Found your channel from the billy debate and Im so greatful for tye knowledge you share. Im not formally educated but Christ saved my miserable life and healed me, I love Him more than anything so Ive gotten such a drive for knowledge of everything that is the word of God. I have read much of the original 1611 translation of the KJV and found the Apocrypha interesting so this is just awsome. Thank you for standing up for Christ in this age of darkness.
The disciples weren’t formally educated but were called “taught-ones”. John 16:13. Stay submitted to God. Continue in obedience and walk in His commandments. He will reveal what’s right for you. The story of why the 1611 stopped being included in our Bibles is interesting and it makes me wonder- if it was in the 1611 but it was “uninspired”… that doesn’t make logical sense to include it in the same bound copy as the Sacred Scripture.
Agreed. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to argue over by the Bible that neither person reads. However, two people who passionately read a divine gathering of books, that they each deeply cherish (if from two mildly differing perspectives), can have very fruitful discussions indeed, whether they ever come to agree or not.
@ You can still end up in hell, being a ''good person'' and calming that you love God and don't isn't what saves, but what saves is living in the spirit apart from sin in Christ and doing the work of the father.
@@TheRealTravisD it is not enough. Become a devout Catholic ..the Bible is one part ..it is a Catholic book ..trust us when we say there is more to been a Christian than reading the Bible. If we had the Bible for 1500 years we know what we are talking about.
My understanding is the Catholic Church does not rely on the non-Christian Jews to define the cannon. It relies on what Jesus and the Apostles used. The Jews were very hostile towards Jesus and were motivated to define a cannon that eliminated passages the Christians used. The prophesy of Jesus in the book of Wisdom is astonishing.
This was one of motivations for the Inquisition, as Church leaders were shocked how anti-christian parts of the Talmud is. The Talmud was created around the same time as the Qur'an, as the newer Rabinnic tradition came to be following the destruction of the temple around 70 AD. It seems that the deuterocanonical books were questioned in these rabbinic councils after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and St. Paul often quoted these books, so.....
@@RRYYAANNK7 some pharisees called for Jesus's death but some didn't. Thats not why they are called pharisees though. If you're trying to say that the jews who followed Jesus were called Christians, then you're wrong. Because that only started after the founding of the Church in Antioch... because finally most of the followers there *weren't* Jewish. Because again, Jesus and all 12 of the apostles and most of the early followers considered themselves Jewish.
I am a Catholic. I like Mr. Huff. I think he’s intellectually honest. I would love to see him debate @TrentHorn or other former Protestant Catholic apologists. It would be good debate I’m sure.
@ I get that. I just think he honestly believes that. Had a nice Protestant tell me she thought Catholics were band from reading the Bible. I thought she was honest too. You don’t know what you don’t know. A debate might help him see through the veil.
@@Jamesps34 that is true. I just think that he should try to do better research and seek more understanding while approaching topics that involve other faiths. It gives the impression that he only used sources that agreed with him 100%
@@austinmorris3422 The book of Revelations was moved to an undecided section of the Bible by Martin Luther. There’s two copies in museums. He alludes in his writings of this to the early church disputing this book. It’s in the Bible because of the Catholic Church. The book of Revelations says angels pass prayers from the people, to God. In the early church, a historian Eusebius writes of these disputed books. He also writes the first Christians made images of Jesus and the apostles. And the woman from the gospel who was healed with blood problems by Jesus, made a statue of Jesus, that had miraculous healings for hundreds of years. Similar to the handkerchief in the book of acts. So no, the angel telling John to get up from bowing doesn’t make sense to prove a point you are attempting to. The iconography council in the seventh century clarified this topic.
3:16 This is something that Gary Michuta often mentions. Which Jews? If you are talking about Rabbinic Jews then ya, but what about the Essenes and the Hellenistic Jews? They had these books along with the 24(39) books.
These are interesting but old and not too good arguments if you all are interested read Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem -Devin Rose • 3/1/2014
@mariorosas7779 I'll check out the article. But I wouldn't call it a not good argument since it's more of a historical observation. My fellow Protestants often generalize later Rabbinic Judaism and their canon as if they were all Jews at the time of Messiah. But that is not what we can see. Everyone had a different canon, but a general core of the same books. The Pharisees had the 24 which were all authoritative for teaching. The Sadducees had the 24, but only took doctrine from the Torah. The Essenes had the 24 and others and we can see some of the other texts being used for their doctrine and calendar, so we can assume they were authoritative. The Hellenists had the 24 and others, which were included in the Septuagint, and we can see that the early Christians used the other books as authoritative as well which might suggest that the Hellenists also took them as authoritative.
@omoruyiodosa5495 I don't think the 24 Elders = the 24 Books, especially since there are more inspired books, like the books of the New Testament. To be consistent with that interpretation, the 24 OT books would be Protocanonical and the NT books would be at most Deuterocanonical.
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, myself, I greatly appreciate your take Wes. While I disagree on some points, I felt that the approach to the discussion was very respectful and Christ-like. Thank you for striving to share truth in a way that honors our Lord.
See I went from Catholic to Protestant. I just felt the Holy Ghost more with a non denominational church. Hey as long as we both believe Jesus is Lord we r brothers
@gan_the_white What even constitutes heresy, for a Protestant? Since you rely on personal interpretation? If you are a once saved always saved proponent, can you say one who doesn’t hold to this is a heretic, and vice versa? What are the important essential beliefs that make one a heretic or not? Can you even answer this?
I found you on Julian Dorian podcast. I am, was, well...a non believer. I know so little about religion that I don't even know who saint nick defeated during the battle of Christmas. I am learning a ton from your work and thus now have to reevaluate everything I have ever thought but I'm excited about it. I feel a sense of trust from your background as an historian. Learning about God has been difficult to me as it feels like I am talking to a God salesman most of the time. I don't feel like you are trying to "sell" me on anything, thanks.
I love this explanation and I couldn’t agree more. I’ve struggled with my lack of belief my entire life and most videos or information I came across felt like they were doing the whole “trust me bro, I know about this stuff. Donate to my MiNiStRy.” Information that is presented in this way feels so much more genuine and easy to digest. I’ll be praying for you and I both. (Once I figure out how to do that.)
Holy moly Wes, I came across you because of the Billy scandal, but I stayed because you’re like a revelation to me. I learn so much! Thanks for sharing all this content.
@@QBlessed93 Thank you, it's always good to remind others that this is not a lesson. It's to give ppl new insight & pieces of information that can help you in your OWN independent studies!
Reminded that the Zechariah son of Bereciah and Writings, Torah, and prophet arguments don’t work: 1. There were like 3 Zechariah’s this could refer too. Jesus was likely just referring to the Jews martyring all the holy people God sent them (Maccabean Martyrs were killed by Greeks). 2. The writings and possibly prophets were not closed by this time. The canon was not closed. What constituted especially the writings during this time was unknown. Jesus was referring to the Psalms, prophets, and Torah. Possibly mentioning the Psalms bc of their many Mesianic qoutes or because of them being the largest of the writings. However, there are other arguments as well, like the one Suan Sonna points out.
Scottish Bible society wrote a letter to british bible society asking them to remove the appocrypa on the ground that protestants after reading this appocrypa of the Bible becoming catholics
@@stupidw33b52 Yeah, and Jews kiss the Torah. Do they worship the Torah? Obviously not. Its so funny to me just how insanely far removed from the context of the Near East Protestants are that they see something as basic as an act of showing affection and automatically call it idolatry.
Those who kiss pictures of their family members are surely guilty of worshipping them. Those who salute flags /honor flags, in honor of their countries, surely worship flags. Those who ask their pastors to pray for them (just like Catholics ask saints to pray for them) surely worship their pastors and replace Jesus, as the mediator, with their pastors. Those who honor portraits of great men and women and heroes of the past surely worship those images...
Thank you for posting Mr. Huff. As a Protestant Christian and a history major in college, I appreciate your work and what you've done for Christianity.
7:09 Because the ancient Jews didn't consider the Deuterocanonical writings as scripture, shouldn't be why we don't. They also didn't believe in all the writings of the New Testament. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church, and his Church chose these books as part of Scripture... Love your content. Keep up the good work, and Godspeed!
Protestant might come after Catholic, but Christian was before Catholic…Acts 11:26 Protestantism is basically just Catholic reformation (Catholic lite). Protestantism is full of traditions and interpretations that aren’t found in scripture and are remnants of Catholic indoctrination.
The post-temple rabbinical Pharisees did not believe the deutero-canonical books were scripture because they were too “Catholic.” The various sects of ancient Jews did not agree on what was God’s word and what was not.
There were actually 5 main traditions of the OT canon at the time of Christ and His Apostles: Samaritan, Sadducee, Essene, Septuagint, and Palestinian. Only the first two were closed, and the others had fuzzy boundaries. For example, the Palestinian tradition which included the same OT as Protestants was still fuzzy. Since we know that the Pharisees mainly held to this, and we see their successors write in the Talmud and Mishnah on possibly rejecting some Books: Esther, Ruth, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes. And some accepted Sirach. As for the Essenes, we largely don’t have their full canon, but they had a large library. They seem to have included all of the Protestant Books, except Esther, and also possibly Enoch, Jubilee, and the Temple Scroll. As for the Septuagint, it included the Protestant Books and the Deuterocanonicals. Sometimes it also included others such as 1-2 Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh. So, no, there wasn’t a singular canon of the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles.
As for Josephus, most historians say that he was lying about having a canon, to make the Jewish people more appealing to the Romans, and to discredit his Greek adversaries, since sources during his time and after him debunk him. The early Christians also held multiple Books of the Old Testament in dispute such as Enoch, the Deuterocanonicals, or Esther. So, my question to a Protestant would be: How do you even know the Old Testament canon in the first place? Or the Canon in general? I don’t think you can. Since the canon isn’t in Scripture, and it wasn’t just passed down in history completed. I simply don’t think you guys can know, and that destroys protestantism’s doctrine of sola scriptura. Now, as for us, God led the Catholic Church to Infallibly Decide our Canon. However, you dont get to use our canon, since you would be cherry picking the. in what God led the Church in the Truth too. For example, did God lead the Church to the Truth on Apostolic Succession during this time as well, like the Church universally believed? If no, then you are cherry picking and not being intellectually honest.
The Jewish canon wasn’t created until the 3-4 century AD. So, it is not something that matters in the discussion much. The authority had moved on to the Church. Obviously, Christians are still not subject to Rabbinical dictates. Also, the Paul saying the Jews have been given the Oracles of God verse does not say anything about the Jews determining the canon of Books, especially specifically for the Old Testament. That is your own faulty and twisted interpretation of it. They didn’t even accept the New Testament, so it doesn’t even make sense.
So, their canon was centuries after Christ. Our canon with the deuterocanonicals was promulgated in the 400s (AD), and then this was the canon used universally by the Church from then on (technically the Eastern Church was constantly eneveloped in different h3resies so they didn’t, and later schismed), but this was the canon used by Christian’s for centuries. Then Luther was losing a debate with a guy, so he said that the deuterocanonicals are possibly not Scripture, so they can’t be used in the debate (he also wanted to get rid of books like James and Revelation, but his followers stopped him), and then he placed them at the back of his Bible under the title “apocrypha”. Then later, a company thought that printing the Bible costed too much, so they omitted the apocrypha, and now today Protestants assume that the “apocrypha” aren’t Scripture because of this. Trent Defined it Infallibly, but before then the Sensus Fidei has defined it infallibly in the Church, and it was the normal Bible. So, we did not add any Books, since it simply is what was used for centuries universally by the Church. Protestants did remove Books because they removed things that were held to universally for centuries as Scripture beforehand
@@kyrptonite1825 So many mistakes... : There were many versions of the Septuagint, each with a different list of books in addition to the 66 books of the Hebrew Bible, and none of the versions that have come down to us that date from the Apostolic Era have the exact same books as the Roman Catholic Canon. . Additionally, although we know for a fact that the Apostles used the Septuagint (Greek was the most understood language in their times), they do not directly cite any Deuterocanonical book as the Word of God, only books that belong to the Hebrew Canon. Whatsmore, the old testament canon was only defined for Catholics in Trent. Before it there were just regional councils that were not binding for the entire church.
Wow Wesley, just about a week ago I watched your video receiving your 100k sub plaque, now you are at 215K!!! Congrats and very well deserved!! 🙌 The fact that your knowledge in your videos have brought people from all over to salvation through Christ is inspiring! Humble as well, which is how God wants us to be 😊
Well.. what Catholics call Veneration, everyone else calls worship. That is where the confusion lies between Catholics and Protestants on that issue I think.
@@joshuaclark7953 except the entire Christian world for 1500 called it veneration until the Protestants tried to gaslight everyone into thinking we worship the saints
@@joshuaclark7953anyone that calls Catholic’s veneration of Saints worship is ignorant. It’s what all Christians did for 1500 years before Protestant revolutionists started changing the Faith. Christendom is now fractured & divided because of them
1. The Jews did not agree on the canon. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Essenes all had different canons. 2. Jews after the time of Christ, that reject Christ, don’t have the authority to recognise the canon. Instead, that is left to the bishops who are in succession to the Apostles. Augustine makes this point. 3. Pope Damasus I makes the first official decree of what the canon is in the regional Council of Rome in 382AD. It includes the Deuterocanonical Books. 4. This same canon is reaffirmed at Hippo, Carthage, then later at the ecumenical Council of Florence. 5. It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture. Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand. So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture. Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament. Joe Heschmeyer has a great video on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/9udZKziHemo/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
"It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture." Well at least you can admit that the canonization of the deuterocanon was reactionary to the reformation, most catholics think it's a coincidence that the only books from the septuagint that were canonized were the ones that conveniently had arguments against the reformation. Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand." Belief =/= doctrine Many people believed Limbo was real, doesn't mean it's official doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell. "So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture." Why is 3rd and 4th Maccabees not in the catholic bible? You do not need the protestants help to remove books from scripture, catholics seem just fine messing with the canon all on their own ;) "Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament." I don't understand, according to you Luther had the power to and did declare the deuterocanon uncanon and remove them from scripture (as far as his followers were concerned at least), but you're also saying he tried and failed to remove NT books as well? Well which one is it?
@@InitialPC I’m not sure what your point is. Of course the Council of Trent was reactionary. All councils are. The Church calls a council to squash a heresy. In Acts 15, the Church calls the first council to combat the Judaiser heresy. Council of Trent condemned the heresy of Protestantism as well as cleaning up abuses. The Catholic Church didn’t remove 3 and 4 Maccabees. She has never recognised them as Scripture. I said Luther had authority to declare the canon? Not sure what you’re talking about. Luther took it upon himself to decide what books make up Scripture. I obviously don’t think he had authority to do so.
I totally agree. Our friend in the vídeo does not refer to the Councils of the 4th century, in which the Church defined the cânon. He diminishes the authority of the Council of Florence(1442) which confirmed the cânon. And he gives weak reasons to dismiss this important Council, saying that important Catholic figures did not accept the canon. He misses the point. Once an article of faith is defined by a Council, it muar be accepted by all Catholics. Whether they like it or not. The Council of Florenc is abother element 8:35 that demolishes the affirmation that the Catholic was defined in Trent. By the way, the first book printed, Gutenberg’s Bible (around 1450) conta-nos the deuterocanonical. With the Church’s express approval.
@@LuizFelipeMendoncaFilho you have not read the list of books given in each of those councils, otherwise you would have known they all have different books, one excludes baruch, each include and exclude different psalms, most of them affirm the septuagint esdras as canon, etc actually read them, and then get back to me about "oh they knew from the beginning what was canon and it was the same the entire time" no it wasnt
He actually mentioned it basically the church decided cannon but the Ethiopian didn't hear about it because they were so far away until way later and they already put everything in. Lots of the books are not real they added forgery.
It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace. To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.
We know what the Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus -- who both list the exact same number of books (along with quotations stating the non-inspired nature of books like Maccabees (etc.). I'd also recommend watching my video (and looking further into the subject within Septuagintal scholarship) on what the Septuagint is and isn't. With all due respect, the fact that you're referencing it as a single thing indicates that you're unaware of what the LXX is exactly. The LXX is not a single thing as much as it is an umbrella category for a body of Jewish translational literature. We might refer to the "New Testament's use of the Septuagint", but even that is somewhat of a misnomer. The LXX is only one stream of a series of streams of Jewish literature that ended up being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Many deuterocanonical books found themselves into this body of literature in the post-Christian period, but many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and *not* in Hebrew (these books having no Hebrew original is another reason cited by early Jewish writers as to why they did not carry authoritative status as scripture).
@@WesHuff You said: “We know what *THE* Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus” Q(1): Did all Jews in the first century unanimously agree on which books were canonical? Q(2): If not then which Jews were correct on which books were canonical? You said: “many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and not in Hebrew” Q(3): Which of the Deuterocanonical writings are originally Greek compositions? Q(4): Why were the New Testament writings recognized as canonical even though they are originally Greek compositions?
@@WesHuffJosephus’ canon does not inform us at all what books were accepted., Your conflating one individual (a Pharisee) as if they spoke for all of Judaism (Which includes Essenes and Sadducees). Josephus does not provide a “canon list”, he provides an enumeration on the books. He lists twenty two books, but does not describe what those books are. Did he include Jeremiah? Does he merge Baruch with Jeremiah? Did he remove Esther? Did he include Wisdom? Your reading into the text, not lifting out of it.
@@WesHuffHebrew and Aramaic fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Qumran from before the 1st century AD would also debunk the idea that they all did not have Hebrew originals.
