of scripture. Reading Paul to suggest a unified Jewish canon, as opposed to simply meaning that the Jews were given divine revelation, is a theologically motivated eisegesis. As for (2), he again just assumes it. And for 3, he falls back on the question begging of his first argument.
I also have to point out that his view of the church is very strange. He thinks that the Church has been entrusted to preserve the New Testament canon, but not the Old. Given his other comments, it seems strange that he thinks the post-christian Jews got something right that the vast majority of the Church got wrong until the reformation (and still gets wrong today, since the protestant canon is still the minority among Christians).
There are a lot of other problems, like his belief in a binary Hebrew/Greek canon.
Redeemed Zoomer will eventually have to bite the bullet and say the entire church was wrong until luther came around, and when he does he'd be contradicting (John 16, 17, 18)
@@Hallowed_Knight Protestants love to say " The church is the people not an institution, God preserved His people but not an institution." You just ask them" Where were they before Luther came to reform the church?"
Sola scriptura - after we take some books out.
I was actually wondering about this the other day, I knew almost nothing about the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha or why it was removed. What a timely video!
The reason that they were removed was because Protestants saw that Jews didn't use those books anymore but there is a reason for that. So the Septuagint was mostly use by Hellenised Jews and when Christianity came about many of these Hellenised Jews converted and essentially the divine nature of these books in Judaism died out as more Eastern Jews never even heard of those books
@@applegaming2345 Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
yes been waiting on ur opinion of the Apocrypha
Saint Paul does refer to the book of Judith. For example Judith 8:25 - 1 Cor. 10:10
The book of Jude does not contain a verse that directly corresponds to Corinthians 10:10. While both verses may touch upon themes of faithfulness, trust, and perseverance, they are not directly related in terms of content or context. There are no records of any interpretation by the Church Fathers that attributed 1 Corinthians 10:10 to this passage on Jude, for example. That is a typical Catholic retroactive reasoning. Usually, the Roman Catholic Church define its dogmas and interpretations and then start to look at what the church fathers said and the scriptures to try to see it there.
1 Corinthians 10:10: nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.
Judith 8:25: The Lord our God is putting us to the test, just as he tested our ancestors, and we should be thankful for that.
Where's the connection?
@@getgnomed6179 well I'm french and in my Bible it uses the same words.
@@getgnomed6179 he's referring back to the event
@@rektagon are we in 2018 still?
Them: “Well where did you get your theology degree!?”
Me: Redeemed Zoomer. 🙏🏻✝️👍🏻
You poor soul
4:16 actually no
There was no closed canon among all Jewish sects at the time of Jesus
The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch
Evidence jesus when he was proving the resurrection to the Sadducees
He didn't use the obvious unequivocal statements found in daniel but a more vague passage in Exodus
Luke 20:37-38
New International Version
37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
4:37 that shouldn't be interpreted as
"The jews have the right old testament Canon"
Because not all of them had the same Canon
6:48 no not only where there some sects that had a canon smaller than the protestant canon
There were also sects which accepted more books
Like the Essenes
While I ultimately agree, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Reformers referring to Wisdom 2 as a prophesy of Jesus on the cross. I’m best described as conservative Anglican but while I ultimately affirm a 66 book canon, the references made to the Book of Wisdom and even possibly to Sirach, Wisdom and Baruch by St. Paul, St. James and some early Church Fathers including St. Augustine do give me some pause and stop me from writing the Deuterocanon off completely, in addition to Hebrews 11 including some similarities to the Maccabean martyrs.
They seem to reference Wisdom 2 in their commentaries on Matthew 27.
Something can be a prophecy without being scripture. We have plenty of mentions in scripture of prophets whose prophecies are not recorded in scripture. The school of the prophets in the time of Elijah and Elisha, Philip's daughters, and the prophets who Paul instructs in 1 Corinthians 12-14 being the ones that immediately come to mind.
@@stephengray1344 that is true, but there doesn’t seem to be much distinction in how they’re referenced in comparison to the scriptures that we have now. At the very least, the deuterocanon is generally viewed as “wise books”, even by those who don’t see them as inspired. The modern evangelical take of them being useless isn’t a historical one.
I think my general point is that it’s more nuanced than I first thought when I looked into this. It’s a topic I d9 think is worthy of discussion considering that they were presented differently to how the Book of Enoch was, which was basically written off by the second century.
