Thanks for pinning this. He's great, no ones perfect. I never felt an anti catholic view from him. The fact that he has such reverence for early Christians means from a certain point of view he very much supports Catholicism. A 3 hour podcast with Joe, your not going to please everyone with perfect articulation 😂
I was listening to a Bible historian about a year ago that showed how the old Protestant bibles have 73 book and were used for a very long time. I was so surprised that the books were removed because of the printing cost and yet the Protestants have not learned this as all!
It's weird to think their 66 book bibles are only about 140 years old when at the start of the reformation, they had the 73 just in the apocypha. But then agian the Jews seemed to go back into idolatry every 2-3 generations in the old testmant. Also, it was found that they had to remove it because protestants were becoming Catholic after reading them back in the day.
@@coloradodutch7480 Why include “good books” in the Bible the video asks. That is a good question. There are many good books, but if that’s all they are, they shouldn’t be in the Bible.
@@Sevenspent yes! It’s better for the Protestants to keep saying the bible only has 66 books then acknowledging that Luther was it the man to remove anything. It’s the same old thing: “The Bible says you shouldn’t pray for the dead.” “Well. Actually it does right here.” “Well that’s not reeeaaaly a part of the Bible”. If you remove every book that disagrees with you, the Bible would be very thin and you are left with a personal version of a faith no one believed.
3:49 small correction from a fellow Catholic, I believe Eastern Orthodoxy has 76 major books in their Bible (adding 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabees, splitting Baruch into Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and adding an extension to 2 Chronicles called the Prayer of Manasseh) but they may include one to two books in an appendix; i.e. 4 Maccabees or 2 Esdras. As for the Oriental Orthodox Churches, almost every one of them has a different Biblical canon, the Ethiopian (and I think Eritrean) Orthodox have 81, being the most of any denomination, however they are even missing some books that some of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches have. That’s all, I love your work, keep doing what you’re doing!
If Protestants appeal to Romans 3:2 to define the canon of scripture then they're in trouble. By their logic, Romans 3:2 would prove too much since it would nullify the entire New Testament since Jews then and now reject the New Testament. How am I wrong?
ColoradoDutch is correct, however, it never states which Jews. The Sadducees and Samaritans who only believed in the Torah, the Essenes or Pharisees who believed in the deuterocanon at the time. The 66 book canon came from rabbinic Judaism not 1st century Judaism. The temple was gone and only 1 Jewish faction remained in power since the Sadducees were irrelevant without a Temple. Follow that up with the fact early Christians were probably using books like wisdom to show without doubt Jesus is Messiah and the Rabbinics who were persecuting Christians had every reason to get rid of those books.
@michaelandrews4424 No, he is not correct, obviously. Please to me where Romans 3:2 says the Jews have the authority to decided specifically only the Old Testament canon, or where Romans 3:2 says that they decide any canon for that matter. It’s an obvious faulty personal interpretation that anyone with simple reading comprehension wouldn’t make.
To the point that an agreed upon Jewish canon was an actual fact, according to Gary Michuta, a bible scholar in his own right, it was not agrred upon by the Jews. There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT. We have writings in the Mischna and elsewhere from many of the Rabbis in the later part of the 100’s into the 300’s where the Rabbis disagree as to whether or not that books were inspired and should be part of the Hebrew Canon…these included Esther, Sirach, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Tobit for example. So to say it was definitely only 39 books should be included cannot be proved. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Septuagint have slightly different wording of the same passages so it is possible in most cases to tell which version it was that Jesus and the apostles were quoting. In fact, what we find is that 90% to 95% of the time when the NT quotes from the OT, we find that the quotes are taken from the Septuagint which had 46 books. Of the approximate 330 OT quotes found in the NT, 300 are from the Greek Septuagint. Here are just two examples to illustrate: In Genesis 46:27 in the Hebrew OT it says that Joseph brings 70 members of his family into Egypt. In the Greek OT (Septuagint) that same passage says Joseph brings 75 members of his family into Egypt. When it is quoted in the NT in Acts 7:14, we see Stephen refers to this account and tells us that Joseph brought 75 members into Egypt.