Hello Wes, really appreciate your work and loved your debate with billy. I agree with many people that Billy has been confusing people for years. However, just wanted to clarify something in this video. I am a Catholic and I can say the church doesn't teach that we should worship saints. They teach a saint's life is to be seen as an example for us to draw inspiration from and they can pray for us. The same way I can ask you to pray for me. But worship is only for God himself who died for us and calls us to be his children. Once again thank you for your work 🙏🙏.
No matter what the official doctrine is, a lot of what is actually practiced among Catholics appears a lot like worship, ESPECIALLY when it involves Mary. Just my two cents.
I agree with the previous poster. Appearances are important, and what the Catholics are doing appears to be worship, regardless of what they say it is.
@@octogintillion hello fellow brother in Christ. I respect your point of view even if I disagree with it. That there might be some outliers in our faith that might take things a bit too far this is quite possible but this isn't the large majority of us. This is like saying it appears to me that only faith is needed and I can do whatever I want( living a life full of sin) and I will be saved.I think most protestant denominations don't believe this. I invite you to learn more about the Catholic church so that you could have a better understanding. I myself try to learn about other faiths so that I can understand where others are coming from and perhaps this can help me love them more. Hope you have a blessed day and our Lord continues to bless you and your loved ones.
@@meowpurrrrr What appears to you as worship? Do you do those things to worship God? If not, do you not worship God? If you are honest, you will understand that praying (asking) is not only used for worship, statues (example: the giant statue of Abraham Lincoln in the US) is not used for worship, songs about a person (Ave Maria, or any popular love song) is not worship, kneeling (begging someone or getting on one knee to purpose) is not worship, bowing (as they do in Japan to greet each other) is not worship etc. etc. I’ve never met a Catholic who believed that Mary is a Goddess. Is it possible that you have been lied to and taught to dislike a faith that you do not understand?
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Catholic Mother of Perpetual Help prayer to Mary: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
Just ran across this video - really appreciate the information and moreso because of the manner in which you relay the information. Very helpful! Thanks!
“The ancient Jews did not consider them God’s word,”. Well The ancient Jews did not consider Jesus as God. That’s not necessarily a good argument. I don’t believe the books are canon, but be aware of the weakness of this argument.
That's the worst argument for removing those 7 OT books. For one at the time of Christ there was no established Canon, and yes you're right why would I care what some Jews 100 years after Christ who denied His Divinity thought?
@@jd3jefferson556 Christianity started with Jews. That is why you should care. Christ was a Jew. The main reason why you should care. It is not understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity why so many Christians do not even understand concepts and lesson in the Bible in the first place. Christians don't even understand or see prophecy right in the Bible. Wes is a very knowledgeable man.
@@jd3jefferson556they weren't removed.l - according to this biblical historian, they were never originally considered part of scripture in the 1st place. Are you saying hes wrong? And on what basis? And saying "why would I care what some Jews who denied Christ's divinity thought" is the worst argument, given that the entire OT is essentially "what some Jews thought" as it is literally the Jewish scripture originally written down in Hebrew. 😅
@hansdykstra3869 there was no established scripture at the time of Christ. The "Jewish Scripture" was established over 100 years after Christ at a Jewish council in response to Christianity. The Apostles were using the Septuigent a Greek Translation of the Old Testament, which included the Deuterocanon. Also, we should be using the Scriptures given to us by the Church Christ established, we all agree on the New Testament (except Martin Luther) which is 27 nooks narrowed from 200 documents in the 4th century. All Apostolic Churches use the detericanon, but because of a tradition of man, Protestants use a 66 book Bible. The 66 number alone should be a red flag
The early Church accepted the deuterocanonical books. You now have to decide whether you give more weight to the early Church or the modern church after the reformation. I trust the Apostles and their successors over martin luther & calvin.
The Greek Septuagint where these Books were found in, was what the Apostles used when quoting the Old Testament, and they also made several allusions to these Books in the New Testamwnt. The early Church also disputed these Books as Scripture, with many quoting them as such, and heavily relied upon mainly the Septuagint. In the 300s it was unanimous from then on that they are Scripture. The Jews didn’t have a canon until the 3-4 century AD. Until then, they disagreed. They had no closed canon at the time of Christ. And they likely didn’t include the Deuterocanonicals, because Christians were quoting them and the Septuagint to support Christianity, and the Jews wanted to distance themselves from that
So I guess the fact that Jesus quoted the Septuagint means nothing? Right. Clearly, God himself favored the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books, and many of his teachings parallel those taught in these books. Moreover, the Septuagint was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews of that time. If it was good enough for Jesus, the Son of God, then I side with Jesus on this one.
@SnappyMcDragon If there is a logical fallacy, please identify its type. Simply disagreeing with someone does not constitute a logical fallacy. Furthermore, your disagreement may indicate that I could have provided more thorough explanations. I will concede and elaborate on my position. The significance of Jesus’ quotations from the Septuagint, the Greek-speaking Jewish version of Scripture, cannot be overlooked. This translation not only encompassed the Deuterocanonical books but also served as the primary scripture for the nascent Church and the Jewish diaspora. Numerous teachings and allusions attributed to Jesus draw inspiration from these texts, further emphasizing their profound influence on His ministry. It is crucial to recognize that the Septuagint held widespread acceptance within the Jewish community of Jesus’ era, particularly outside Palestine. It became the foundational text for the Old Testament in early Christianity. The Apostles and early Christians relied extensively on the Septuagint during their missionary endeavors, as evidenced by its frequent utilization in the New Testament. While certain Jewish sects later disavowed the Deuterocanonical books, this decision transpired after the time of Christ, influenced by factors such as opposition to Christianity. If the Septuagint was sufficient for Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church, it is reasonable to assert that these books possess spiritual and theological value. I choose to align myself with this historical and scriptural tradition.
@@honestabe4161 That’s a compositional fallacy: the attributes of an individual being misrepresented as the attributes of the overarching group. Just because certain sections of the Septuagint were quoted by Christ, doesn’t mean every book that is within is classified by Him to be authentic. A perhaps not apt but similar comparison would be the book of Jude: the author quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, both of which weren’t even Septuagint in origin and yet nevertheless made it into the canon. The Holy Spirit clearly thought it was fit to include references to texts that He didn’t inspire the Jews to include into the Old Testament, doesn’t mean that those texts were then divinely inspired, this only goes to show that these specific verses from the apocryphal texts were authenticated by the Holy Spirit, but not the entirety of the books.
@@samhwwg Your argument misinterprets the role of the Septuagint. It wasn’t just a text Jesus occasionally quoted-it was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews and the early Church. Comparing it to Jude referencing apocryphal works is misleading, as those were isolated quotes, while the Septuagint shaped early Christian theology. Furthermore, the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as scripture by the Jewish diaspora and early Christians before later Jewish councils rejected them, partly in response to Christianity. If the Septuagint was authoritative for Jesus and the Apostles, dismissing it today demands stronger justification. So, summary, the argument for the Septuagint is not simply about quoting parts of it but about its centrality to the faith practices of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. If the Septuagint was authoritative enough for the early Church, then dismissing large portions of it today requires more justification than your post provides.
@ The Catholic Church’s rejection of some books in the Septuagint (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees) does not undermine the argument for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books, as these were accepted through a rigorous canonization process. Conflating the entire Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books misrepresents the issue, and pointing to non-canonical books is a red herring that distracts from the central argument: Jesus and the early Church relied on the Septuagint, affirming its foundational role in Christian scripture.
@SnappyMcDragon Your critique misrepresents the argument by assuming it claims Jesus’ quotation equals endorsement of every Septuagint book-a strawman fallacy. The argument emphasizes the Septuagint’s centrality in Jesus’ time and its widespread acceptance in the early Church. The post’s false equivalence between the Catholic Church’s discernment process and Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanon, along with cherry-picking and overgeneralization, weakens its critique. The Septuagint’s authority is grounded in its historical and theological use, not in an all-or-nothing approach.
The speaker left out key facts of the early church. For example he left out the fact that there were three Councils in the early church that dealt with which books made up the bible. The three councils were Rome (382), Hippo (393) and finally Carthage (397). At the Council of Carthage the Bible was finally approved with 73 books not 66! There were several attempts to change the number of books in the Bible once it was as approved including the attempt by Martin Luther. All attempts failed including Luther’s. The Catholic Bible of today contains the same 73 books as the Council of Carthage did. Luther’s version of the bible contained 62 books. His personal interpretation of the bible necessitated the removal of the following books in the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In Revelation 22:18-22 deals with adding or deleting books from the bible. I guess Luther thought that if he deleted Revelation then he could add or delete as he saw fit. The last important area is that was left out dealt with the Geneva and King James bibles. The Geneva Bible was first published the in 1565 with 80 books. The King James Bible was published in 1611 with the same 80 books. In 1881, theGeneva Bible deleted 14 books and the King James deleted the same14 books (Apocraphya) in 1885.i refer you again to Revelation, chapter 22. I hope that if the speaker updates his presentation, he includes the full story of why the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
Thanks I also recommend 'The Jewish Catholic '- UA-cam channel by Daniel The parallelism between Catholic beliefs (Papacy, Marian dogmas, etc) and Jewish traditions are so mind-blowing ❤
You have a listening problem. Nothing Wes said denied the fact that there was disagreement among Christians over the canon. Different Christians and groups often had different canons, and some had the "Catholic" Bible while others had the "Protestant" form. This is not rocket science.
@@catholicguy1073 That maybe true, they all were Catholic, but they seemingly had different canons. So tell us, how can someone be Catholic, if he's not using the Canon of the RCC today? Melito of Sardes (2nd century) lists the books from the Hebrew Bible as canon, missing not only the deuterocanonical books. Isn't he, a Saint, part of the Catholic Church? As you can see, Luther didn't do it first!
1885 was because it was cheaper to print and made for a smaller bible easier to carry. Also America and uk were mainly Protestant and spoke English So that was huge market and it was cheaper to print
Wes, I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate all of your work, it has been extremely helpful to understand with more depth the faith and history of Christianity as a whole. I am Catholic, and I saw you saying you did not wanted to use any straw man, so .... I think you made an honest mistake when you said that Catholics worship the saints. If not, please present you prove and where does the Catholic Church teaches this. Thanks again for all of your work. God bless you.
the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
So one of the key issues historically is that all we have from what was supposedly reported at the Council of Rome, particularly the statement form Damasus listing the canonical books, most likely didn't come from Damasus. The most up-to-date scholarship on the subject can only narrow Damasus's statements to a compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. Historically we have no true record that isn't under heavy debate as to its authenticy from the Council of Rome. However, giving all of what you've said the benefit of the doubt, the Council of Rome was not a dogmatically binding ecumenical council, but rather, a local council. Even official Catholic president today recognizes that only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense. The Council of Rome does not fall under the criteria as a binding council for all. Therefore, even if Damasus's statements have authentic provenance (which I do not believe they do) the modern Roman Catholic cannot base these statements as magisterium ordinarium due to the Council of Rome being a local gathering.
@@WesHuff All recognized Orthodox Local councils are BINDING according to First Canon of the 7th Ecumenical council.... 7th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , CANON 1 "we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled REGIONALLY for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. " -----(CANON 1 , 7TH Ecumenical Council) So, by this rule, we can now say that the Canon of Scripture with Deuterocanonical books promulgated in the Local Councils are Binding to the Whole Church.... Council of Rome(382A.D.) councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
@@pinoysarisari7374 Not if the records of the CoR are inauthentic to the council but contrived much later - which much like other documents such as the Donation of Constantine - are used by the church to validate dogma but are in fact spurious. Which is almost certainly the case in this instance. Likewise, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”
@@WesHuff the Pope never attacked the 7th ecumenical council...It is part of Catholic Dogma.... It is a recognized council of the Catholic church.... Second...the burden of proof is on you to prove that CANON 1 of the 7th Ecumenical council is Fake....
@@pinoysarisari7374 Im not sure we’re talking about the same thing. The statement of Demasus that supposedly came from the council of Rome can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Any connection to its provenance being earlier than that is speculation. As Bruce states in his commentary on the document: “What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century” [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).
Correct me if I’m wrong but up until the reformation, those books was included in the Bible that was used universally? If so, doesn’t that just basically mean that they move them?
Yes. Before the reformation, the bible today and the apocrypha were used as one collective book. Throughout those times, the bible is believed and is announced as collections of books that contain words of God. The fact that they removed some books totally confused millions if the bible really is the word of God. Although the guy in the video admits that they don't really believe so.
The Protestants used the 73 book Bible until 1825. Get a pre-1825 copy of the KJV. It has 73 books. So if you are a hard-core "it's 66 books!" kinda guy, you are adhering to a tradition set by the English Bible Society in the 19th century. For many Protestants that whole "following traditions" thing is going to be hard to rectify.
@@manny75586that's not at all true, the books were in the Bibles but the doctrine was not the same, those books weren't seen as directly inspired scripture by Protestants.
@@rudycataldo3653wrong. Even Luther in his translation had a note after the “apocrypha” that said “thus concludes the Old Testament,” clearly indicating that they were apart of the OT. Protestant bibles included the deuterocanon up until the 19th century.
@@rudycataldo3653 how entitled are you protestant? the canon of the bible was closed on 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
As an Orthodox Christian, our canon was continually affirmed by the Church through Councils being kinda of finalized at the Council of Trullo in 691 A.D. The Old Testament was the Septuagint (which included the deuterocanon) and the New Testament the 27 books. The NT quotes the deuterocanon, many times, and the early Church Fathers quote it, held it as inspired Scripture, until 4 centuries later when Jerome introduced innovations and his own subjective thinking, even attempting to deceive others to buy into his way of thinking concerning the deuterocanon. However, you are mistaken and correct about the Jews holding to the Protestant Old Testament depending. You are correct if you are talking about the 2nd Century Jews post temple destruction who formed a Old Testament canon in response to Christians. But prior, the Jews were not a monolithic group, but each group of Jews held to different Scriptures, therefore there was no one canon of the Jews. This is where you are mistaken. But it all depends of what Jews and at what time in history you are talking about if you are right or wrong. Luther looked to 2nd century Jews. While the early one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the Orthodox Church today) was the one Church which held to the Septuagint and NT. In the end, the Protestants did remove books, not Luther, but later Protestants influenced by Luther, his German Bible, setting aside the deuterocanon as an add on to his Bible, making it easier for (what became renamed from Deuterocanon to Apocrypha, to be later removed as non-scriptural books and uninspired. The Protestants are wrong for suggesting the Catholics added books. Luther looked to unbelieving Christ rejecting Jews from the 2nd Century to form their Old Testament and rejected the Church that preserved the canon, which Rome was once part of, but whom was excommunicated is 1054 A.D. for heresy. The Lutherans shortly after Luther’s death were in contact with the Orthodox Church and Eastern patriarch acknowledging that they were the true one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not Rome. Interesting history to consider. For further info see ua-cam.com/users/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.
For those people who believe that the seven books are not canon then this is a Passage from the Book of Baruch(present only in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible)which provides a MESSIANIC prophecy which was Fulfilled in John1:14 Baruch 3:35-37:"This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the ways of Knowledge , and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel His Beloved. Afterwards HE was SEEN upon Earth and Conversed with MEN" 🙃🙃🫠😂
We're all sinners and all need grace. Every Saint is a sinner saved by grace and therefore God and God alone gets all glory. The Bible literally says we have one intercessor and that is the God Man Christ Jesus. No human anywhere ever deserves veneration, to be prayed to, or anything. God says you will bow only to Him.
@@ramzilla873 Although my comment was directed to Wes, I will reply to your comment, though not to every point as my time doesn't permit. On this we agree: "We are all sinners and need grace and God alone gets all the glory". The Saints that Catholics venerate were exactly such people. By God's grace, they were able to rise above the sin in their lives and practice virtue to a heroic degree. When Catholics venerate (honor) these Saints they recognize how the grace of God worked in their lives, and thus God is glorified through His creature. When any part of the Body of Christ, you and I, cooperate with God's grace, God Himself is glorified. Veneration simply means honor, and Christians should honor those who gave example of holy lives and strive to imitate their example.
@SeanBeatsMapson Haha. You really don't knw Basic Acient Church History. Thank the Catholic church for your Bible and for them defending Christianity against Muslims. They fought for Christ and the Church. Remember Protestants didn't exist until the late 15th 16 century. If you go to any old countries in the world there Catholic along with a couple other APOSTOLIC churches. But no baby PROTESTANTS. God bless. Oh yeah and the Jews don't even believe in Jesus. So why trust their Canon of the Jews. They alone where divided and couldn't agree in it. God bless. And God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🕊
Thanks Wes, Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.
No he can’t. The Catholics codified the canon several times going back to 382 if I got the year right. Every Bible ever printed had 73 books from the Catholic Church. There were competing canons at the time of Christs life you have the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon. The books weren’t in dispute and he’s misleading you on this History of Catholic Bible. 597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! Facts: 1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21. 2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God. 3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world. As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah. Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
They don't. Wes was dishonest with that comment. Just as he was dishonest with not answering the question if protestants removed those books from the Bible. He says that they aren't removed during the Reformation, but doesn't clarify that they were removed by protestants 300 years later during the 19th century.
This video never mentioned the Council of Rome or Counsel of Hippo (late 300s early 400s). Nor is Jerome statement that “if the Church accepts these books, so do I”. Augustine says the same thing. The Jews never completely disavowed the 7 books until the Rabbinical traditions in the 2nd century. Read Wisdom and you will realize why the Jews hated that book. It led many Jews to Christianity. Here is the elephant in the room. All Christians Bibles from the 4 century on had the 8:15 books. Also, almost all references to the Old Testament scriptures in the the New Testament come from the Septuagint Greek OT which included the 7 extra books. If it was good enough for Mathew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, etc. it should be good enough for all Christians. I will give those videos credit for mentioning that the dueterocanocals were used to explain Catholic doctrine. The video should have included the debate between Luther and Johan Juss. When Juss cornered Luther on the “Bible Alone” he did 16th century version of a “Mic drop” and slapped down a Bible and had Luther turn to Mac 12:46. Luther decided this was a good time to claim the Duetrocanicol scriptures were not scripture. First time that happened since the confusion before Pope Damusus in the 4th century.