@@samueljennings4809 I don't disagree with you. Much of modern day evangelicalism has taken sola scriptura to an unhealthy extreme (sometimes called solo scriptura). And it is more nuanced than many takes (on both Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox sides) would suggest. I was just pointing out something that seemed to be a weak point in the reasoning of your initial comment.
But after all, what is the criteria for a scripture to be inspired or not? As you mentioned, the wisdom books have prophecies that are cited by the church fathers, but other books like Esther has no direct relation with the new testament but is still considered part of the cannon for everyone, why is this?
I don't think Jesus quoted Numbers or Joshua either.
He made a reference to numbers by saying he is the bread that comes from heaven above. He is saying he is better than the manna that came down from heaven so the Jews could eat and not die while in the desert.
The Jewish canon? The Greek Septuagint was established by Jewish Scribes. Scribes remember worked for the Rab’s, Rabbi’s and Rabban’s. This was the 49 OT books (not 39).
St Augustine correctly believed; therefore, the Jewish canon was what Jesus and the apostles used that existed before the temple was burned (along with its’ books, that is the Greek Septuagint.
The dead sea scrolls (OT books included the 7 deuterocanonical books) of the Essene Jews (which some theorize Jesus more closely associated with) to confirm this.
Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage x2 (367, 392, 397, and 416 AD, respectively) ESTABLISHED the 73 books of bible (not 66) WELL BEFORE Council of Trent in 1500’s. The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the canon to remind and refute the heretical protestant reformation.
If the dislike button has a purpose, We know why.
To be completely honest this really sounds like your saying the books were removed and it was justified. If this is true I just cant see how thats not destructive logic. Why not then start removing other books that one might see as uninspired based on the evidence.
Because the only opinion that matters to Zoomer is his own. In his eyes he is elect and any argument against his position is an attack on his election.
That’s unfortunately the thing whenever I see someone saying the apocrypha isn’t scripture. They’re justifying taking entire books out of scripture to fit their beliefs about what the Bible is.
Zoomer, there are some books in the Old Testament that Lord Jesus never quotes, for example the Song of Songs. That means that He did not approve it, and therefore you really don't have any reason to conclude that it should be in the Canon.
Song of Songs chapter 7: “How beautiful are the feet”
It's pointing out the flaws in one of the arguments Protestants put forth.
He isnt saying we can only use books that jesus himself quoted. As he said in the video, romans 3:2 shows that we can rely on the jewish canon of the time, just as jesus and his apostles did.
He literally addresses this point when he references Esther (song of Solomon would be the same story
@@orionc.5407 There was no consensus among the jews on the canon though. The Septuagint for instance included the Deuterocanon.
The Council of Carthage (AD 397) which St. Augustine attended recognized the Deuterocanonical books as canonical pending ratification by the See of Rome.
I feel like Zoomer doesn't know what the infallibility of the Church means, because he references the Jewish authorities as not being infallible (because of their hypocrisy, sin and shortsightedness) despite Christ literally teaching the apostles that the teachings of the Pharisees are true. (Matthew 23:1-3)
Infallibility is not about the person carrying the authority as given to them by God, it's a protection by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, which the church needs to be coherent. The Pharisees weren't infallible because of their character or good deeds, but because God promised to guide his people with his teachings, even if through imperfect people.
Martin Luther's translation moved the apocryphal texts in-between the Old and New Testaments, but he did not remove those texts from the Bible. Luther approvingly quoted the apocryphal texts. Luther took a conservative view that they are "good" but lesser cannon. The difference between the Lutheran tradition and the Roman Church are the Trentine novelties Rome introduced. Luther's viewpoint during Luther's lifetime was an approved, Catholic viewpoint. Even Luther's position on James, Jude, and Revelation are not novel views. Many, even in the early church, viewed them as lesser cannon due to not being written by one of the Twelve Apostles or Paul.
Today the largest confessional Lutheran denomination in the United States-the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod-has the apocrypha within their cannon and publishes a special edition with study notes (excluded from the general study bible due to ignorance by the laity on its proper use). Most Lutherans in America today either follow the general evangelical view (presented here as the Protestant viewpoint) or the viewpoint Luther and the early Lutherans. It is my understanding the Anglicans have a similar viewpoint.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Is there anywhere you could point us to in order to learn more about this view?
So the writer of revelation (John) was not one of the 12 apostles? Or was John not the writer of revelation?
@@gumbyshrimp2606 I'm not completely sure, but I'm pretty sure the rule was that a new testament text had to be either written by eyewitnesses or people who directly knew eyewitnesses. I think John knew many eyewitnesses. Don't completely take me on that though. I could be wrong.