The second example is Isaiah 7:14 where the Hebrew Scripture prophesied that a young woman will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Hebrew word for young woman is “almah” and it means a young woman of child bearing age. In the Greek OT Septuagint that same passage says that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Then in the NT in Matthew 1:23 it quotes from the OT and says that Jesus’ birth has fulfilled the prophecy by saying that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Greek word used here is “parthenos'' which means a virgin. My point is that it was the Greek Septuagint that had 46 OT writings that was the predominantly quoted version in Jesus’ time. So to repeat a conclusion mentioned before...these 46 plus the 27 of the NT make up the canon of the Bible established as inspired by the Holy Spirit and compiled as such by the Catholic Church with the main criteria of the writings as follows: Must be Apostolic. (written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle) Must have a consensus and frequency of use by the Bishops in the liturgical worship of God. (The Mass) Must affirm the question, “Does it contain authentic and correct teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?” By A.D. 48, and the beginning of the deaths of the apostles, people began to be concerned about writing things down. Also, by the middle of the 300’s, the gnostic forgeries were causing confusion, so the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) called for a compilation of the writings to be put into the common (vulgar) language of the people (Latin). This became the Latin Vulgate. Pope Damasus appointed St Jerome (a renowned linguist) to translate the Septuagint (Greek) Hebrew & Aramaic texts.
The first printed copy of the Bible in 1455 was The Gutenberg Bible & had all 73 books in it. So too, believe it or not, did the original 1611 King James Bible. There were actually 80 total Books originally listed in the original Table of Contents of the 1611 King James. (39 OT Books, 14 Apocrypha Books and 27 NT Books) Some of those 80 books were combined or titled differently and the result was 73 total books given during each of the Councils of the Church. The original 1611 King James Bible Table of Contents that historians keep is in a museum in London. According to Gary Michuta, a bible scholar in his own right, up until 1632 all English Bible translations included the so-called “apocrypha” books. This included the Matthew Bible 1537, the Great Bible 1537. the Geneva Bible 1560, the Bishops Bible 1568 and yes, even the original King James 1611 and many subsequent later versions of the KJV. It was starting in 1632 that out of the 579 editions published in England between 1632 and 1826 that 227 (about 40%) of Protestant Bibles no longer had the so-called apocrypha. (Source: an article by Wilhelm Gunder entitled, “The Bible Societies and the Deuterocanonical Writings” from a book called “The apocrypha and ecumenical perspective the place of the later writings of the old testament among the biblical writings and their significance in the eastern and western church traditions” from 1991 by United Bible Societies These 7 books did not disappear completely from Protestant Bibles until after the year 1826 led by the British Informed Bible, Foreign Bible Societies and followed suit by the American Bible Society as the main publishers who based the decision mainly on economical reasons according to scholars. Although the apocrypha books remained in Bibles in Switzerland, France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden as they refused to accept British monies and go along with the political, monetary arm twisting by a group of Reformed Scottish Evangelicals that had first initiated the change.
Also to add to your well typed point, the Sadducees and Samaritans only believed in the Torah sighting Scripture for why the other 41 ascented to by the Pharisees were apocryphal.
What is interesting is that Jerome really is the basis for all future discussion on the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. I call this the appeal to 4th century scripture scholar. This needs to be juxtaposed to expressions of ground up universal acceptance of these books that comes from local councils, such as several in Carthage, official decrees from Innocent I, and other Roman councils in the 4th century. Augustine sides with these local councils and authorities as the expression of the tradition of the church. Jerome, thought that there was only one Jewish version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic text, and it was from this that the various translations, including the Septuagint, were based. And so it ought to be considered the source of truth. And it did not include the deuterocanon. A couple of problems with this theory are: 1-This canon was only solidified over a hundred years after the time of the Apostles by the surviving remnants of the Jews, mainly the pharisee, who form around synagogues. We have evidence from around this time that they rejected the books of the Christians, and in the same breath, the books included in the Deuterocanon. Why should we accept their authority on rejecting the deuterocanon - the very same authority that rejects the books of the New Testament? 2-The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls shows that there are various other Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Bible that date back to the 1st century. So Jerome's idea that the Masoretic text being used by the Jews of his day, was the original version of the Old Testament from which all others were based is not correct. To be fair to all the supporters of Jerome throughout the centuries, this evidence was only discovered in the mid 1900s. But since their discovery, we can now say definitively, that Jerome was wrong. Yes, there were Hebrew text variants that aligned closely with the Masoretic texts of Jerome's day, but there were also Hebrew texts that align more closely with the Septuagint, and some Hebrew text that align with the Samaritan texts. What is interesting is that there is a large majority of Hebrew texts that appear to point to textual traditions different from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. Additionally, Tobit and Sirach are included in the dead sea scrolls. Not all the deuterocanon were there, but several of them are. 3-Jerome's preference to the Masoretic text seems to contradict the New Testament's perference for the Septuagint. 70 to 80% of all quotes used in the New Testament are from Septuagint texts. Only 20 to 30% appear to align more closely with the Masoretic texts. Because the New Testament authors appear to prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic, that certainly gives credence to preferring the Septuagint canon over the Masoretic canon. 4-Justin Martyr makes reference to how Christian perceived the Jewish Canon when it was formed in the early 2nd century. He accuses them of having taken away many scriptures. This must be referencing their exclusion of the deuterocanon, since we have it on other 2nd century Jewish sources, that they did so around this time. "CHAPTER LXXI -- THE JEWS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX [This means 70, which is means Septuagint]., FROM WHICH, MOREOVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME PASSAGES. "But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you."