The prologue and epilogue to Esther (not additional books but excluded from the Protestant bibles as they were not written by Mordecai) are useful as their style in the apocalyptic writing popular at the time, as applied to the Book of Ester provide valuable insight into interpretation of Revelation, much of which was written in similar language.
Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?
The official canonization of the Bible occurred at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Those that took part of the council were 400+ bishops (all Catholics) from all over the then-known Christian world. Council of Rome was planned, executed, supervised & overseen by the then Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I. The books used by the Orientals & Coptics are not inspired, because they were not approved by the council. In other words, because they had no authority to add those books, just as Luther had no authority to remove the 7+ books (his Apocrapha), that had always been part of the Biblical Canon. Luther removed them because he did not believe in Purgatory. In all of church history, no church member, nor clergy ever denied the Deuterocanonical, before the Reformation. Shouldn't that be a "red flag?" *2 Maccabees 12: 38-46* 38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place. 39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. 41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 This is demonstrably false history revisionism. Go read Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" written in AD 391. He clearly defines the OT canon, and explicitly excludes the Apocrypha (his word). The word Deuterocanon didn't even exist until 1566. Literally everyone in history referred to those books as "Apocrypha" prior to that. The word means "hidden", but it wasn't used in the same sense that we think of it as "secret". It was moreso used in the sense of books that were "separate" from Scripture. As far as the NT goes, none of those books are in dispute. So it's not relevant when or how they were formally canonized. We all agree on all of them, so they're not part of the debate on the canon.
@@KFish-bw1om I'll start with your last paragraph, then correct the rest. The founder of your faith, Martin Luther removed, not only the Dueterocanonicals, but he also tried to remove James, Hebrew, Job & even Revelation. Each had stiff disagreements with his own faith ideology. Maccabees - Purgatory. James - Faith W/out works. Revelation - spoke of visions which he thought were opposite of the teachings of the apostles. Jude - He believed was a copy of 2 Peter and appears to have been written long after the time of the disciples. NTM, in his 1st translation he literally added the word "alone" after the word faith, because Y personally think he felt he was wrong about "Sola Fide." It's a Holiday, so I'll finish up when I get home this Eve. Enjoy the day, God Bless your family.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now. For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?- - Psalm 18:31 Here, I'll do it with one question: Was the Council of Constance infallible? If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Islam and Mormonism are defeated. By it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false. Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now. For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?- - Psalm 18:31 Here, I'll do it with one question: Was the Council of Constance infallible? If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Is Salami and Joe Smith (words modded for the Tube) are defeated, by it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false. Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism. ❤
Can you provide evidence for your claim, because the Apocrypha was never included in any Hebrew Old Testament and no New Testament writer ever referred to or quoted from the Apocrypha.
The Protestant Bible does contain the Apocryphal books, but they are under reference material. Martin Luther never 'removed' books from the traditional Bible...that is a old wives tale perpetuated by Catholic and Orthodox alike.
@@redit5332 No, he decided to remove it from it's context, with zero authority to do so. The British bible society removed it to save money in the mid 1800's. Also, with zero authority to do so. Heretics helping heretics.
@@redit5332 And who gave luther the authority to re-categorize SCRIPTURE as "reference material"? Luther was of the devil, and he did the devils bidding. He wrought chaos and division.
To think that one man, Martin Luther, decided unilaterally to exclude those seven books is one thing but for all those who used this as an excuse to believe that he alone made the right decision and accept the Bible with those omissions is amazing. Luther never intended to create the facture within the Church that occurred he merely wanted the Church to acknowledge the issues and at least address them.
You know that Luther had 75 books in his translation, right? It is only after the 19th century that Protestant Bibles (thanks to BFBS and others) started to exclude the Apocrypha. It is just that we do not consider these books canonical as the rest of Scripture as the Ancient Jews have done so as well. Useful, but not scriptural.
@@koltersandsthe problem is that the Jews who didn’t consider them scripture didn’t come about until 250ad. And still after that they argued over them, up into the 600’s.
@NevetsWC1134 The Council of Jamnia was in 90 A.D. which excluded the Apocrypha in the Jewish Canon, our Old Testament. Sure, there are the Essenes in Qumran who included other texts, but they were not considered super orthodox to ancient Jewish thought. We find this Josephus as well (Against Apion, Book 1, Section 8) about the Canon being the Tanakh before the first century. Edit: about the Canon being the Tanakh before the first century.
I appreciate the video. I’m actually converting to Catholicism. I think you made a good point on the contention of the books; however, from my understanding, the Jews at the time were split on Jesus being the Messiah. So I don’t think they have the final say on Biblical Canon. I’ve also heard many claim the Catholic Church is responsible for compiling the Bible.
I say they’re important in the video. However, they’re not inspired Scripture. Don’t forget that Paul quotes the Stoic Mernander and Euripides in 1. Cor. 15:33, Epimenides in Titus 1:12, as well as Seneca in Acts 17. I don’t think anyone thinks that his usefulness of relevant literature means that those pagan philosophers should be included in the canon.
@@WesHuff excellent brief summary & defense of the Hebrew Bible/Protestant OT canon! I just had a brief discussion on the Gospel Simplicity channel defending the historicity of the Protestant OT canon if you want to check it out. I also wrote a book on it: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," as well as debated Roman Catholics, such as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, Gary Michuta, Dr. Robert Sungenis, & Tim Gordon. Blessings! Steve Christie.
Protestant evangelical here -- i would love to know more about when and why they were actually removed. If I recall they were in all the protest bibles including king james up to the 19th century? I definitely profited from reading them. The fact that they were included in bibles for roughly 1800 years does give me pause.
No catholic would ever say they worship any saint or Mary. However what people say and how they act are two different things. There are many catholic practices that warrent great suspicion, that, although the catholics may not call it worship, does look an awful lot like it in many ways
@Dave-lh6ws why would they lie about it? Surely if they felt Our Lady was worthy of worship, they would say as much? Could it possibly be that Protestants have the wrong impression? Yeah, I'd wager that's the issue.
We honor, or venerate the Saints, we do not worship them. We only worship God. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2096 Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love. "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," says Jesus, citing Deuteronomy. 13 (We use old timey language, and Adoration meant what worship means now) Baltimore Catechism 3 Lesson 17 Question 214 “The veneration paid to the saints in heaven differs essentially from the adoration of God. The saints are creatures and are not to be given the supreme worship due to the Creator alone. The supreme honor given to God only is adoration in the full and strict sense of the word. The veneration given to the Blessed Mother and to the saints is an act of respect and honor of an entirely different nature. The veneration given to the Blessed Mother of God surpasses that given to the saints and angels.” The precise terms in latin are actually interesting. We give dulia, or honor to the Saints. We give protodulia to Saint Joseph, which is higher than regular dulia. It basically means “first honored”. And then we give Hyperdulia to Mary, which is greater than even that. And then finally, we give Latria, or worship, to God alone.
Brilliant. This is actually some thing that has been hitting at my heart lately. I’m very happy that there is somebody who has actually done the research bringing it all together. I think if you keep it up you could be very big. God definitely walks with me and I can tell you that what you’re showing me shows that God walks with you as well.
For someone with so much historical knowledge and who so beautifully understands and describes the gospel and overall depth and meaning of Christianity, I am thoroughly surprised that you have said nothing about the Eucharist. The DIATHEKE. Christ and Paul both only referred to DIATHEKE in regards to the Eucharistic bread and wine along with the first through fourth century church fathers and the apostles Didache. The eyes of the two disciples on the road to emmaus were not opened until the breaking of the bread… this is literally the new covenant in the sacramental taking of the Eucharist and scripture is in its natural habitat while being read in the Eucharistic liturgy, Roman Catholics, Eastern Ortho, and Martin Luther all agree on the real presence and the importance of the Eucharist. What say you, Wes?
I am a cradle RC and I am learning a lot from you. I found you from that debate you had with BC. I am so glad that it showed on my feed because I have been wondering about those forgeries and was getting confused. I love that you are stating facts and aware of your biases. I have subscribed on your podcast. Thank you for the work that you do. It is most important. Also, I love that you are debating in a Christ like manner. I can sense that your intention is not to serve yourself but for God’s glory.
Why is the Prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-20 fulfilled by Christ. (Referenced in Matthew 27 40-44)- and why is this book not included in the Protestant bible, Even though the early church/church fathers affirm this and the 7 Catholic books as fully scriptural. Why does the Pharisee text “The Kaige Recension” affirm Baruch and Duetero-Daniel as fully scriptural in the first century BEFORE Christ? Why do Protestants affirm the shorter Old Testament cannon when a Normative-Hebrew text was only established after/around Rabbi Akiba denounces that the “Evangelium” (Gospel) along with the additional OT books (7 Catholic books) as not inspired by God around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt 132ad? (A century after Christ) Proof texts: Tosefta Yadayim 2:13 Why do Protestants keep affirming the OT was closed before Christ when there is authoritative rabbinic evidence that the Cannon was not closed even AFTER the time of Christ? Proof Text: Mishnah Yadayim 3:5 Why does Scholarly consensus reject a closed cannon before 70AD?
@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic Sematics. Did you know Mary had children after Jesus was born? Mary was a sinner, though saved by God's grace through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, God the Son. She died a sinner saved by Grace. Also, dead people can't hear you. So, invoking Mary's name...or any other Saint...are just vain whisperings. That's why we pray and speak to a living God. Every statement I've made has Biblical support. So, try again. 😊
@Nadiahope7 Definitely. They might try to deny it, but the worship of Mary is in their doctrine...written down ..and in the prayers they say. Mary usurps Jesus in many ways.
I appreciate the more open and honest delivery of your video vs. the one I just watched before. The previous one was very overly biased towards their point of view, but I like that you gave your opinion but weren't nearly as biased. Thanks for teaching me! Really cleared up the confusion.
Excuce me but you believe in the Masoretic text which isn't the old Hebrew text because it was written the 5-6 century after Christ and was completed until 900 AD.The Septuagint was the complete translation of the Hebrew bible in Greek from 72 jew Scholars 300 Bc.If you dont except the Septuagint bible then you accept the quotations of Paul that to the Septuagint.Hebrews is one of those chapters!And many more...
Hey brother well presented video. I think it all boils down to who did Jesus give the authority too to decide what books are canon. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to the Apostles not to the Jewish rabbis who would meet at Jamnia to discuss what books are canon in response to the rise of Christianity. The council of Rome in 381, by apostolic authority has more weight than jamnia on who decides what books should be in the Bible. The council of Trent dogmatically defining the list of books we have in our Catholic bibles is because a group of Christians broke away and usurped authority and was determined to change the Bible to fit its own theology of justification. But all scripture is given for doctrine reproof and teaching in righteousness that also includes what Protestants consider apocrypha. The Septuagint, codex sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, the vulgate all contain some or all of these apocryphal books so Christians were using these books for all of the above to walk with Jesus Christ and build his church. Why should we listen to Luther’s view of what is scripture when he took the side of masorite rabbis on what books to use for his Old Testament. These rabbis Definitely do not believe Jesus is the messiah so why trust their view on what books are Old Testament. But Martin Luther needed to prove his view of justification so he took out those books. God bless bro!
Peace be with you my Catholic friends on here. Protestant here. A thought crossed my mind. Does Jesus mention the ‘other books’? I know there is mention of Enoch in the letter of Judas but does Jesus speak of them? My background, 3 year AD theology student. Wish I went further but decided to become a missionary. Cheers and Shalom.
This appears to be very biased and deceptive. No mention of the Septuagint. No mention that Luther also considered removing Revelations, James, Jude and Hebrews. And what about the Orthodox Canon.
@@skipper7090 How many scripture would I need to sight that expresses the idea of being saved by faith alone before you would except it? I don't know of any scripture that contradicts it either. I also see this in modern translations that are closer to the greek and not written by Luther.
@@skipper7090 You could interpret James as works being needed. But it can also be interpreted as the works of the evidence of faith. Verse 18 "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." I think that interpretation is correct because it puts it in harmony with verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I think this is mostly a semantic difference. As I believe anyone who has real faith will do works. The only difference is are the works the result of faith? Or are they done in addition to faith? Either way we both believe the works will be done by those who are saved. Would you agree with how I described the difference? And what consequences do you see in believing in faith alone vs faith plus works?
1:30 it’s definitely not inaccurate, it is well documented that Luther wanted books removed so that it may better fit his narrative. Also I may add that saying that your Old Testament is the same as the Second temple Jews is fact enough. My question would be, why and when did the Orthodox add if the Prod bible is right?
I don’t think he was making the case that books cannot be added or taken from the Bible, which I know Catholics like to hang their coat on a lot. I think he was making the case that the original agreed-upon Bible as we know it was locked in in the fourth century and only one time after that did Catholics and Catholics alone change it. That’s the case he’s making, it’s not so much about the reformation because it’s almost excepting the premise that the reformation was essentially a correction. I’m sure you were disagreed but that’s the way it goes across history why was Martin Luther the only case for a reformation? Easy answer is because there is only one time where the extra canonical books were prescribed by a small sect of Christians
Thank you for bringing clarity to this issue. You laid it out very well and I learned some things :) I would highly recommend David W. Daniel's vlog videos on the Chick Tracts youtube channel on the Apocrapha. He lays out what the KJV translators thought about the issue, and also goes into some of the problems with some of those books, including anti-Biblical teachings (not just unBiblical), and historical innacuracies. You should have a sit down interview with him, actually. He's got some very in-depth and well researched criticisms of some very highly held beliefs and manuscripts, AND was in training to be a Bible translator, biased against the KJV by his professors, and over many years of research reluctantly came to acccept the KJV as God's preserved words in English. You might disagree at this point, but reach out to him, just to have a discussion/interview, you might find it fascinating :) God bless.
3:10 The canon of Jewish Scriptures was not fixed among jews before the end of the second century. Scholarly deliberations on the status of certain books continued into the third century (THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, "THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE", fn. 33). Protestants decided to reject the canon of Scripture promulgated by The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D., long before the Reformation. The Bible is a catholic canon, and protestants deny the authority on which it was compiled and promulagted; this means that they rest on their own authority to reject the longstanding official canon of Scripture, which is an extremely faulty foundation.
Below is a brief timeline for clarity: AD 367 - St. Athanasius of Alexandria sent out his 39th Festal Letter, which listed the 27 New Testament books we recognize today. AD 382 - Council (or Synod) of Rome under Pope Damasus I produced a list consistent with the later councils. AD 393 - Synod of Hippo recognized the same 73 books the Catholic Church regards as canonical. AD 397 and 419 - Third and subsequent Councils of Carthage reiterated and confirmed Hippo’s canon. 1545-1563 - Council of Trent issued a dogmatic decree definitively listing the same 73 books in the Catholic canon.
Doesn’t Paul refer to the Septuagint version of scripture in Roman’s 3:10-18, Galatians 3:13, Roman’s 4:3, Roman’s 9:27-28, and 1 Corinthians 15:54-55? And doesn’t the Septuagint include all these books?
Mr Huff, with all the respect due, I thought that the the Orthodox also had that same Od Testament as the Catholics, therefore it's not just a Catholic vs Protestant debate
History of Catholic Bible. 597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! Facts: 1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21. 2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God. 3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world. As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah. Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Wrong the first septuagint is only the five books of moses, and during the 1st century AD, the Jews in their synagogues used Hebrew scriptures not septuagint, and Jesus specifically mentioned the writings of moses and the prophets and the writings as scriptures(btw the current masoretic texts is categorised as such) Jesus did not say that the septuagint Greek scrolls as scriptures and Jesus didn't live in diaspora as did the Jews he preached to.
I think your claim about the timeline of the Jewish canon is inaccurate. There was no agreed-upon canon during the time of Christ, and it’s my understanding is that it was the Masoretes that first defined the modern Hebrew canon and started rejecting books not written in Hebrew. This would have been centuries after the time of Christ’s incarnation, and would thus be non-authoritative. It would also mean that the Catholic canon is actually older, as it’s source is the Septuagint.
I’m afraid we have Jewish canon lists as early as Josephus’ numbers in the late 1st / early 2nd century (which match both modern and Protestant books and do not include the Deuterocanonical texts). I’d also recommend my video on the Septuagint as, with all due respect, the mistake you’re making is a common one. The Septuagint is a modern category of translational texts and neither functioned as a canonical list nor was one single thing - but rather is the over arching term to refer to a single stream (there are multiple) of Greek translational documents of Hebrew documents. In the formal sense none of the Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint because they have no Hebrew originals but were penned in Greek to begin with.
Jesus would have been well aware of these extra books and sometimes referred to them in his teachings. Doesn't matter whether or not the Jewish leaders canonized the Old Testament or not. Protestants follow the teachings of an 'insane' Catholic Monk named Martin Luther.
"its source is the septuagint" where did the septuagint come from if there was no jewish canon and also, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC Because that is what was recognized as 'inspired' when the Bible was canonized in 382 AD. Personal opinions, such as yours, or how Jewish canon changed after that date doesn't matter.