@@vladbastovka6813 John was an apostle and saw Jesus on the mountain of transfiguration
@@gumbyshrimp2606 OK, I thought he was, but I ain't sure.
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful video. You are correct that this subject was long debated in the church. However, I have seen convincing summaries of references to the deuterocanonical books in the NT.
Although I disagree with your conclusion, I am impressed with your work. I refer Protestants to your channel whenever I get the chance. I think the subject matter you discuss is rarely considered by Protestants who are quick to indicate that anything that is debatable doesn’t matter. I think you will agree that this is terribly unsatisfying. You do not seem to be one of these types. We need more Protestants like you.
8:39 there are
Open your original king james version With the deutrocanon and you will find cross references
"Well the Pharisees were the keepers of the Old Testament so we should use the Hebrew Bible"
Paul used the Septuagint (as opposed to his own renditioning of the Hebrew in references passages into Greek)
"If we need to find out which book should and should not be canon, we just need to see which books the NT uses"
Jude directly quotes from the Book of Enoch, which is not canon outside of Ethiopian Orthodoxy. Obviously the metric is not the degree of reference or use.
"I don't think it's that big of a deal if a certain church gets the wrong canon of scripture"
Having a wrong scripture is arguably a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it is very important if you believe the Bible is the word of God to believe strongly in one true canon
"The book of Judith has historical errors"
As does almost every other book of the Old and New Testament, we can't even properly pin the historical date for the birth of Christ because of it, recording accurate history was not their purpose.
"They're not the same level of inspiration as the other books"
You can't write off certain books as being uninspired by the Holy Spirit because they aren't present in the version used by the people who rejected and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, especially when the apostles would use the version which includes them.
The main counter argument I have heard is that whenever Christ and the Apostles quote the Old Testament, they are quoting the Septuagint.
Quotes do not equate with canon. They are not the same thing. And there is no such thing as a LXX canon.
It's odd he didn't address it.
So basically you say tradition holds power over scripture…. Until it’s inconvenient
yep
When did he say tradition holds power over scripture?
No, we say that you can only give the name of Holy Scripture to those books of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.
@@josephthomas8714 When he said the Jews were the authority over the old Testament
sola scriptura, minus a few later books. Ok now sola scriptura. Mind not Martin Luther trying to remove the Epistle of James from the New Testament.
Hey I asked for this! I don’t know if you read my comment or if it’s just a coincidence, but thank you! This makes things a lot clearer for me
What was the music you used at the end? It was really cool
I would certainly not rest your case on whether Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of the masoretic text or the Septuigent, considering the Masoretes didn't start working on their version of the text until the 7th century AD, and also considering that Jesus and the Apostles all quoted out of the Septuigent 340/373 of the times they quoted scripture.
Then it's a good thing that Zoomer doesn't do that at all.
Where do you get the music in your kingdomcraft videos from?
I write it
On a related note, is there a video about why the book of enoch is referenced quite a number of times in the bible when it's not scripture, and why those few isolated books give so much information about the supernatural? It's been bugging me for a long time.
I've read sources that say that the woman caught in adultuery has been disputed as scripture so how do we know it is supposed to be there?
"Maccabees? More like NAH-ccabees!" ~Martin Luther, probably
I have been struggling with this very question dude, you have no idea how much I’ve been researching this recently. I am convinced God put this here exactly for what I (and likely many others) are going through. Thank you and God Bless
this guy is wrong, search up when the masoretic text developed, it came from the 6 to 10th century, meanwhile the septuagint with the deuterocanon came out in the 4th century, the church always had 73 books not 66 books
Please watch Joel Heyschmeyers Catholic canon video
So, is the Book of Esther part of the Protocanon or the Deuterocanon? Why or why not?
Its part of the protcanon because it's part of the masoretic text. It also has three extra chapters that are part of the septuagint so it's slightly longer in the catholic and orthodox churches.
Interesting points and I want to know your opinion on the book of Esther I hear a lot of opinions and points towards it
Hi, uh so is the server public?and if yes how to join?