Is this a case of approaching a topic with a preconceived outcome? Wes seems to have a deep desire to support the "reformers" for example, a frog without legs...cannot hear. In 350, the Catholic council of Rome gathered all the scrolls of scripture and agreed on 73 of them. In 393, the council of Hippo supported the 73 as canon. And again, in 397 at the council of Carthage supported the council of Rome. Therefore, when Luther was studying to be a monk and priest, he read the Catholic bible with the 73 books.
Yeah, I watched a video where he said something like the Protestant Canon of scripture was in the scripture that the early church gave us which is true but the way he said it was really misleading like he was insinuating that the other seven books were not in there lol. I was hoping someone would call him out on this. He’s also said other misleading things.
Misleading. Or just ways in which a historian makes sense with his protty upbringing. We can only become good friend with these dudes. It's significant in converting them.
He was referring to the books that was at the temple, that was agreed upon by the Jews. They unanimously believed the 39 books protestants have in the Old Testament is inspired (number is different with the Jews due to the way the books are broken up, but the content is the same). They never unanimously agreed on the Deuterocanonical books. When Jesus referred to "the scriptures", this suggests there was a unanimous agreement on what they were, amongst the audience Jesus was speaking too.
@@soteriology400 no, this is wrong. There was no consensus among the Jews during the first century when Jesus was alive. It was only after his death that the consensus formed. The dead sea scrolls dated to 2nd century BC to 1st century AD do include the deuterocanonical books(i think maybe one or two of them wasn't included, though that doesn't mean they didn't use them). So we have good reason to believe the Essenes did think the deuterocanon to be canonical. Then, we have the Sadducees who thought only the Torah was scriputral. And then there were the Pharisees, who accepted a broader canon, torah, prophets, and writings. So no, there was no consensus while Jesus was alive. The consensus didn't start to form until after the temple was destroyed and was fully consolidated during the 2nd to 3rd centuries. but that's kinda besides the point. Even if everything I just said was false, and you were correct, there is still no reason why a Christian should appeal to those who denied Christ for our biblical canon.
@@Fiddleslip When Jesus was talking about the scriptures, as well as the apostles, they were talking about the scriptures they unanimously agreed upon as inspired. There were no prophecies being given, when the 7 books of the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books were written.
@@soteriology400btw not every book is phrophetic thats from thr nabiim, the ketubim are historical books, but the book of wisdom fits and the chapter 2 is a clear phrophecy about Jesus, you would be surprised how the deuterocanon is christian, wow you are wrong on so many levels here. The phrophecies are only seen as correct after they are fuffiled, except when the genre is escaton like david and Isaiah (which has 3 autors) so your argument is so dumb. The septuagianta was the most common canon at the time of Jesus, and it has the deuterocanonical books
I'm Anglo-Catholic and I disagree with Wes Huff too on the Canon. I've watched him discuss this and found his perspective very wanting which is disappointing because he's such a smart guy. . I think there is the best evidence for the Eastern Orthodox Canon based on the Greek Septuagint.
@@Onlyafool172 I have 4 different English Translations of the Septuagint. Yes the Orthodox do have a Canon with a number of slight variation readings. The Roman Church And Protestants use the Masoretic with the Protestants omitting the deuterocanonical books. Which Orthodox use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint ?
Wes Huff is awful. Just because Joe Rogan invited him doesn’t mean he’s knowledgeable. He debated a complete conspiracy theorist that Joe happened to see it
We don't have a copy of the LXX from the time of Christ. “Jean Driedo was a sixteenth century theologian and member of the faculty of the Catholic University at Louvain who condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519. He stated that the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the Old Testament canon. The Church used them for the purposes of edification but they did not carry the same authority as the canonical books, which alone were used for the confirmation of the doctrines of the faith.”
Thank you for this video. I really appreciated Wes' takedown of con man, Billy Carson, and acknowledge his impressive credentials. He is charismatic and I want to trust what he says in good faith, but he seems to subtly, cleverly, and purposely shade history to support to his vision and faith tradition. As you suggest, he is too smart and learned to be mistaken, so doing apparent "spin" comes across as a little underhanded. I've listened to other respected Protestant apologists, most notably Gavin Ortland, and they advocate for their beliefs in a seemingly more open fashion.
Don't need to resort to reading into such things like physical fitness. Wes' arguments are easily refutable without potentially sliding into ad hominem territory.
good point at 29:00. If there's a book in the bible that you think not only isn't inspired, but actually teaches heresy(like protestants believe about Maccabees and purgatory), then why would you still include it in the bible, even under a non-canon section? Should a Christian be claiming that heretical works are so edifying that they belong next to sacred scripture?