@@WesHuffYour response is incorrect. Josephus does not include or exclude any book. He just says their books are 22 in number. That does not support the 39 book Protestant canon. Did he exclude Esther? Did he include Baruch with Jeremiah? What did he think about Wisdom? You are reading into a number the Protestant list. Josephus’ list cannot by itself substantiate a Protestant canon. Must also acknowledge the bias of the author (Josephus) being a Pharisee. Did his canon list match up with the Essenes (who had a larger corpus)? What about the Sadducees?
@WesHuff great work that your doing, is it possible for you to 1 day dialog with @Gary Michuta about the Canon/Septuagint..please would be great to learn from you both. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
As a Protestant, it took me a long time to understand how Catholics differentiate between worship and prayer/veneration. Just because he wasn’t being precise in his wording doesn’t necessarily mean he was being intellectually dishonest and biased against Catholics. Maybe he just needs a clearer explanation
They can anachronistically and eisagetically be proof texted. There's a difference. There's a reason neither of those concepts are believed in either ancient or modern Judaism, despite the inaccurate use of said texts in the developments of extra-biblical teachings within the church.
@@WesHuff Oh? Jewish people, then as now, STILL pray for the dead. Modern Jewish people do not recognize the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but they do believe in a purification process after death. This process is often referred to as Gehenom, which is sometimes thought of as a place that is part purgatory, part hell, and part passageway.
Purgatory was only introduced by pope Gregory the great in the 6th century but it was later before it became effective to accumulating money for the dead. It was used by pope sixtus in acquiring money in indulgences while he was building the Sistine church He sent his people around Europe to collect money.
3-4 century AD He uses the warn out Josephus argument even though most historians contend that Josephus was lying and Philo did not say anything remotely as to what he is implying if you just read scholarly sources on the matter.
Some notable mistakes mainly by way of either mistaken or purposeful "omissions" including one blatantly false statement. Catholics do not "worship" saints. These errors lead me to believe that the sources used by Protestants, are written by Protestants. Why wouldn't a committed Christian learn about the Catholic faith, by using Catholic sources. If you trust the popes & other bishops with your Bible (from which you base your entire salvation) ... why not the rest of their historical accounts & writings? Can someone/anyone make sense of this?
Imagine someone says, "I'm feeling blue." Another person replies, "That is blatantly false. Blue is a color, not a feeling." The problem here is that the conversationalists are using the same word in different ways. This is what I see happening between Catholics and Protestants with the word "worship." A Protestant may accuse Catholics of idolatry (worshipping statues, saints, Mary, etc.) because the Catholic's behavior falls under a Protestant framework of worship. However, since the Catholic's behavior does not fall under a Catholic framework of worship, a Catholic will deny the accusation of idolatry. The two are using the same word in different ways.
@@anne.ominous In part, I agree with you. Ex: Catholics do not "worship" Mary, we "honor" her. In Canada & I think Britain, their justice of the peace is called "Your Worship" and in America ... "Your Honor." However, the above is no longer realized. Protestants, believe worship, is worship, therefore raising Catholic saints to God's level. I'm not certain they truly believe this, or if it is only used to create more space between us.
I thought there'd be more interest in this. It seems few to none wish to challenge themselves. Wes, when Protestants often use the term "Roman" in front of "Catholic," the attempt is to isolate, minimize, and weaken, what should simply be called "the Catholic Church. Using the term "Roman" is separating them from the other 23 other rites that make-up the one CC, under the full authority of the Pope, who happens to live in Rome. Not accusing you, but others knowingly using the term "Roman" is a slight to the rest of the rites. Knowing a couple of Byzantine Catholics, feel they are put into a lesser "Catholic" category, or Eastern Orthodoxy. Anyway, all of this, including the "worship" of saints, tells me that you only care about what Prot. Scholars think about Protestantism. There appears to be no desire to understand the other side. That's not fair to your audience, nor you.
I know I’m in over my head, you are way more educated than me, but I don’t understand why you say Catholics worship saints. I’m assuming you believe the same about the Eastern Orthodox. Additionally you only looked at the Roman Catholic and Protestant dispute over the canon, ignoring the Eastern Orthodox canon.
Catholics pray to and venerate the Saints. Considering Wes’s level of expertise, one can fairly safely assume that his use of the term ‘worship’ is just an accidental misnomer.
EOs have been able to slide by for years because of their lack of interaction with protestants. Now, with the new EO Presuppositionalists, they are going to have to be addressed.
Yeah, Protestants are ignorant like that. They seem quite arrogant not realizing that the Reformation brought only splintering of the faith into literally thousands of pointless denominations. It diluted Christian faith, doubtful Jesus wanted that.
Wes is doing incredible work in mainstream internet culture. I am shocked to see his lack of knowledge with respect to an issue like this. Have you not heard of the Septuagint?
Wes,you remind me of a friend i had growing up,he was a great friend,he moved to Colorado to build houses.One night he got into a wreck and got threw out of his car,it messed his brain up and he's never been the same,he was an atheist and it hurts me to think he may be in danger of rejection I would like to know if there's any way he could be saved. I hope to meet you sometime and learn from someone who knows the history of our existence,until now and beyond.✝️👍
As a protestant, I think all Christians should read the apocrypha. Regardless of whether it is authoritative, It has great and informative writings. I believe having this mindset about these books is the best way to be consistent with the early church.
Saying Catholics worship saints is so wild. Huge credibility hit for anything you say regarding the Catholic vs Protestant debate, at least outside of the realm of your historical textual knowledge
Sorry but I've heard some discussions with Catholic apologists and they use the word worship, they just say the worship given to God is different from the worship given to saints. I'm not sure if it was Trent Horn who made these statements, but I know it was a leading Catholic apologist.
@ckjaytheactual I've seen much of trents work and never heard him do that. Either way, there's a distinction being made right there between the different meanings behind the use of the word, effectively separating them. No Catholic, especially an apologist, would say we "worship" saints, let alone without then making very clear of the intended definition of the word
Please reference the last paragraph of a "hail Mary". Do you call her a holy queen? Yes? Then how are you not worshiping her? There are far deeper heresies that we can pull from that paragraph too.
@@Ray12121 That isnt worship lol. Are you worshipping the queen of England when you recognize her status? My goodness. Read the old testament describing the davidic kingdoms. The queen was the queen mother. Let alone the description in revelation of the mother of Jesus being crowned. You guys need to humble yourselves and recognize that you don't understand the Bible the way you think you do.
Protestants get this wrong so much it is sad. The Apocrypha was removed in 1825 to save on printing costs, before that it was reclassified (without authority to do so) by Martin Luther so he could win theological debates and remove what he had difficulty reconciling with personally. The deuterocanonical books were part of scripture (Jewish and christian) long before the masoretic canon was written in the 3rd century. The Apostles, early Church fathers, and Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which was the Jewish text since around 200 B.C. protestants have a false Bible that removed scripture and thus lost connection to the Apostles and the Church of Christ
"Martin Luther so he could win theological debates" He definetely tried to do that with James. But he really believed the masoretic text was the 'original' one
@@saultarango-rosales4230Do you not understand that everything this guy said is said by other scholars? So what do we do now? My scholar is better than yours? This is common history, fact check yourself everything
I just think it makes the most sense to accept and go along with the teachings of the largest, oldest, and most consistent church of the faith. Majority of Protestantism is the result of people interpreting scripture with the point of view they prefer and not just surrendering to gods word.
how can he fail to remove four if you claim he already removed seven makes no sense, you can't have it go both ways also, really convenient how the only books from the septuagint that the catholics canonized at trent were the only ones that could be used against protestants remind me again, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC "The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century."
I suggest to all my protestant friends pick up a Catholic bible and read the books omitted. Some of them are beautiful. As a Catholic, we do not worship saints. Worship belongs to the trinity alone.
No, but you guys worship Mary over Jesus 💯 and you can't deny it, because I've personally witnessed, time and time again, Catholics putting her on a level with God!!! The Bible even warns about those who worship the "queen of heaven," which is what Catholics call her ( there's even a queen of heaven Catholic Church nearby me)!!!! If any of you truly read the Holy Bible, and contemplated and thought on the Words, you would realize that Catholicism is heresey, sacrilegious, and blasphemous 💯
There are some important details left out about the formation of the canon. As mentioned in a previous comment, there was no settled canon of Scripture among the Jews of Jesus's time: the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of Moses, and the Pharisees accepted a larger portion that included the books Protestants accept as OT Scripture. Around 250 B.C., due to the increasing number of Jews in the Diaspora who could not read Hebrew, the OT books were translated into Greek, and this was called the Septuagint, meaning 70, referring to the 70 or 72 scholars who worked on translating it. This was the most widely used and was quoted by Jesus and the apostles over 300 times in the NT. The deuterocanicals were included in this version of the OT Scriptures. In the early Church, there was no set canon of Scripture because there were no means, in the centuries of persecution, for the Church to make a definitive determination binding on the whole Church, and so individual bishops would determine what books they considered Sacred Scripture, and after the Church came out "above ground," so to speak, it became apparent that bishops had come up with different lists of books considered Scripture, so that had to be addressed. It's true that St Jerome initially was in favor of the shorter Hebrew canon, but that was largely due to having worked with Jewish biblical scholars who didn't accept the deuterocanonicals. However, once the Church determined the canon authoritatively (initiated by Pope St Damasus I in 382 at the Council of Rome and other regional councils in Hippo-393 and Carthage-397, which all approved the same canon as still used by the Catholic Church), St Jerome wrote a letter acknowledging his submission to the Church’s judgment. However, this 73 book canon wasn't binding on the whole Church until Pope Innocent I approved this canon in 405, which closed the canon for good. This canon was reaffirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 and solemnly defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the 16th century due to the rejection of it by Protestants. About 1,100 years went by before being widely challenged by Protestants. Incidentally the Orthodox churches also have the deuterocanonicals in their OT (in addition to a few more that aren't in either the Catholic or Protestant OTs). Protestants are the only ones who reject the deuterocanonicals. They accept the determination of the NT canon established by the Catholic Church but not the OT canon. If the Church got it wrong on the OT, what is the basis for believing the Church got it right on the NT? And why would God leave Christians in serious error about the content of the Bible for 1,100 years? And with three different canons of the OT being established by Christians (Catholic Orthodox and Protestant), how do we know, from objective evidence and authority, which one is correct? This is a huge, foundational issue to investigate. As an evangelical Protestant for 20 years, I never once learned how we got the Bible (and, honestly, never thought about it). It wasn't until I read an Orthodox publication (published by Franky Schaeffer, a convert to Orthodoxy and son of the late Protestant writer, Francis Schaeffer) in which I learned that it was the Church that determined the canon of Scripture and determined which books and letters of the OT and NT were inspired by God -- we got the Bible through the Church (which was the Catholic Church, because it was the only one that existed in the 4th century), which was absolutely earth shattering to me because it clearly destroyed Sola Scriptura as a foundational truth of Christian belief. I converted to the Catholic faith in 1998, for which I continue to praise and thank God for many reasons, but one is for the greater knowledge, understanding and reverence for Scripture than I ever had as an evangelical Protestant (and I don't mean that as a knock down because I owe it to the very high view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture held by the different Protestant denominations I belonged to imparted to me a deep confidence in and love for Holy Scripture). Don't take my word for it-- check it out for yourself 🙏✝️
At minute 6:15 you state, “Nonetheless traditions that the рарасy held to as doctrine like that of purgatory uh worship of the saints and prayer for the dead could be proof texted out of many of the deuterocanonical books and this was defended as scripture” Catholics do not teach teach worship of saints. Worship belongs only to God alone. Show me where the Catechism ever teaches anyone to worship anything other than God?
The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.
You're wrong on both instances. If it was a settled issue in the 4th century than why did Pope Gregory the Great argue that Maccabees wasn't scripture in his commentary on Job? Why did the Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan agree with Luther on the non-inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books? Why did Erasmus write extensively about them not being scripture and argue for a smaller OT canon? For the record, while Luther did have strong words regarding the text of James, the idea he wanted it removed is nonsense. All you have to do is read his sermons on James and his translation notes in his German Bible to know he thought it was fully scripturally inspired and never anywhere advocates for its removal.
@@WesHuff Neither are false. Your comment is deceptive. That was something he said well before he was Pope as a monk. It wasn’t said as Pope invoking Papal Infallibility. I would also note there are many other works of his that agree with all the books. I want us to go back to the Latin again because I have to drive an hour to get it. There are cardinals that also think we should go back but to Latin, but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they spoke retroactively using Papal infallibility or that it was up for debate because currently it’s not. I would also note that the Protestants had no right to add or remove anything. They didn’t have the authority.
Found your channel from the billy debate and Im so greatful for tye knowledge you share. Im not formally educated but Christ saved my miserable life and healed me, I love Him more than anything so Ive gotten such a drive for knowledge of everything that is the word of God. I have read much of the original 1611 translation of the KJV and found the Apocrypha interesting so this is just awsome. Thank you for standing up for Christ in this age of darkness.
Those books were removed by the Protestants, do more research and look into the Catholic faith. God bless.
So happy for you 🙌! May you be so blessed by the Holy Spirit and your walk with Christ 🙏🏻
The disciples weren’t formally educated but were called “taught-ones”. John 16:13. Stay submitted to God. Continue in obedience and walk in His commandments. He will reveal what’s right for you. The story of why the 1611 stopped being included in our Bibles is interesting and it makes me wonder- if it was in the 1611 but it was “uninspired”… that doesn’t make logical sense to include it in the same bound copy as the Sacred Scripture.
@@SHEAR-JASHUB The books are inspired.
@@CatholicSplaining101you didn’t watch the video
I don't care if you're a Protestant or Catholic. Just please read your Bible. Frequently. Like, daily.
Agreed. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to argue over by the Bible that neither person reads.
However, two people who passionately read a divine gathering of books, that they each deeply cherish (if from two mildly differing perspectives), can have very fruitful discussions indeed, whether they ever come to agree or not.
The thing with that is you're going to have thousands of different interpretations all who calm to be right and the other wrong.
@@tx_7134 Thankfully, it's loving God and your neighbor that saves.
@ You can still end up in hell, being a ''good person'' and calming that you love God and don't isn't what saves, but what saves is living in the spirit apart from sin in Christ and doing the work of the father.
@@TheRealTravisD it is not enough. Become a devout Catholic ..the Bible is one part ..it is a Catholic book ..trust us when we say there is more to been a Christian than reading the Bible. If we had the Bible for 1500 years we know what we are talking about.
My understanding is the Catholic Church does not rely on the non-Christian Jews to define the cannon. It relies on what Jesus and the Apostles used. The Jews were very hostile towards Jesus and were motivated to define a cannon that eliminated passages the Christians used. The prophesy of Jesus in the book of Wisdom is astonishing.
This was one of motivations for the Inquisition, as Church leaders were shocked how anti-christian parts of the Talmud is. The Talmud was created around the same time as the Qur'an, as the newer Rabinnic tradition came to be following the destruction of the temple around 70 AD. It seems that the deuterocanonical books were questioned in these rabbinic councils after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and St. Paul often quoted these books, so.....
Jesus and the apostles were Jews
@@danielmcrae8380the apostle who followed and accepted Christ were called what??? The Jews who rejected him are called what? FFS
@@RRYYAANNK7 ???, not sure what you are asking
@@RRYYAANNK7 some pharisees called for Jesus's death but some didn't. Thats not why they are called pharisees though. If you're trying to say that the jews who followed Jesus were called Christians, then you're wrong. Because that only started after the founding of the Church in Antioch... because finally most of the followers there *weren't* Jewish. Because again, Jesus and all 12 of the apostles and most of the early followers considered themselves Jewish.
I am a Catholic. I like Mr. Huff. I think he’s intellectually honest. I would love to see him debate @TrentHorn or other former Protestant Catholic apologists. It would be good debate I’m sure.
100% agree a debate with Trent Horn would be excellent
read Devin Rose's Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem - • 3/1/2014
@Jamesps34 Intellectually honest is a stretch considering he said Catholics worship saints at 6:22
@ I get that. I just think he honestly believes that. Had a nice Protestant tell me she thought Catholics were band from reading the Bible. I thought she was honest too. You don’t know what you don’t know. A debate might help him see through the veil.
@@Jamesps34 that is true. I just think that he should try to do better research and seek more understanding while approaching topics that involve other faiths. It gives the impression that he only used sources that agreed with him 100%
You misspoke when you stated Catholics worships saints, 6:21. Catholics venerate (honor) saints but worship is for God and God alone.
What is worship from a catholic perspective?
@@austinmorris3422worship is making a sacrifice to someone. That belongs to the Trinity only
@@CPATuttle what sacrifice was John making to the angel in Revelation 19:10, 22:9?
@@austinmorris3422 The book of Revelations was moved to an undecided section of the Bible by Martin Luther. There’s two copies in museums. He alludes in his writings of this to the early church disputing this book. It’s in the Bible because of the Catholic Church. The book of Revelations says angels pass prayers from the people, to God. In the early church, a historian Eusebius writes of these disputed books. He also writes the first Christians made images of Jesus and the apostles. And the woman from the gospel who was healed with blood problems by Jesus, made a statue of Jesus, that had miraculous healings for hundreds of years. Similar to the handkerchief in the book of acts. So no, the angel telling John to get up from bowing doesn’t make sense to prove a point you are attempting to. The iconography council in the seventh century clarified this topic.
@@CPATuttle Ok, what are you talking about? Nothing you said has anything to do with my question. What sacrifice did John make to the angel?
3:16 This is something that Gary Michuta often mentions. Which Jews? If you are talking about Rabbinic Jews then ya, but what about the Essenes and the Hellenistic Jews? They had these books along with the 24(39) books.