I appreciate this argument. Too many times in this debate people just stick to their talking points and never have more than on response to the other side.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
@@nics8040 So it took me a really long time to get any kind of answer to this too. For me, it was watching the History Channel's "Banned from the Bible." It took 15 years to find a scholar who could answer this question. His name is Dr. David Falk of the Vancouver School of Theology. He said that the Septuagint included many works that were not scripture like the Talmud. He speaks both Koine Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew, and is an Egyptologist. He said that the Apocrypha has many more historical issues than the rest of the Bible, and he explained the difference. His UA-cam channel is "Ancient Egypt and the Bible." He is bar none the best Christian source on anything related to Egypt.
He also said that we should read the Apocrypha and Enoch to get the zeitgeist of the New Testament.
I love it that some of your friends are there with you while you record heheh =)
This ultimately just comes down to authority. If you believe there is no institution on earth today to infallibly declare the canon, then you have to default to only the books that we can say with certainty are canonical. Also, it doesn’t make sense that St Augustine wasn’t aware of the Jewish canon since he had great respect and knowledge of St Jerome, and therefore would have known about his argument against the deuterocanon based on its absence in the Hebrew canon.
What's the song?
he makes his own music. idk if he has it anywhere though.
I like your video, but you made a mistake in the city of God. St. Augustine explicitly says that the Deuterocannon is accepted by the church, but not the Jews.
"From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils” [NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, City of God, Book XVIII. 36].
Crazy i was just think about the subject. Scary good timing
Where would the authority of revelation come from? Wasn't it written after the apostles?
Please correct my logic if you believe its wrong but do the quotes of the old testament in the new testament not line up more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic? If this is the case we see the apostles choosing to use the Septuagint which includes the apocrypha when they are writing the New Testament. Also we know from history the apostles used the Septuagint and even just from pragmatism since after Christianity spread beyond Judea, the gentiles and diaspora Jews they preached to pretty much only spoke Greek, so it wouldn't make sense to use Hebrew text when trying to convert people who don't speak Hebrew. So, if your statement is correct that Jesus gives the authority for the New Testament through the apostles, wouldn't that imply the Septuagint as a whole is considered authoritative since the Apostles favored it as scripture both when writing the new testament and when preaching to those outside Judea? Also Romans 3:2 says the Jews were entrusted with the words of God, Paul is speaking about how they are the chosen people of God and received divine revelation from him, he isn't making a claim about which canon is correct. But even if he was, the Septuagint was produced by Jews and was used widely in the Jewish diaspora of that time. So to present this dichotomy between the "Jewish Masoretic Text" and the "Non-Jewish Septuagint" is kinda silly.
It’s a good day when rz uploads 😊
Hey man, love your vids! Just a quick question about the server.... Can you pleeeease make it so that people can play on the server with a cracked account? Not really in the financial state to buy the game :/ (dont wanna make this sound like a sob story) If you could make it so you cracked accounts could access the server, Me and many others will be more than happy!
God bless my friend! ☦️✝️🙏
Just a slight correction: the Orthodox Church doesn’t have an Old Testament canon. We all use the same Old Testament books plus or minus Esdras and 4th Maccabees, but it was never officially canonized.
The New Testament also quotes many non-canonical books to both parties, I think a better way of seeing if a quote is scripture related if it follows it with "thus says the Lord" or something similar
I know you know history, at this point you are self decieved
Hey zoomer I really think your next video should be about the unpardonable sin. This is a scary topic for a lot Christians and it would be nice to hear your thoughts on it.
Can you do a video about if Roman Catholics are heresy? It’s bc I saw that a lot on the internet.
What about the dead sea scrolls?
Jesus also quotes the book of Enoch, that’s not in your cannon or the Catholic cannon so are you going to add that book? If not, how does this alone not break your argument?
It is in the Ethiopian orthodox cannon.
@@WastelandArmorer yes, but he isn’t Ethiopian orthodox. If Jesus is what validates his cannon of scripture like he says, why doesn’t he have the books of Enoch or Maccabees, despite Christ referencing them? Why does he retain works like Songs of Solomon despite Christ not referencing them? It’s a self defeating argument from RZ is the point.
When you mention that verse in which God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, what Jews specifically? There were pharisees, sadducees and other "denominations" of jews who had different canons of the OT. Also, Jesus and his disciples quoted the Septuagint, which invalidates your argument.
Didn't Jesus and the Apostles quote from the LXX?
If I recall correctly, yes. They were using the Septuagint for their references.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
Ok. Great video. What's the Time-lapse music called?
I wrote it
@@redeemedzoomer6053 cool! What's it called?