These are interesting but old and not too good arguments if you all are interested read Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem -Devin Rose • 3/1/2014
@mariorosas7779 I'll check out the article. But I wouldn't call it a not good argument since it's more of a historical observation. My fellow Protestants often generalize later Rabbinic Judaism and their canon as if they were all Jews at the time of Messiah. But that is not what we can see. Everyone had a different canon, but a general core of the same books. The Pharisees had the 24 which were all authoritative for teaching. The Sadducees had the 24, but only took doctrine from the Torah. The Essenes had the 24 and others and we can see some of the other texts being used for their doctrine and calendar, so we can assume they were authoritative. The Hellenists had the 24 and others, which were included in the Septuagint, and we can see that the early Christians used the other books as authoritative as well which might suggest that the Hellenists also took them as authoritative.
@@xUncleA123xso it is a problem!!
@omoruyiodosa5495 I don't think the 24 Elders = the 24 Books, especially since there are more inspired books, like the books of the New Testament. To be consistent with that interpretation, the 24 OT books would be Protocanonical and the NT books would be at most Deuterocanonical.
@ straw man argument and a weak one
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, myself, I greatly appreciate your take Wes. While I disagree on some points, I felt that the approach to the discussion was very respectful and Christ-like. Thank you for striving to share truth in a way that honors our Lord.
Why did you become a Catholic?
Thank you for this response, sir. God bless.
See I went from Catholic to Protestant. I just felt the Holy Ghost more with a non denominational church. Hey as long as we both believe Jesus is Lord we r brothers
As a former Catholic (heretic), I appreciate the truth of Wes.
@gan_the_white What even constitutes heresy, for a Protestant? Since you rely on personal interpretation? If you are a once saved always saved proponent, can you say one who doesn’t hold to this is a heretic, and vice versa? What are the important essential beliefs that make one a heretic or not? Can you even answer this?
I found you on Julian Dorian podcast. I am, was, well...a non believer. I know so little about religion that I don't even know who saint nick defeated during the battle of Christmas. I am learning a ton from your work and thus now have to reevaluate everything I have ever thought but I'm excited about it. I feel a sense of trust from your background as an historian. Learning about God has been difficult to me as it feels like I am talking to a God salesman most of the time. I don't feel like you are trying to "sell" me on anything, thanks.
I love this explanation and I couldn’t agree more. I’ve struggled with my lack of belief my entire life and most videos or information I came across felt like they were doing the whole “trust me bro, I know about this stuff. Donate to my MiNiStRy.” Information that is presented in this way feels so much more genuine and easy to digest. I’ll be praying for you and I both. (Once I figure out how to do that.)
Holy moly Wes, I came across you because of the Billy scandal, but I stayed because you’re like a revelation to me. I learn so much! Thanks for sharing all this content.
Be careful. He has a lot of misguided points he learned from heretics.
@@QBlessed93No he doesn’t.
@@QBlessed93 Thank you, it's always good to remind others that this is not a lesson. It's to give ppl new insight & pieces of information that can help you in your OWN independent studies!
Reminded that the Zechariah son of Bereciah and Writings, Torah, and prophet arguments don’t work:
1. There were like 3 Zechariah’s this could refer too. Jesus was likely just referring to the Jews martyring all the holy people God sent them (Maccabean Martyrs were killed by Greeks).
2. The writings and possibly prophets were not closed by this time. The canon was not closed. What constituted especially the writings during this time was unknown. Jesus was referring to the Psalms, prophets, and Torah. Possibly mentioning the Psalms bc of their many Mesianic qoutes or because of them being the largest of the writings. However, there are other arguments as well, like the one Suan Sonna points out.
If Catholics added books. Then when did the Orthodox add the books?
At the same time. There was a split between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, known as the Great Schism in 1054 AD.
@@christhesanctified Eastern Orthodox added the books when? And the Oriental Orthodox when?
@@CPATuttleexactly
this question is a great way of exposing the massive holes in the protestant narrative. I love this
Scottish Bible society wrote a letter to british bible society asking them to remove the appocrypa on the ground that protestants after reading this appocrypa of the Bible becoming catholics
6:22 Catholics don’t worship saints. Worship is reserved for God only.
they do in Europe. they even kiss statues of saints
@@stupidw33b52You might be mistaking reverence for worship.
@@stupidw33b52 i sometimes kiss images of my love ones, am I worshipping them? uh oh
@@stupidw33b52 Yeah, and Jews kiss the Torah. Do they worship the Torah? Obviously not.
Its so funny to me just how insanely far removed from the context of the Near East Protestants are that they see something as basic as an act of showing affection and automatically call it idolatry.
Those who kiss pictures of their family members are surely guilty of worshipping them. Those who salute flags /honor flags, in honor of their countries, surely worship flags. Those who ask their pastors to pray for them (just like Catholics ask saints to pray for them) surely worship their pastors and replace Jesus, as the mediator, with their pastors. Those who honor portraits of great men and women and heroes of the past surely worship those images...
Thank you for posting Mr. Huff. As a Protestant Christian and a history major in college, I appreciate your work and what you've done for Christianity.
How do you have the privilege to church-hop?
How many churches exist?
7:09 Because the ancient Jews didn't consider the Deuterocanonical writings as scripture, shouldn't be why we don't. They also didn't believe in all the writings of the New Testament. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church, and his Church chose these books as part of Scripture... Love your content. Keep up the good work, and Godspeed!
If Catholic predates Protestant, wouldn't it mean books were removed, not added?
Protestant might come after Catholic, but Christian was before Catholic…Acts 11:26
Protestantism is basically just Catholic reformation (Catholic lite). Protestantism is full of traditions and interpretations that aren’t found in scripture and are remnants of Catholic indoctrination.
Catholics aren’t Christians and Protestantism is basically trying to conform Catholic doctrine into Christianity
No, because the Roman Catholic canon was only officially defined in Trent, after Protestants have defined their canon.
@@pedroguimaraes6094the original Bible had all the books. The original Bible was inspired by God turn away from the devil
Christianity came before catholic and Protestant Acts 11:26
Found you from the billy Carson debate. You are doing a great work. God bless you
Please have a discussion with a top Catholic apologist like dr. Scott Hahn or Trent horn, both former Protestants
The post-temple rabbinical Pharisees did not believe the deutero-canonical books were scripture because they were too “Catholic.” The various sects of ancient Jews did not agree on what was God’s word and what was not.
There were actually 5 main traditions of the OT canon at the time of Christ and His Apostles: Samaritan, Sadducee, Essene, Septuagint, and Palestinian. Only the first two were closed, and the others had fuzzy boundaries. For example, the Palestinian tradition which included the same OT as Protestants was still fuzzy. Since we know that the Pharisees mainly held to this, and we see their successors write in the Talmud and Mishnah on possibly rejecting some Books: Esther, Ruth, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes. And some accepted Sirach. As for the Essenes, we largely don’t have their full canon, but they had a large library. They seem to have included all of the Protestant Books, except Esther, and also possibly Enoch, Jubilee, and the Temple Scroll. As for the Septuagint, it included the Protestant Books and the Deuterocanonicals. Sometimes it also included others such as 1-2 Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh. So, no, there wasn’t a singular canon of the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles.
As for Josephus, most historians say that he was lying about having a canon, to make the Jewish people more appealing to the Romans, and to discredit his Greek adversaries, since sources during his time and after him debunk him. The early Christians also held multiple Books of the Old Testament in dispute such as Enoch, the Deuterocanonicals, or Esther. So, my question to a Protestant would be: How do you even know the Old Testament canon in the first place? Or the Canon in general? I don’t think you can. Since the canon isn’t in Scripture, and it wasn’t just passed down in history completed. I simply don’t think you guys can know, and that destroys protestantism’s doctrine of sola scriptura. Now, as for us, God led the Catholic Church to Infallibly Decide our Canon. However, you dont get to use our canon, since you would be cherry picking the. in what God led the Church in the Truth too. For example, did God lead the Church to the Truth on Apostolic Succession during this time as well, like the Church universally believed? If no, then you are cherry picking and not being intellectually honest.
The Jewish canon wasn’t created until the 3-4 century AD. So, it is not something that matters in the discussion much. The authority had moved on to the Church. Obviously, Christians are still not subject to Rabbinical dictates. Also, the Paul saying the Jews have been given the Oracles of God verse does not say anything about the Jews determining the canon of Books, especially specifically for the Old Testament. That is your own faulty and twisted interpretation of it. They didn’t even accept the New Testament, so it doesn’t even make sense.
So, their canon was centuries after Christ. Our canon with the deuterocanonicals was promulgated in the 400s (AD), and then this was the canon used universally by the Church from then on (technically the Eastern Church was constantly eneveloped in different h3resies so they didn’t, and later schismed), but this was the canon used by Christian’s for centuries. Then Luther was losing a debate with a guy, so he said that the deuterocanonicals are possibly not Scripture, so they can’t be used in the debate (he also wanted to get rid of books like James and Revelation, but his followers stopped him), and then he placed them at the back of his Bible under the title “apocrypha”. Then later, a company thought that printing the Bible costed too much, so they omitted the apocrypha, and now today Protestants assume that the “apocrypha” aren’t Scripture because of this. Trent Defined it Infallibly, but before then the Sensus Fidei has defined it infallibly in the Church, and it was the normal Bible. So, we did not add any Books, since it simply is what was used for centuries universally by the Church. Protestants did remove Books because they removed things that were held to universally for centuries as Scripture beforehand
@@kyrptonite1825 So many mistakes... : There were many versions of the Septuagint, each with a different list of books in addition to the 66 books of the Hebrew Bible, and none of the versions that have come down to us that date from the Apostolic Era have the exact same books as the Roman Catholic Canon. .
Additionally, although we know for a fact that the Apostles used the Septuagint (Greek was the most understood language in their times), they do not directly cite any Deuterocanonical book as the Word of God, only books that belong to the Hebrew Canon.
Whatsmore, the old testament canon was only defined for Catholics in Trent. Before it there were just regional councils that were not binding for the entire church.
Wow Wesley, just about a week ago I watched your video receiving your 100k sub plaque, now you are at 215K!!!
Congrats and very well deserved!! 🙌
The fact that your knowledge in your videos have brought people from all over to salvation through Christ is inspiring! Humble as well, which is how God wants us to be 😊
@6:16 Hi all, Catholic here. I just wanted to clarify that the Church does not teach the worship of saints. We only worship God. :)
Well.. what Catholics call Veneration, everyone else calls worship. That is where the confusion lies between Catholics and Protestants on that issue I think.
@@joshuaclark7953 except the entire Christian world for 1500 called it veneration until the Protestants tried to gaslight everyone into thinking we worship the saints
@@joshuaclark7953anyone that calls Catholic’s veneration of Saints worship is ignorant. It’s what all Christians did for 1500 years before Protestant revolutionists started changing the Faith. Christendom is now fractured & divided because of them
What are the actionable differences between worship of God and veneration of saints if worship doesn’t go towards saints as well?
@@Theprincessinyellow we make sacrifices to God, and we don’t make sacrifices to saints. Case closed
1. The Jews did not agree on the canon. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Essenes all had different canons.
2. Jews after the time of Christ, that reject Christ, don’t have the authority to recognise the canon. Instead, that is left to the bishops who are in succession to the Apostles. Augustine makes this point.
3. Pope Damasus I makes the first official decree of what the canon is in the regional Council of Rome in 382AD. It includes the Deuterocanonical Books.
4. This same canon is reaffirmed at Hippo, Carthage, then later at the ecumenical Council of Florence.
5. It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand.
So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture. Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament.
Joe Heschmeyer has a great video on this topic:
ua-cam.com/video/9udZKziHemo/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
"It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture."
Well at least you can admit that the canonization of the deuterocanon was reactionary to the reformation, most catholics think it's a coincidence that the only books from the septuagint that were canonized were the ones that conveniently had arguments against the reformation.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand."
Belief =/= doctrine
Many people believed Limbo was real, doesn't mean it's official doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell.
"So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture."
Why is 3rd and 4th Maccabees not in the catholic bible? You do not need the protestants help to remove books from scripture, catholics seem just fine messing with the canon all on their own ;)
"Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament."
I don't understand, according to you Luther had the power to and did declare the deuterocanon uncanon and remove them from scripture (as far as his followers were concerned at least), but you're also saying he tried and failed to remove NT books as well?
Well which one is it?
@@InitialPC I’m not sure what your point is. Of course the Council of Trent was reactionary. All councils are. The Church calls a council to squash a heresy. In Acts 15, the Church calls the first council to combat the Judaiser heresy. Council of Trent condemned the heresy of Protestantism as well as cleaning up abuses.
The Catholic Church didn’t remove 3 and 4 Maccabees. She has never recognised them as Scripture.
I said Luther had authority to declare the canon? Not sure what you’re talking about.
Luther took it upon himself to decide what books make up Scripture. I obviously don’t think he had authority to do so.
I totally agree. Our friend in the vídeo does not refer to the Councils of the 4th century, in which the Church defined the cânon. He diminishes the authority of the Council of Florence(1442) which confirmed the cânon.
And he gives weak reasons to dismiss this important Council, saying that important Catholic figures did not accept the canon.
He misses the point. Once an article of faith is defined by a Council, it muar be accepted by all Catholics. Whether they like it or not. The Council of Florenc is abother element 8:35 that demolishes the affirmation that the Catholic was defined in Trent.
By the way, the first book printed, Gutenberg’s Bible (around 1450) conta-nos the deuterocanonical. With the Church’s express approval.
@@LuizFelipeMendoncaFilho you have not read the list of books given in each of those councils, otherwise you would have known they all have different books, one excludes baruch, each include and exclude different psalms, most of them affirm the septuagint esdras as canon, etc
actually read them, and then get back to me about "oh they knew from the beginning what was canon and it was the same the entire time"
no it wasnt
@@InitialPC the Pope decide the canon of the bible in 382 what authority did luther have to question that again?
This fascinating!
Do you have a video explaining/comparing the history of the Ethiopian Bible's 88 books?
81, actually. It's great that you know that, though.
Now we're getting somewhere! [Jack Nicolson head nod.gif ]
He actually mentioned it basically the church decided cannon but the Ethiopian didn't hear about it because they were so far away until way later and they already put everything in. Lots of the books are not real they added forgery.
It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace.
To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.
We know what the Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus -- who both list the exact same number of books (along with quotations stating the non-inspired nature of books like Maccabees (etc.).
I'd also recommend watching my video (and looking further into the subject within Septuagintal scholarship) on what the Septuagint is and isn't. With all due respect, the fact that you're referencing it as a single thing indicates that you're unaware of what the LXX is exactly. The LXX is not a single thing as much as it is an umbrella category for a body of Jewish translational literature. We might refer to the "New Testament's use of the Septuagint", but even that is somewhat of a misnomer. The LXX is only one stream of a series of streams of Jewish literature that ended up being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Many deuterocanonical books found themselves into this body of literature in the post-Christian period, but many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and *not* in Hebrew (these books having no Hebrew original is another reason cited by early Jewish writers as to why they did not carry authoritative status as scripture).
@@WesHuff You said: “We know what *THE* Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus”
Q(1): Did all Jews in the first century unanimously agree on which books were canonical?
Q(2): If not then which Jews were correct on which books were canonical?
You said: “many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and not in Hebrew”
Q(3): Which of the Deuterocanonical writings are originally Greek compositions?
Q(4): Why were the New Testament writings recognized as canonical even though they are originally Greek compositions?
Jews were not in 100% agreement.
@@WesHuffJosephus’ canon does not inform us at all what books were accepted., Your conflating one individual (a Pharisee) as if they spoke for all of Judaism (Which includes Essenes and Sadducees).
Josephus does not provide a “canon list”, he provides an enumeration on the books. He lists twenty two books, but does not describe what those books are. Did he include Jeremiah? Does he merge Baruch with Jeremiah? Did he remove Esther? Did he include Wisdom?
Your reading into the text, not lifting out of it.
@@WesHuffHebrew and Aramaic fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Qumran from before the 1st century AD would also debunk the idea that they all did not have Hebrew originals.
Hello Wes, really appreciate your work and loved your debate with billy. I agree with many people that Billy has been confusing people for years. However, just wanted to clarify something in this video. I am a Catholic and I can say the church doesn't teach that we should worship saints. They teach a saint's life is to be seen as an example for us to draw inspiration from and they can pray for us. The same way I can ask you to pray for me. But worship is only for God himself who died for us and calls us to be his children. Once again thank you for your work 🙏🙏.
No matter what the official doctrine is, a lot of what is actually practiced among Catholics appears a lot like worship, ESPECIALLY when it involves Mary. Just my two cents.
I agree with the previous poster. Appearances are important, and what the Catholics are doing appears to be worship, regardless of what they say it is.
@@octogintillion hello fellow brother in Christ. I respect your point of view even if I disagree with it. That there might be some outliers in our faith that might take things a bit too far this is quite possible but this isn't the large majority of us. This is like saying it appears to me that only faith is needed and I can do whatever I want( living a life full of sin) and I will be saved.I think most protestant denominations don't believe this. I invite you to learn more about the Catholic church so that you could have a better understanding. I myself try to learn about other faiths so that I can understand where others are coming from and perhaps this can help me love them more. Hope you have a blessed day and our Lord continues to bless you and your loved ones.
@@meowpurrrrr
What appears to you as worship?
Do you do those things to worship God?
If not, do you not worship God?
If you are honest, you will understand that praying (asking) is not only used for worship, statues (example: the giant statue of Abraham Lincoln in the US) is not used for worship, songs about a person (Ave Maria, or any popular love song) is not worship, kneeling (begging someone or getting on one knee to purpose) is not worship, bowing (as they do in Japan to greet each other) is not worship etc. etc. I’ve never met a Catholic who believed that Mary is a Goddess. Is it possible that you have been lied to and taught to dislike a faith that you do not understand?