@@Hacker_rex04yt It's called "I wrote it"
@@MSK.ofAlexandria I don't think it is called " I wrote it"
@@Hacker_rex04yt No, it definitely is
I appreciate the clarification. I think the deuterocancons were probably scripture. Hebrews lifts a passage from 2 Maccabees almost verbatim. Jean Calvin called Baruch scripture and Prophetic. And Wisdom has the most direct prophecy of Jesus and his future actions down to that he will die, how and why. By how I mean that it would be slow and humiliating, not specifically that it would be by crucifixion.
It also predicted who
The first 12 verses of chapter two
Indicate that the evil men don't believe in the resurrection of the dead ie the Sadducees
And even though Jesus had beefs with both the Sadducees and the pharisees
The Sadducees were the ones controlling the temple (the high priests were all Sadducees)
And they were the ones who put him on trial
I like our Anglican take on it, as set out in the 39 Articles.
'And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine [...]'
Useful, good to read, but not authoritative. So I think we're about where you're at, even if our Bibles are that bit fatter (or we've got a separate book filling up shelf space).
I love that take. I’m considering Anglicanism, because I love Catholicism, but can’t bring myself to believe in Purgatory, icon veneration, or their doctrines around Mary.
@@hismajesty6272youll be a great fit in anglicanism lol
@@orionc.5407Isn't the anglican churches, as a whole, going into the same progressive hole as the american mainline protestants? Especially the american Episcopal Church.
@@ricardoribeiroprudencio7871 im a member of the episcopal church and yes, it is rough. But i know the gates of hell cannot prevail so ik anglicanism will not die out. Theres still gafcon and many other conservative denominations also
@@hismajesty6272 I was an Anglican for most of my life and every parish I attended venerated icons. You can’t accept the 7th Ecumenical Council (which the Anglican Church does) and not venerate icons.
Didn't some of the early churches include the books of 1 Clement and 3 Corinthians as new testament canon?
Yes, also with the Didache. Also, the Codex Sinaiticus had the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas
In addition to the complete Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, Codex Alexandrinus (early 5th c.) includes Tobit, Judith, Esdras A, Esdras B, 1-2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, Hypothesis of Psalms by Eusebius, Book of Odes, Wisdom, Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, Daniel with Additions, Psalms of Solomon, and 1st and 2nd Clement.
ah yes. when i need spiritual counseling - doing the opposite of the unhinged sounding minecraft youtuber, serves me well
Question: is it ok for a Christian to get a tattoo(I want to get a Bible verse tattooed on my left fore arm)
Leviticus 19:28
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
To your point about references, Jude references and actually quotes Enoch yet both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox reject Enoch. So you can’t go based off of references if you’re talking about the new referencing the old defining the cannon if books referenced are still rejected
How to play this map
Why does Esther get a pass in the Protestant canon?
It’s just picking and choosing, really.
why do you build with burch.........
The NT isn't entirely written by Apostles though. Mark, Luke & the author of Hebrews. Jesus also didn't quote from every book of the OT. Lastly, Modern Judaism finds it roots after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. It forced them to rethink how they were suppose to think and worship after said losses
6:44 The jews being entrusted the oracles of God doesn't mean they get to be the ultimate authority to determine the Canon, even less so decades after the Lord arose to the Heavens. It means that the Prophets were given to them and that the books were written by them. The Apostles quoting from the Septuagint instead of from the hebrew Bible shows which Canon they accepted. Of you read the context of Romans 3:2 it is not talking about what books are Scripture, but rather that the jews are blessed by God even if many of them are unfaithful.
Wow, who would've thought some dude playing Minecraft is wrong about theology once again, as most comments have extensively shown. Waiting for the video when you start taking Christianity seriously.
10:22 most of the quotations you were talking about were from the LXX ie the Septuagint
Isn't that evidence they used the longer canon
There is no LXX canon. The LXX is the Hebrew scriptures in Greek translation plus those written in Greek, but there is no estimation as to how to regard them from one to another, and the collections varied.
@@mj6493 "There is no LXX canon."
😑
"The LXX is the Hebrew scriptures in Greek translation plus those written in Greek,"
Utterly false the dead sea scrolls confirm that they had Hebrew origins
"but there is no estimation as to how to regard them from one to"
🙄Seriously
Simply put the Septuagint is a translation of the Jewish scriptures
The question is why would the apostles rely on a translation that not only includes extra non biblical books but also adds sections to already existing books
Why would they do this unless they know that its contents where scriptural
"and the collections varied."
The versions available to the apostles and the fathers in the first and second century all contained the deutrocanon