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Catholic Mother of Perpetual Help prayer to Mary:
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
Just ran across this video - really appreciate the information and moreso because of the manner in which you relay the information. Very helpful! Thanks!
“The ancient Jews did not consider them God’s word,”. Well The ancient Jews did not consider Jesus as God. That’s not necessarily a good argument. I don’t believe the books are canon, but be aware of the weakness of this argument.
That's the worst argument for removing those 7 OT books. For one at the time of Christ there was no established Canon, and yes you're right why would I care what some Jews 100 years after Christ who denied His Divinity thought?
@@jd3jefferson556 Christianity started with Jews. That is why you should care. Christ was a Jew. The main reason why you should care. It is not understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity why so many Christians do not even understand concepts and lesson in the Bible in the first place. Christians don't even understand or see prophecy right in the Bible.
Wes is a very knowledgeable man.
@@jd3jefferson556they weren't removed.l - according to this biblical historian, they were never originally considered part of scripture in the 1st place. Are you saying hes wrong? And on what basis?
And saying "why would I care what some Jews who denied Christ's divinity thought" is the worst argument, given that the entire OT is essentially "what some Jews thought" as it is literally the Jewish scripture originally written down in Hebrew. 😅
The Old Testament is supposed to be the Jewish scripture so we should use the scripture the Jews believed to be scripture
@hansdykstra3869 there was no established scripture at the time of Christ. The "Jewish Scripture" was established over 100 years after Christ at a Jewish council in response to Christianity.
The Apostles were using the Septuigent a Greek Translation of the Old Testament, which included the Deuterocanon. Also, we should be using the Scriptures given to us by the Church Christ established, we all agree on the New Testament (except Martin Luther) which is 27 nooks narrowed from 200 documents in the 4th century. All Apostolic Churches use the detericanon, but because of a tradition of man, Protestants use a 66 book Bible. The 66 number alone should be a red flag
The early Church accepted the deuterocanonical books. You now have to decide whether you give more weight to the early Church or the modern church after the reformation. I trust the Apostles and their successors over martin luther & calvin.
protestants come up with the most crazy explanations instead of just saying "yeah we removed 6 books"
Even Luther didn't remove the books, it was later removed by the English press to make printing the Bible cheaper, which is a shame really
@jondead I was just about to mention that 😂
The Greek Septuagint where these Books were found in, was what the Apostles used when quoting the Old Testament, and they also made several allusions to these Books in the New Testamwnt. The early Church also disputed these Books as Scripture, with many quoting them as such, and heavily relied upon mainly the Septuagint. In the 300s it was unanimous from then on that they are Scripture. The Jews didn’t have a canon until the 3-4 century AD. Until then, they disagreed. They had no closed canon at the time of Christ. And they likely didn’t include the Deuterocanonicals, because Christians were quoting them and the Septuagint to support Christianity, and the Jews wanted to distance themselves from that
So I guess the fact that Jesus quoted the Septuagint means nothing? Right. Clearly, God himself favored the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books, and many of his teachings parallel those taught in these books.
Moreover, the Septuagint was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews of that time.
If it was good enough for Jesus, the Son of God, then I side with Jesus on this one.
@SnappyMcDragon If there is a logical fallacy, please identify its type. Simply disagreeing with someone does not constitute a logical fallacy. Furthermore, your disagreement may indicate that I could have provided more thorough explanations. I will concede and elaborate on my position.
The significance of Jesus’ quotations from the Septuagint, the Greek-speaking Jewish version of Scripture, cannot be overlooked. This translation not only encompassed the Deuterocanonical books but also served as the primary scripture for the nascent Church and the Jewish diaspora. Numerous teachings and allusions attributed to Jesus draw inspiration from these texts, further emphasizing their profound influence on His ministry.
It is crucial to recognize that the Septuagint held widespread acceptance within the Jewish community of Jesus’ era, particularly outside Palestine. It became the foundational text for the Old Testament in early Christianity. The Apostles and early Christians relied extensively on the Septuagint during their missionary endeavors, as evidenced by its frequent utilization in the New Testament.
While certain Jewish sects later disavowed the Deuterocanonical books, this decision transpired after the time of Christ, influenced by factors such as opposition to Christianity. If the Septuagint was sufficient for Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church, it is reasonable to assert that these books possess spiritual and theological value. I choose to align myself with this historical and scriptural tradition.
@@honestabe4161 That’s a compositional fallacy: the attributes of an individual being misrepresented as the attributes of the overarching group. Just because certain sections of the Septuagint were quoted by Christ, doesn’t mean every book that is within is classified by Him to be authentic. A perhaps not apt but similar comparison would be the book of Jude: the author quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, both of which weren’t even Septuagint in origin and yet nevertheless made it into the canon. The Holy Spirit clearly thought it was fit to include references to texts that He didn’t inspire the Jews to include into the Old Testament, doesn’t mean that those texts were then divinely inspired, this only goes to show that these specific verses from the apocryphal texts were authenticated by the Holy Spirit, but not the entirety of the books.
@@samhwwg Your argument misinterprets the role of the Septuagint. It wasn’t just a text Jesus occasionally quoted-it was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews and the early Church. Comparing it to Jude referencing apocryphal works is misleading, as those were isolated quotes, while the Septuagint shaped early Christian theology. Furthermore, the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as scripture by the Jewish diaspora and early Christians before later Jewish councils rejected them, partly in response to Christianity. If the Septuagint was authoritative for Jesus and the Apostles, dismissing it today demands stronger justification.
So, summary, the argument for the Septuagint is not simply about quoting parts of it but about its centrality to the faith practices of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. If the Septuagint was authoritative enough for the early Church, then dismissing large portions of it today requires more justification than your post provides.
@ The Catholic Church’s rejection of some books in the Septuagint (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees) does not undermine the argument for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books, as these were accepted through a rigorous canonization process. Conflating the entire Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books misrepresents the issue, and pointing to non-canonical books is a red herring that distracts from the central argument: Jesus and the early Church relied on the Septuagint, affirming its foundational role in Christian scripture.
@SnappyMcDragon
Your critique misrepresents the argument by assuming it claims Jesus’ quotation equals endorsement of every Septuagint book-a strawman fallacy. The argument emphasizes the Septuagint’s centrality in Jesus’ time and its widespread acceptance in the early Church. The post’s false equivalence between the Catholic Church’s discernment process and Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanon, along with cherry-picking and overgeneralization, weakens its critique. The Septuagint’s authority is grounded in its historical and theological use, not in an all-or-nothing approach.
The speaker left out key facts of the early church. For example he left out the fact that there were three Councils in the early church that dealt with which books made up the bible. The three councils were Rome (382), Hippo (393) and finally Carthage (397). At the Council of Carthage the Bible was finally approved with 73 books not 66! There were several attempts to change the number of books in the Bible once it was as approved including the attempt by Martin Luther. All attempts failed including Luther’s. The Catholic Bible of today contains the same 73 books as the Council of Carthage did.
Luther’s version of the bible contained 62 books. His personal interpretation of the bible necessitated the removal of the following books in the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.
In Revelation 22:18-22 deals with adding or deleting books from the bible. I guess Luther thought that if he deleted Revelation then he could add or delete as he saw fit.
The last important area is that was left out dealt with the Geneva and King James bibles. The Geneva Bible was first published the in 1565 with 80 books. The King James Bible was published in 1611 with the same 80 books. In 1881, theGeneva Bible deleted 14 books and the King James deleted the same14 books (Apocraphya) in 1885.i refer you again to Revelation, chapter 22.
I hope that if the speaker updates his presentation, he includes the full story of why the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
Thanks
I also recommend 'The Jewish Catholic '- UA-cam channel by Daniel
The parallelism between Catholic beliefs (Papacy, Marian dogmas, etc) and Jewish traditions are so mind-blowing ❤
You have a listening problem. Nothing Wes said denied the fact that there was disagreement among Christians over the canon. Different Christians and groups often had different canons, and some had the "Catholic" Bible while others had the "Protestant" form. This is not rocket science.
@@Jimmy-iy9plthee was no different Christian groups they were all Catholic at this time 🤦
The serious questions didn’t arise until
Luther 😊
@@catholicguy1073 That maybe true, they all were Catholic, but they seemingly had different canons. So tell us, how can someone be Catholic, if he's not using the Canon of the RCC today? Melito of Sardes (2nd century) lists the books from the Hebrew Bible as canon, missing not only the deuterocanonical books. Isn't he, a Saint, part of the Catholic Church?
As you can see, Luther didn't do it first!
1885 was because it was cheaper to print and made for a smaller bible easier to carry. Also America and uk were mainly Protestant and spoke English So that was huge market and it was cheaper to print
Wes, I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate all of your work, it has been extremely helpful to understand with more depth the faith and history of Christianity as a whole. I am Catholic, and I saw you saying you did not wanted to use any straw man, so .... I think you made an honest mistake when you said that Catholics worship the saints. If not, please present you prove and where does the Catholic Church teaches this. Thanks again for all of your work. God bless you.
Praise God, Wes answers so many of my questions. God bless this man
the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
So one of the key issues historically is that all we have from what was supposedly reported at the Council of Rome, particularly the statement form Damasus listing the canonical books, most likely didn't come from Damasus. The most up-to-date scholarship on the subject can only narrow Damasus's statements to a compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. Historically we have no true record that isn't under heavy debate as to its authenticy from the Council of Rome.
However, giving all of what you've said the benefit of the doubt, the Council of Rome was not a dogmatically binding ecumenical council, but rather, a local council. Even official Catholic president today recognizes that only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense. The Council of Rome does not fall under the criteria as a binding council for all. Therefore, even if Damasus's statements have authentic provenance (which I do not believe they do) the modern Roman Catholic cannot base these statements as magisterium ordinarium due to the Council of Rome being a local gathering.
@@WesHuff All recognized Orthodox Local councils are BINDING according to First Canon of the 7th Ecumenical council....
7th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , CANON 1
"we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled REGIONALLY for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. "
-----(CANON 1 , 7TH Ecumenical Council)
So, by this rule, we can now say that the Canon of Scripture with Deuterocanonical books promulgated in the Local Councils are Binding to the Whole Church....
Council of Rome(382A.D.)
councils of Hippo (393 A.D.)
Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
@@pinoysarisari7374 Not if the records of the CoR are inauthentic to the council but contrived much later - which much like other documents such as the Donation of Constantine - are used by the church to validate dogma but are in fact spurious. Which is almost certainly the case in this instance.
Likewise, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”
@@WesHuff the Pope never attacked the 7th ecumenical council...It is part of Catholic Dogma.... It is a recognized council of the Catholic church....
Second...the burden of proof is on you to prove that CANON 1 of the 7th Ecumenical council is Fake....
@@pinoysarisari7374 Im not sure we’re talking about the same thing. The statement of Demasus that supposedly came from the council of Rome can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Any connection to its provenance being earlier than that is speculation. As Bruce states in his commentary on the document:
“What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century” [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).
Correct me if I’m wrong but up until the reformation, those books was included in the Bible that was used universally? If so, doesn’t that just basically mean that they move them?
Yes. Before the reformation, the bible today and the apocrypha were used as one collective book. Throughout those times, the bible is believed and is announced as collections of books that contain words of God. The fact that they removed some books totally confused millions if the bible really is the word of God. Although the guy in the video admits that they don't really believe so.
The Protestants used the 73 book Bible until 1825. Get a pre-1825 copy of the KJV. It has 73 books.
So if you are a hard-core "it's 66 books!" kinda guy, you are adhering to a tradition set by the English Bible Society in the 19th century.
For many Protestants that whole "following traditions" thing is going to be hard to rectify.
If you have common sense. Yes
@@manny75586 I have a Lutheran bible in German that belonged to my grandmother printed in 1895 that has all 73 books.
@@manny75586that's not at all true, the books were in the Bibles but the doctrine was not the same, those books weren't seen as directly inspired scripture by Protestants.
1611 KJV included the apocrypha
It included them between the two testaments with a note saying that they weren't scripture.
@@rudycataldo3653wrong. Even Luther in his translation had a note after the “apocrypha” that said “thus concludes the Old Testament,” clearly indicating that they were apart of the OT. Protestant bibles included the deuterocanon up until the 19th century.
@@JH_Phillipsexactly
@@rudycataldo3653 how entitled are you protestant? the canon of the bible was closed on 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
@@rudycataldo3653Wrong
As an Orthodox Christian, our canon was continually affirmed by the Church through Councils being kinda of finalized at the Council of Trullo in 691 A.D. The Old Testament was the Septuagint (which included the deuterocanon) and the New Testament the 27 books. The NT quotes the deuterocanon, many times, and the early Church Fathers quote it, held it as inspired Scripture, until 4 centuries later when Jerome introduced innovations and his own subjective thinking, even attempting to deceive others to buy into his way of thinking concerning the deuterocanon.
However, you are mistaken and correct about the Jews holding to the Protestant Old Testament depending. You are correct if you are talking about the 2nd Century Jews post temple destruction who formed a Old Testament canon in response to Christians. But prior, the Jews were not a monolithic group, but each group of Jews held to different Scriptures, therefore there was no one canon of the Jews. This is where you are mistaken. But it all depends of what Jews and at what time in history you are talking about if you are right or wrong. Luther looked to 2nd century Jews. While the early one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the Orthodox Church today) was the one Church which held to the Septuagint and NT.
In the end, the Protestants did remove books, not Luther, but later Protestants influenced by Luther, his German Bible, setting aside the deuterocanon as an add on to his Bible, making it easier for (what became renamed from Deuterocanon to Apocrypha, to be later removed as non-scriptural books and uninspired. The Protestants are wrong for suggesting the Catholics added books. Luther looked to unbelieving Christ rejecting Jews from the 2nd Century to form their Old Testament and rejected the Church that preserved the canon, which Rome was once part of, but whom was excommunicated is 1054 A.D. for heresy. The Lutherans shortly after Luther’s death were in contact with the Orthodox Church and Eastern patriarch acknowledging that they were the true one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not Rome. Interesting history to consider.
For further info see ua-cam.com/users/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
Hey any videos u recomend to look into this
@@efilms5123 ua-cam.com/users/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
@@efilms5123revisit my first post for link
@@efilms5123revisit my post
@@efilms5123yes. Revisit my original post
Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.
Jews no longer had any authority after christ. So the protestants that used the masoretic were every wrong for doing so
5:29 remember Luther also wanted to remove James and Revelation
For those people who believe that the seven books are not canon then this is a Passage from the Book of Baruch(present only in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible)which provides a MESSIANIC prophecy which was Fulfilled in John1:14
Baruch 3:35-37:"This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the ways of Knowledge , and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel His Beloved. Afterwards HE was SEEN upon Earth and Conversed with MEN"
🙃🙃🫠😂
This seems like a reference to Exodus 24:10, the giving of the law and all the subsequent theophanies.
also Wisdom chapter 2 has messianic prophecy
then why roman catholic treat Mary like a god
@@tombadua5474 they dont
@@tombadua5474your question presumes something that is false. You are attacking a strawman.
Wes, Catholics do not “worship” Saints. Catholics venerate Saints. Worship is due to God alone, veneration is honor given to God’s creatures.
Sounds like when Muslims say they don’t worship the black stone.
@@SeanBeatsMapsonRight. Word gymnastics.
We're all sinners and all need grace. Every Saint is a sinner saved by grace and therefore God and God alone gets all glory. The Bible literally says we have one intercessor and that is the God Man Christ Jesus. No human anywhere ever deserves veneration, to be prayed to, or anything. God says you will bow only to Him.
@@ramzilla873
Although my comment was directed to Wes, I will reply to your comment, though not to every point as my time doesn't permit. On this we agree: "We are all sinners and need grace and God alone gets all the glory". The Saints that Catholics venerate were exactly such people. By God's grace, they were able to rise above the sin in their lives and practice virtue to a heroic degree. When Catholics venerate (honor) these Saints they recognize how the grace of God worked in their lives, and thus God is glorified through His creature. When any part of the Body of Christ, you and I, cooperate with God's grace, God Himself is glorified. Veneration simply means honor, and Christians should honor those who gave example of holy lives and strive to imitate their example.
@SeanBeatsMapson Haha. You really don't knw Basic Acient Church History. Thank the Catholic church for your Bible and for them defending Christianity against Muslims. They fought for Christ and the Church. Remember Protestants didn't exist until the late 15th 16 century. If you go to any old countries in the world there Catholic along with a couple other APOSTOLIC churches. But no baby PROTESTANTS. God bless. Oh yeah and the Jews don't even believe in Jesus. So why trust their Canon of the Jews. They alone where divided and couldn't agree in it. God bless. And God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🕊
Thanks Wes,
Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.
No he can’t. The Catholics codified the canon several times going back to 382 if I got the year right. Every Bible ever printed had 73 books from the Catholic Church. There were competing canons at the time of Christs life you have the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon. The books weren’t in dispute and he’s misleading you on this
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Nowhere , you can read @mikecrawford8394 comment
Because Wesley removed an important historical information
lol…. 2 yrs later…. *crickets*
@@mathewmartin4917lol..... He didn't reply to a comment...........
You really got him good!
They don't. Wes was dishonest with that comment. Just as he was dishonest with not answering the question if protestants removed those books from the Bible. He says that they aren't removed during the Reformation, but doesn't clarify that they were removed by protestants 300 years later during the 19th century.
This video never mentioned the Council of Rome or Counsel of Hippo (late 300s early 400s). Nor is Jerome statement that “if the Church accepts these books, so do I”. Augustine says the same thing. The Jews never completely disavowed the 7 books until the Rabbinical traditions in the 2nd century. Read Wisdom and you will realize why the Jews hated that book. It led many Jews to Christianity. Here is the elephant in the room. All Christians Bibles from the 4 century on had the 8:15 books. Also, almost all references to the Old Testament scriptures in the the New Testament come from the Septuagint Greek OT which included the 7 extra books. If it was good enough for Mathew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, etc. it should be good enough for all Christians. I will give those videos credit for mentioning that the dueterocanocals were used to explain Catholic doctrine. The video should have included the debate between Luther and Johan Juss. When Juss cornered Luther on the “Bible Alone” he did 16th century version of a “Mic drop” and slapped down a Bible and had Luther turn to Mac 12:46. Luther decided this was a good time to claim the Duetrocanicol scriptures were not scripture. First time that happened since the confusion before Pope Damusus in the 4th century.
The prologue and epilogue to Esther (not additional books but excluded from the Protestant bibles as they were not written by Mordecai) are useful as their style in the apocalyptic writing popular at the time, as applied to the Book of Ester provide valuable insight into interpretation of Revelation, much of which was written in similar language.
Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?
The official canonization of the Bible occurred at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Those that took part of the council were 400+ bishops (all Catholics) from all over the then-known Christian world.
Council of Rome was planned, executed, supervised & overseen by the then Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I.
The books used by the Orientals & Coptics are not inspired, because they were not approved by the council. In other words, because they had no authority to add those books, just as Luther had no authority to remove the 7+ books (his Apocrapha), that had always been part of the Biblical Canon. Luther removed them because he did not believe in Purgatory. In all of church history, no church member, nor clergy ever denied the Deuterocanonical, before the Reformation.
Shouldn't that be a "red flag?"
*2 Maccabees 12: 38-46*
38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 This is demonstrably false history revisionism.
Go read Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" written in AD 391. He clearly defines the OT canon, and explicitly excludes the Apocrypha (his word). The word Deuterocanon didn't even exist until 1566. Literally everyone in history referred to those books as "Apocrypha" prior to that. The word means "hidden", but it wasn't used in the same sense that we think of it as "secret". It was moreso used in the sense of books that were "separate" from Scripture.
As far as the NT goes, none of those books are in dispute. So it's not relevant when or how they were formally canonized. We all agree on all of them, so they're not part of the debate on the canon.
@@KFish-bw1om I'll start with your last paragraph, then correct the rest.
The founder of your faith, Martin Luther removed, not only the Dueterocanonicals, but he also tried to remove James, Hebrew, Job & even Revelation. Each had stiff disagreements with his own faith ideology. Maccabees - Purgatory. James - Faith W/out works. Revelation - spoke of visions which he thought were opposite of the teachings of the apostles. Jude - He believed was a copy of 2 Peter and appears to have been written long after the time of the disciples. NTM, in his 1st translation he literally added the word "alone" after the word faith, because Y personally think he felt he was wrong about "Sola Fide."
It's a Holiday, so I'll finish up when I get home this Eve. Enjoy the day, God Bless your family.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now.
For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?-
- Psalm 18:31
Here, I'll do it with one question:
Was the Council of Constance infallible?
If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Islam and Mormonism are defeated. By it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false.
Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now.
For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?-
- Psalm 18:31
Here, I'll do it with one question:
Was the Council of Constance infallible?
If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Is Salami and Joe Smith (words modded for the Tube) are defeated, by it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false.
Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism.
❤
Can you provide evidence for your claim, because the Apocrypha was never included in any Hebrew Old Testament and no New Testament writer ever referred to or quoted from the Apocrypha.
The deuterocanon are actually in the dead sea scrolls. Heretics altered the bible.
The Protestant Bible does contain the Apocryphal books, but they are under reference material. Martin Luther never 'removed' books from the traditional Bible...that is a old wives tale perpetuated by Catholic and Orthodox alike.
@@redit5332 No, he decided to remove it from it's context, with zero authority to do so. The British bible society removed it to save money in the mid 1800's. Also, with zero authority to do so. Heretics helping heretics.
@@redit5332 And who gave luther the authority to re-categorize SCRIPTURE as "reference material"? Luther was of the devil, and he did the devils bidding. He wrought chaos and division.
Lord, continue to raise up this young, brilliant and sound mind for your glory.
To think that one man, Martin Luther, decided unilaterally to exclude those seven books is one thing but for all those who used this as an excuse to believe that he alone made the right decision and accept the Bible with those omissions is amazing.
Luther never intended to create the facture within the Church that occurred he merely wanted the Church to acknowledge the issues and at least address them.
Very true
I thought Wesley wouldn't be like this but it seems he depends more on his PhD instead of being Humble enough to consider the Big picture 🤦🤦
Go to Google type in "Prologus Galeatus", find it in the search results and read it.
You know that Luther had 75 books in his translation, right? It is only after the 19th century that Protestant Bibles (thanks to BFBS and others) started to exclude the Apocrypha. It is just that we do not consider these books canonical as the rest of Scripture as the Ancient Jews have done so as well. Useful, but not scriptural.
@@koltersandsthe problem is that the Jews who didn’t consider them scripture didn’t come about until 250ad. And still after that they argued over them, up into the 600’s.
@NevetsWC1134 The Council of Jamnia was in 90 A.D. which excluded the Apocrypha in the Jewish Canon, our Old Testament. Sure, there are the Essenes in Qumran who included other texts, but they were not considered super orthodox to ancient Jewish thought. We find this Josephus as well (Against Apion, Book 1, Section 8) about the Canon being the Tanakh before the first century.
Edit: about the Canon being the Tanakh before the first century.
I appreciate the video. I’m actually converting to Catholicism. I think you made a good point on the contention of the books; however, from my understanding, the Jews at the time were split on Jesus being the Messiah. So I don’t think they have the final say on Biblical Canon. I’ve also heard many claim the Catholic Church is responsible for compiling the Bible.
bro blew up! you had 250K subs before Joe Rogan. now 305K - Praise God man, keep working for the kingdom.
Can any one show us a single codex before 16th century with just 66 books...???🤔
I think Taylor Marshall has a video on this. If the seven books are not important, the apostles would not have used it in their preaching.
I say they’re important in the video. However, they’re not inspired Scripture. Don’t forget that Paul quotes the Stoic Mernander and Euripides in 1. Cor. 15:33, Epimenides in Titus 1:12, as well as Seneca in Acts 17. I don’t think anyone thinks that his usefulness of relevant literature means that those pagan philosophers should be included in the canon.
It's either they're scripture or not. This compromise of "not as authoritative" is patronising and lame.
whatever happened with "all scripture is God-breathed" (inspired)?
@@WesHuff excellent brief summary & defense of the Hebrew Bible/Protestant OT canon! I just had a brief discussion on the Gospel Simplicity channel defending the historicity of the Protestant OT canon if you want to check it out. I also wrote a book on it: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," as well as debated Roman Catholics, such as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, Gary Michuta, Dr. Robert Sungenis, & Tim Gordon. Blessings! Steve Christie.
@georgelee3267 I addressed Dr. Marshall's arguments in the comments section below his video. He had no answer.
Protestant evangelical here -- i would love to know more about when and why they were actually removed. If I recall they were in all the protest bibles including king james up to the 19th century?
I definitely profited from reading them. The fact that they were included in bibles for roughly 1800 years does give me pause.
I like how he says "worship" of the saints.
Who is worshipping saints?
Better yet, what is worship?
Worship of the saints? Did he say that right? I’m not sure the Catholics hold on to that.??
Nope, most certainly not.
We honour the Saints, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Worship is for God, alone.
No catholic would ever say they worship any saint or Mary. However what people say and how they act are two different things. There are many catholic practices that warrent great suspicion, that, although the catholics may not call it worship, does look an awful lot like it in many ways
@Dave-lh6ws why would they lie about it? Surely if they felt Our Lady was worthy of worship, they would say as much?
Could it possibly be that Protestants have the wrong impression?
Yeah, I'd wager that's the issue.
We honor, or venerate the Saints, we do not worship them. We only worship God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2096 Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love. "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," says Jesus, citing Deuteronomy. 13 (We use old timey language, and Adoration meant what worship means now)
Baltimore Catechism 3 Lesson 17 Question 214
“The veneration paid to the saints in heaven differs essentially from the adoration of God. The saints are creatures and are not to be given the supreme worship due to the Creator alone. The supreme honor given to God only is adoration in the full and strict sense of the word. The veneration given to the Blessed Mother and to the saints is an act of respect and honor of an entirely different nature. The veneration given to the Blessed Mother of God surpasses that given to the saints and angels.”
The precise terms in latin are actually interesting. We give dulia, or honor to the Saints. We give protodulia to Saint Joseph, which is higher than regular dulia. It basically means “first honored”. And then we give Hyperdulia to Mary, which is greater than even that. And then finally, we give Latria, or worship, to God alone.
@Save-lh6ws So basically your admitting that because it seems like worship to you, that you just assume it is?
I learn a lot anytime I listen to you. Thank you and God bless you.
Brilliant. This is actually some thing that has been hitting at my heart lately. I’m very happy that there is somebody who has actually done the research bringing it all together. I think if you keep it up you could be very big. God definitely walks with me and I can tell you that what you’re showing me shows that God walks with you as well.
For someone with so much historical knowledge and who so beautifully understands and describes the gospel and overall depth and meaning of Christianity, I am thoroughly surprised that you have said nothing about the Eucharist. The DIATHEKE. Christ and Paul both only referred to DIATHEKE in regards to the Eucharistic bread and wine along with the first through fourth century church fathers and the apostles Didache. The eyes of the two disciples on the road to emmaus were not opened until the breaking of the bread… this is literally the new covenant in the sacramental taking of the Eucharist and scripture is in its natural habitat while being read in the Eucharistic liturgy, Roman Catholics, Eastern Ortho, and Martin Luther all agree on the real presence and the importance of the Eucharist.
What say you, Wes?
I am a cradle RC and I am learning a lot from you. I found you from that debate you had with BC. I am so glad that it showed on my feed because I have been wondering about those forgeries and was getting confused. I love that you are stating facts and aware of your biases. I have subscribed on your podcast. Thank you for the work that you do. It is most important. Also, I love that you are debating in a Christ like manner. I can sense that your intention is not to serve yourself but for God’s glory.
Why is the Prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-20 fulfilled by Christ. (Referenced in Matthew 27 40-44)- and why is this book not included in the Protestant bible, Even though the early church/church fathers affirm this and the 7 Catholic books as fully scriptural.
Why does the Pharisee text “The Kaige Recension” affirm Baruch and Duetero-Daniel as fully scriptural in the first century BEFORE Christ?
Why do Protestants affirm the shorter Old Testament cannon when a Normative-Hebrew text was only established after/around Rabbi Akiba denounces that the “Evangelium” (Gospel) along with the additional OT books (7 Catholic books) as not inspired by God around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt 132ad? (A century after Christ)
Proof texts: Tosefta Yadayim 2:13
Why do Protestants keep affirming the OT was closed before Christ when there is authoritative rabbinic evidence that the Cannon was not closed even AFTER the time of Christ?
Proof Text: Mishnah Yadayim 3:5
Why does Scholarly consensus reject a closed cannon before 70AD?
The Catholic Church doesn’t worship the Saints…🤦♂️
Yeah we don’t worship Mary and the Saints we venerate them and have great respect for them ,but our worship is reserved for God alone
@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic Sematics.
Did you know Mary had children after Jesus was born? Mary was a sinner, though saved by God's grace through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, God the Son. She died a sinner saved by Grace. Also, dead people can't hear you. So, invoking Mary's name...or any other Saint...are just vain whisperings. That's why we pray and speak to a living God.
Every statement I've made has Biblical support. So, try again. 😊
@@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic is bowing down a form of worship?
Isn't Mary worshipped?
@Nadiahope7 Definitely. They might try to deny it, but the worship of Mary is in their doctrine...written down
..and in the prayers they say.
Mary usurps Jesus in many ways.
I appreciate the more open and honest delivery of your video vs. the one I just watched before. The previous one was very overly biased towards their point of view, but I like that you gave your opinion but weren't nearly as biased.
Thanks for teaching me! Really cleared up the confusion.
Excuce me but you believe in the Masoretic text which isn't the old Hebrew text because it was written the 5-6 century after Christ and was completed until 900 AD.The Septuagint was the complete translation of the Hebrew bible in Greek from 72 jew Scholars 300 Bc.If you dont except the Septuagint bible then you accept the quotations of Paul that to the Septuagint.Hebrews is one of those chapters!And many more...
Hey brother well presented video. I think it all boils down to who did Jesus give the authority too to decide what books are canon. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to the Apostles not to the Jewish rabbis who would meet at Jamnia to discuss what books are canon in response to the rise of Christianity. The council of Rome in 381, by apostolic authority has more weight than jamnia on who decides what books should be in the Bible. The council of Trent dogmatically defining the list of books we have in our Catholic bibles is because a group of Christians broke away and usurped authority and was determined to change the Bible to fit its own theology of justification. But all scripture is given for doctrine reproof and teaching in righteousness that also includes what Protestants consider apocrypha. The Septuagint, codex sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, the vulgate all contain some or all of these apocryphal books so Christians were using these books for all of the above to walk with Jesus Christ and build his church. Why should we listen to Luther’s view of what is scripture when he took the side of masorite rabbis on what books to use for his Old Testament. These rabbis Definitely do not believe Jesus is the messiah so why trust their view on what books are Old Testament. But Martin Luther needed to prove his view of justification so he took out those books. God bless bro!
Peace be with you my Catholic friends on here. Protestant here. A thought crossed my mind. Does Jesus mention the ‘other books’? I know there is mention of Enoch in the letter of Judas but does Jesus speak of them?
My background, 3 year AD theology student. Wish I went further but decided to become a missionary.
Cheers and Shalom.
This appears to be very biased and deceptive. No mention of the Septuagint. No mention that Luther also considered removing Revelations, James, Jude and Hebrews. And what about the Orthodox Canon.
He said theres a longer video on this topic he made. Go watch that one
And Luther added the word "alone" after faith that was never there before and contradicts with other scripture.
@@skipper7090 How many scripture would I need to sight that expresses the idea of being saved by faith alone before you would except it?
I don't know of any scripture that contradicts it either. I also see this in modern translations that are closer to the greek and not written by Luther.
@@viperstriker4728 James 2:14-26 explicitly and directly contradicts faith alone.
@@skipper7090 You could interpret James as works being needed. But it can also be interpreted as the works of the evidence of faith. Verse 18 "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
I think that interpretation is correct because it puts it in harmony with verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."
I think this is mostly a semantic difference. As I believe anyone who has real faith will do works. The only difference is are the works the result of faith? Or are they done in addition to faith? Either way we both believe the works will be done by those who are saved.
Would you agree with how I described the difference?
And what consequences do you see in believing in faith alone vs faith plus works?
1:30 it’s definitely not inaccurate, it is well documented that Luther wanted books removed so that it may better fit his narrative. Also I may add that saying that your Old Testament is the same as the Second temple Jews is fact enough. My question would be, why and when did the Orthodox add if the Prod bible is right?
I don’t think he was making the case that books cannot be added or taken from the Bible, which I know Catholics like to hang their coat on a lot. I think he was making the case that the original agreed-upon Bible as we know it was locked in in the fourth century and only one time after that did Catholics and Catholics alone change it. That’s the case he’s making, it’s not so much about the reformation because it’s almost excepting the premise that the reformation was essentially a correction. I’m sure you were disagreed but that’s the way it goes across history why was Martin Luther the only case for a reformation? Easy answer is because there is only one time where the extra canonical books were prescribed by a small sect of Christians
Thank you for bringing clarity to this issue. You laid it out very well and I learned some things :) I would highly recommend David W. Daniel's vlog videos on the Chick Tracts youtube channel on the Apocrapha. He lays out what the KJV translators thought about the issue, and also goes into some of the problems with some of those books, including anti-Biblical teachings (not just unBiblical), and historical innacuracies. You should have a sit down interview with him, actually. He's got some very in-depth and well researched criticisms of some very highly held beliefs and manuscripts, AND was in training to be a Bible translator, biased against the KJV by his professors, and over many years of research reluctantly came to acccept the KJV as God's preserved words in English. You might disagree at this point, but reach out to him, just to have a discussion/interview, you might find it fascinating :)
God bless.
Wes I have a question. 🙋🏽♂️ if many people viewed Paul’s statement as a means to only accept the Jewish writings why was Luke accepted?
What do you mean? This video is about the Old testament, not the New.
3:10 The canon of Jewish Scriptures was not fixed among jews before the end of the second century. Scholarly deliberations on the status of certain books continued into the third century (THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, "THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE", fn. 33). Protestants decided to reject the canon of Scripture promulgated by The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D., long before the Reformation. The Bible is a catholic canon, and protestants deny the authority on which it was compiled and promulagted; this means that they rest on their own authority to reject the longstanding official canon of Scripture, which is an extremely faulty foundation.
That's not accurate. And...he's giving the lesson...not you. So why comment with your own wrong data? So strange...
You have presented no argument. What I said is factual. @alexrecalde3420
Below is a brief timeline for clarity:
AD 367 - St. Athanasius of Alexandria sent out his 39th Festal Letter, which listed the 27 New Testament books we recognize today.
AD 382 - Council (or Synod) of Rome under Pope Damasus I produced a list consistent with the later councils.
AD 393 - Synod of Hippo recognized the same 73 books the Catholic Church regards as canonical.
AD 397 and 419 - Third and subsequent Councils of Carthage reiterated and confirmed Hippo’s canon.
1545-1563 - Council of Trent issued a dogmatic decree definitively listing the same 73 books in the Catholic canon.
Doesn’t Paul refer to the Septuagint version of scripture in Roman’s 3:10-18, Galatians 3:13, Roman’s 4:3, Roman’s 9:27-28, and 1 Corinthians 15:54-55?
And doesn’t the Septuagint include all these books?
Such a simplistic video. Please consider having a debate with a Catholic on the matter.
I do believe protestantism removed books from the Bible.
Mr Huff, with all the respect due, I thought that the the Orthodox also had that same Od Testament as the Catholics, therefore it's not just a Catholic vs Protestant debate
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Well said.
Wrong the first septuagint is only the five books of moses, and during the 1st century AD, the Jews in their synagogues used Hebrew scriptures not septuagint, and Jesus specifically mentioned the writings of moses and the prophets and the writings as scriptures(btw the current masoretic texts is categorised as such) Jesus did not say that the septuagint Greek scrolls as scriptures and Jesus didn't live in diaspora as did the Jews he preached to.
Jesus did not say the "writings" he said the law, the prophets and the psalms, never used to include all the current "writings" of today hebrew bible
I think your claim about the timeline of the Jewish canon is inaccurate. There was no agreed-upon canon during the time of Christ, and it’s my understanding is that it was the Masoretes that first defined the modern Hebrew canon and started rejecting books not written in Hebrew. This would have been centuries after the time of Christ’s incarnation, and would thus be non-authoritative. It would also mean that the Catholic canon is actually older, as it’s source is the Septuagint.
I’m afraid we have Jewish canon lists as early as Josephus’ numbers in the late 1st / early 2nd century (which match both modern and Protestant books and do not include the Deuterocanonical texts). I’d also recommend my video on the Septuagint as, with all due respect, the mistake you’re making is a common one. The Septuagint is a modern category of translational texts and neither functioned as a canonical list nor was one single thing - but rather is the over arching term to refer to a single stream (there are multiple) of Greek translational documents of Hebrew documents. In the formal sense none of the Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint because they have no Hebrew originals but were penned in Greek to begin with.
Jesus would have been well aware of these extra books and sometimes referred to them in his teachings. Doesn't matter whether or not the Jewish leaders canonized the Old Testament or not. Protestants follow the teachings of an 'insane' Catholic Monk named Martin Luther.
"its source is the septuagint"
where did the septuagint come from if there was no jewish canon
and also, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC Because that is what was recognized as 'inspired' when the Bible was canonized in 382 AD. Personal opinions, such as yours, or how Jewish canon changed after that date doesn't matter.
@@WesHuffYour response is incorrect. Josephus does not include or exclude any book. He just says their books are 22 in number. That does not support the 39 book Protestant canon. Did he exclude Esther? Did he include Baruch with Jeremiah? What did he think about Wisdom?
You are reading into a number the Protestant list. Josephus’ list cannot by itself substantiate a Protestant canon. Must also acknowledge the bias of the author (Josephus) being a Pharisee. Did his canon list match up with the Essenes (who had a larger corpus)? What about the Sadducees?
@WesHuff great work that your doing, is it possible for you to 1 day dialog with @Gary Michuta about the Canon/Septuagint..please would be great to learn from you both. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Was there an agreed cannon of the Old Testament at the time of Jesus? ABSOLUTELY NONE.
It is strange not to mention how there is a canon of the bible according to the councils of the Church
I would love to see Wes have a discussion with Alex from Cosmic Sceptic and Dr Justin Sledge from ESOTERICA.
Tbh, as a Chinese dude, I wasn’t expecting that closing music. It made me think „is it lunar new year already?“ 😂
I like the way Huff approaches things, but the fact that he said "Catholics worship saints" casts doubt on his intellectual honesty.
Just because you call it a lower degree of worship doesn't mean it's not worship.
@@franceshaypenny8481 can you honor someone without it being considered worship? The answer is obviously yes. It's not worshipping it's veneration.
As a Protestant, it took me a long time to understand how Catholics differentiate between worship and prayer/veneration. Just because he wasn’t being precise in his wording doesn’t necessarily mean he was being intellectually dishonest and biased against Catholics. Maybe he just needs a clearer explanation
💯
you worship them. quit denying it or depart from jesus forever and join satan in the lake of fire. IDOLATER’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m glad this video admits that early Jewish writings before Jesus can be used as proof texts for purgatory and intercessory prayers
They can anachronistically and eisagetically be proof texted. There's a difference. There's a reason neither of those concepts are believed in either ancient or modern Judaism, despite the inaccurate use of said texts in the developments of extra-biblical teachings within the church.
@@WesHuff
Oh? Jewish people, then as now, STILL pray for the dead.
Modern Jewish people do not recognize the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but they do believe in a purification process after death. This process is often referred to as Gehenom, which is sometimes thought of as a place that is part purgatory, part hell, and part passageway.
What’s going on? The entire comments section is owning the author. Silence is deafening
Purgatory was only introduced by pope Gregory the great in the 6th century but it was later before it became effective to accumulating money for the dead. It was used by pope sixtus in acquiring money in indulgences while he was building the Sistine church He sent his people around Europe to collect money.
Purgatory is for profit and funds and is based on pagan beliefs
Chris, sit down with Dr. Scott Hahn. It would be amazing.
6:22 Please note, Catholics do not “worship” the saints. Also, when was the canon of the old testament closed by the Jewish leaders?
3-4 century AD
He uses the warn out Josephus argument even though most historians contend that Josephus was lying and Philo did not say anything remotely as to what he is implying if you just read scholarly sources on the matter.
Some notable mistakes mainly by way of either mistaken or purposeful "omissions" including one blatantly false statement. Catholics do not "worship" saints.
These errors lead me to believe that the sources used by Protestants, are written by Protestants. Why wouldn't a committed Christian learn about the Catholic faith, by using Catholic sources. If you trust the popes & other bishops with your Bible (from which you base your entire salvation) ... why not the rest of their historical accounts & writings? Can someone/anyone make sense of this?
Imagine someone says, "I'm feeling blue." Another person replies, "That is blatantly false. Blue is a color, not a feeling." The problem here is that the conversationalists are using the same word in different ways. This is what I see happening between Catholics and Protestants with the word "worship."
A Protestant may accuse Catholics of idolatry (worshipping statues, saints, Mary, etc.) because the Catholic's behavior falls under a Protestant framework of worship. However, since the Catholic's behavior does not fall under a Catholic framework of worship, a Catholic will deny the accusation of idolatry. The two are using the same word in different ways.
@@anne.ominous In part, I agree with you. Ex: Catholics do not "worship" Mary, we "honor" her. In Canada & I think Britain, their justice of the peace is called "Your Worship" and in America ... "Your Honor."
However, the above is no longer realized. Protestants, believe worship, is worship, therefore raising Catholic saints to God's level. I'm not certain they truly believe this, or if it is only used to create more space between us.
I thought there'd be more interest in this. It seems few to none wish to challenge themselves.
Wes, when Protestants often use the term "Roman" in front of "Catholic," the attempt is to isolate, minimize, and weaken, what should simply be called "the Catholic Church. Using the term "Roman" is separating them from the other 23 other rites that make-up the one CC, under the full authority of the Pope, who happens to live in Rome. Not accusing you, but others knowingly using the term "Roman" is a slight to the rest of the rites. Knowing a couple of Byzantine Catholics, feel they are put into a lesser "Catholic" category, or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Anyway, all of this, including the "worship" of saints, tells me that you only care about what Prot. Scholars think about Protestantism. There appears to be no desire to understand the other side. That's not fair to your audience, nor you.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 I’m confused. Was that comment intended for me?
@@anne.ominous No, you made a good point. ... Besides you, I thought there would be more participation.
Thank you for a very helpful and instructive explanation of this issue 🙂👍
I love the confused look you give in the thumbnail. Way to show off your skillful eyebrows
I know I’m in over my head, you are way more educated than me, but I don’t understand why you say Catholics worship saints. I’m assuming you believe the same about the Eastern Orthodox. Additionally you only looked at the Roman Catholic and Protestant dispute over the canon, ignoring the Eastern Orthodox canon.
Catholics pray to and venerate the Saints. Considering Wes’s level of expertise, one can fairly safely assume that his use of the term ‘worship’ is just an accidental misnomer.
@@Carlosreadspraying is a form of worship
Catholism and Orthodoxy have a common background, to then have a split over certains doctrines.
But the roots are the same.
EOs have been able to slide by for years because of their lack of interaction with protestants. Now, with the new EO Presuppositionalists, they are going to have to be addressed.
Yeah, Protestants are ignorant like that. They seem quite arrogant not realizing that the Reformation brought only splintering of the faith into literally thousands of pointless denominations. It diluted Christian faith, doubtful Jesus wanted that.
Wes is doing incredible work in mainstream internet culture. I am shocked to see his lack of knowledge with respect to an issue like this. Have you not heard of the Septuagint?
“Worship of the saints” who worships the saints? Very misleading
Catholics
Wes,you remind me of a friend i had growing up,he was a great friend,he moved to Colorado to build houses.One night he got into a wreck and got threw out of his car,it messed his brain up and he's never been the same,he was an atheist and it hurts me to think he may be in danger of rejection I would like to know if there's any way he could be saved. I hope to meet you sometime and learn from someone who knows the history of our existence,until now and beyond.✝️👍
As a protestant, I think all Christians should read the apocrypha. Regardless of whether it is authoritative, It has great and informative writings. I believe having this mindset about these books is the best way to be consistent with the early church.
@g.h_-heart-_bunny😂😂😂inspired my ass
@G.H._bunnyit’s the Bible
Saying Catholics worship saints is so wild. Huge credibility hit for anything you say regarding the Catholic vs Protestant debate, at least outside of the realm of your historical textual knowledge
Sorry but I've heard some discussions with Catholic apologists and they use the word worship, they just say the worship given to God is different from the worship given to saints. I'm not sure if it was Trent Horn who made these statements, but I know it was a leading Catholic apologist.
@ckjaytheactual I've seen much of trents work and never heard him do that. Either way, there's a distinction being made right there between the different meanings behind the use of the word, effectively separating them. No Catholic, especially an apologist, would say we "worship" saints, let alone without then making very clear of the intended definition of the word
Please reference the last paragraph of a "hail Mary". Do you call her a holy queen? Yes? Then how are you not worshiping her? There are far deeper heresies that we can pull from that paragraph too.
@@Ray12121 That isnt worship lol. Are you worshipping the queen of England when you recognize her status? My goodness. Read the old testament describing the davidic kingdoms. The queen was the queen mother. Let alone the description in revelation of the mother of Jesus being crowned. You guys need to humble yourselves and recognize that you don't understand the Bible the way you think you do.
@@ricardoamaya2500 what is she queen of? Please finish the thought.
Thank you for this video, your knowledge is very useful. Thanks for sharing.
Protestants get this wrong so much it is sad. The Apocrypha was removed in 1825 to save on printing costs, before that it was reclassified (without authority to do so) by Martin Luther so he could win theological debates and remove what he had difficulty reconciling with personally. The deuterocanonical books were part of scripture (Jewish and christian) long before the masoretic canon was written in the 3rd century. The Apostles, early Church fathers, and Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which was the Jewish text since around 200 B.C. protestants have a false Bible that removed scripture and thus lost connection to the Apostles and the Church of Christ
This guy knows his facts!!! 😃🙏🏼✝️📖🕊️⛪️
"Martin Luther so he could win theological debates" He definetely tried to do that with James. But he really believed the masoretic text was the 'original' one
I mean Wes huff is a scholar and probably knows a lot more than you
@@saultarango-rosales4230Do you not understand that everything this guy said is said by other scholars? So what do we do now? My scholar is better than yours? This is common history, fact check yourself everything
This 🙏🏽
6:23 "Worship of the saints" and you know nothing about Catholicism.
I just think it makes the most sense to accept and go along with the teachings of the largest, oldest, and most consistent church of the faith. Majority of Protestantism is the result of people interpreting scripture with the point of view they prefer and not just surrendering to gods word.
Luther removed seven book and tried to remove another four books, because they disagreed with his new theology.
how can he fail to remove four if you claim he already removed seven
makes no sense, you can't have it go both ways
also, really convenient how the only books from the septuagint that the catholics canonized at trent were the only ones that could be used against protestants
remind me again, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC other Protestants would not let him remove those four New Testament books
The 16th century canon of Trent was same as the original 4th century canon of Rome.
@@fantasia55 no it wasn't, previous councils included other books, trent narrowed it down to the convenient ones
@@InitialPC "The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century."
I suggest to all my protestant friends pick up a Catholic bible and read the books omitted. Some of them are beautiful. As a Catholic, we do not worship saints. Worship belongs to the trinity alone.
No, but you guys worship Mary over Jesus 💯 and you can't deny it, because I've personally witnessed, time and time again, Catholics putting her on a level with God!!!
The Bible even warns about those who worship the "queen of heaven," which is what Catholics call her ( there's even a queen of heaven Catholic Church nearby me)!!!!
If any of you truly read the Holy Bible, and contemplated and thought on the Words, you would realize that Catholicism is heresey, sacrilegious, and blasphemous 💯
There are some important details left out about the formation of the canon. As mentioned in a previous comment, there was no settled canon of Scripture among the Jews of Jesus's time: the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of Moses, and the Pharisees accepted a larger portion that included the books Protestants accept as OT Scripture. Around 250 B.C., due to the increasing number of Jews in the Diaspora who could not read Hebrew, the OT books were translated into Greek, and this was called the Septuagint, meaning 70, referring to the 70 or 72 scholars who worked on translating it. This was the most widely used and was quoted by Jesus and the apostles over 300 times in the NT. The deuterocanicals were included in this version of the OT Scriptures. In the early Church, there was no set canon of Scripture because there were no means, in the centuries of persecution, for the Church to make a definitive determination binding on the whole Church, and so individual bishops would determine what books they considered Sacred Scripture, and after the Church came out "above ground," so to speak, it became apparent that bishops had come up with different lists of books considered Scripture, so that had to be addressed. It's true that St Jerome initially was in favor of the shorter Hebrew canon, but that was largely due to having worked with Jewish biblical scholars who didn't accept the deuterocanonicals. However, once the Church determined the canon authoritatively (initiated by Pope St Damasus I in 382 at the Council of Rome and other regional councils in Hippo-393 and Carthage-397, which all approved the same canon as still used by the Catholic Church), St Jerome wrote a letter acknowledging his submission to the Church’s judgment. However, this 73 book canon wasn't binding on the whole Church until Pope Innocent I approved this canon in 405, which closed the canon for good. This canon was reaffirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 and solemnly defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the 16th century due to the rejection of it by Protestants. About 1,100 years went by before being widely challenged by Protestants. Incidentally the Orthodox churches also have the deuterocanonicals in their OT (in addition to a few more that aren't in either the Catholic or Protestant OTs). Protestants are the only ones who reject the deuterocanonicals. They accept the determination of the NT canon established by the Catholic Church but not the OT canon. If the Church got it wrong on the OT, what is the basis for believing the Church got it right on the NT? And why would God leave Christians in serious error about the content of the Bible for 1,100 years? And with three different canons of the OT being established by Christians (Catholic Orthodox and Protestant), how do we know, from objective evidence and authority, which one is correct? This is a huge, foundational issue to investigate. As an evangelical Protestant for 20 years, I never once learned how we got the Bible (and, honestly, never thought about it). It wasn't until I read an Orthodox publication (published by Franky Schaeffer, a convert to Orthodoxy and son of the late Protestant writer, Francis Schaeffer) in which I learned that it was the Church that determined the canon of Scripture and determined which books and letters of the OT and NT were inspired by God -- we got the Bible through the Church (which was the Catholic Church, because it was the only one that existed in the 4th century), which was absolutely earth shattering to me because it clearly destroyed Sola Scriptura as a foundational truth of Christian belief. I converted to the Catholic faith in 1998, for which I continue to praise and thank God for many reasons, but one is for the greater knowledge, understanding and reverence for Scripture than I ever had as an evangelical Protestant (and I don't mean that as a knock down because I owe it to the very high view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture held by the different Protestant denominations I belonged to imparted to me a deep confidence in and love for Holy Scripture). Don't take my word for it-- check it out for yourself 🙏✝️
At minute 6:15 you state,
“Nonetheless traditions that the рарасy held to as doctrine like that of
purgatory uh worship of the saints and prayer for the dead could be proof texted out of many of the
deuterocanonical books and this was defended as scripture”
Catholics do not teach teach worship of saints. Worship belongs only to God alone. Show me where the Catechism ever teaches anyone to worship anything other than God?
@WesHuff intellectually disingenuous
You realize saints are in the grave not in heaven in tell Christ's return
The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.
You're wrong on both instances.
If it was a settled issue in the 4th century than why did Pope Gregory the Great argue that Maccabees wasn't scripture in his commentary on Job? Why did the Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan agree with Luther on the non-inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books? Why did Erasmus write extensively about them not being scripture and argue for a smaller OT canon?
For the record, while Luther did have strong words regarding the text of James, the idea he wanted it removed is nonsense. All you have to do is read his sermons on James and his translation notes in his German Bible to know he thought it was fully scripturally inspired and never anywhere advocates for its removal.
@@WesHuff Neither are false. Your comment is deceptive. That was something he said well before he was Pope as a monk. It wasn’t said as Pope invoking Papal Infallibility. I would also note there are many other works of his that agree with all the books.
I want us to go back to the Latin again because I have to drive an hour to get it. There are cardinals that also think we should go back but to Latin, but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they spoke retroactively using Papal infallibility or that it was up for debate because currently it’s not.
I would also note that the Protestants had no right to add or remove anything. They didn’t have the authority.
@@sptomase😂
@@sciencescholar3440 what are you giggling about giggles?