Luther said that Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation were disputed in his german translation. I don't see how he can make the claim that the 66 had no debate.
We have him coming to New Zealand for a tour and I'll be looking after him. Looking forward to asking him specific questions. Please comment what i should ask him and vote on the best.
@@theignorantcatholic there is so much you could ask him. I would ask him what are the criteria for determining that the book of Hebrews belongs in the canon. Who wrote it; how does he know…how does he know it’s inspired.
You should ask him about the Hebrew manuscripts of Tobit and Sirach at the dead sea scrolls. I heard him claiming that the "apocrypha" all originates in Greek. You should also ask him why Protestants consider Esther as scripture, most of the early Christian quote unquote "canonical lists" that Protestants appeal to for their canon exclude Esther, St. Athanasius puts it in the same category as Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, and no copy of it has been found at the dead sea scrolls.
I would love to see him in an open discussion with Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin. Matt Fradd could host. I wouldn't want a debate because that format is competitive and adversarial and often less useful toward pursuing actual truth.
I remember seeing this video from Wes and I was kinda perturbed by it. How exactly did those books get knocked out by the Protestants? It really confused me and made me question the Catholic Bible for a bit. But I have since found a lot of resources that explained very clearly why the deuterocanonical books are in the Catholic Bible. The fact that The Bible pulls from the Septuagint, which has the deuterocanonical books, pretty much solidified for me that that Catholics have it right.
It’s simple for those who think 66 is correct. Which Bible translations had 66 books, and what years are they from? Every canon and translation from the Latin Vulgate in the 300’s to and including the original King James of 1611 have 73.
Wes purposely uses the term ancient so that he's not questioned. I, like you, want to know which Jews and when is this ancient time frame. He conspicuously leaves that info out.
At Council of Florence were Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox to reunite the Church, and all of them agree to 73 books as inspired, there's list of books.If Wess try to say that all of them were wrong, that mean all apostles around the world failed to preach the Gospel and how to worship. Even today all of those Churches agree on 95% or more Dogmas. Eastern Orthodox were depart in the 4th century, Orthodox in 1054 so it would be a hard to agree on main Dogmas and books. Protestants don't understand difference between the worhip and the venerate.
It is probably easier to think of purgatory as a process of sanctification rather than a place of punishment. To enter heaven you must be perfect, since none of are perfect we must be purged of our imperfections (sanctified) prior to entering the kingdom of heaven.
@@Freedombde Problem is it was not always defined that way. But I do agree some works do get burned up, and others passes through. However, one is already sanctified if one is born again, per John 3:8. I don't think one gets re-sanctified.
Wes Huff did not "crush" the other guy in that debate. The other guy more or less crushed himself. He was an obvious moron and scam artist who any minimally competent opponent could have defeated. Wes seemed better educated and prepared than your average Protestant, true, but that's not a particularly high bar to have to clear, and when you hear his opinions in greater detail you soon discover that he's not nearly the intellectual Superman his fellow Lillipudlians are making him out to be.
Just because one does not believe the Deutercanonicals are not inspired, does not mean we should get rid of them. There is Jewish history in them. That helps with fulfillment of Daniel 7. This does not make it inspired. There are no prophecies in it.
Doesn't matter how many books you want to include in God's inspired word, if you don't understand and put all your faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ you will never understand God and the salvation he offers through grace, something man cannot work for! From the very beginning of the foundation of the world it's always been Faith in God alone that has saved anyone from the wages of sin we deserve! "If ye (everyone) will enter my (God's) rest" . For only God can do the work necessary which is why he sat down on 7th day. He completed all his work including salvation for sinful man. It's only by the Gospel you will find fellowship with God!
He was referring to the Jewish canon at that time. Josephus says in the temple they kept the Jewish OT which consist of the 22 books. The 7 books didn’t exist in 250bc, so they couldn’t have included them at that time. Jerome conceded because the submitted to the church. Cardinal Cajetan wrote a book about the books of the Bible and excluded the the deuteronomical books. At the council of Trent 15 voted against the canon and 26 voted for. Luther was right not to include controversial books, that is how. At the time of the reformation the other books were practically unanimous. Even Luther had doubts about some books but church unanimity held. Lastly, the twelve apostles and Jesus didn’t quote the 7 books as scripture. Jesus himself in Luke 24:44 an only says that the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms are what is written about him that he came to fulfill.
You would rather follow a few men than the eccumenical councils? very narcissistic and swlf important. you prots think you can just decide what's right, refusing to submit to any authority but your own.
Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible. If it were not for the Church, they argue, no one could know with certainty even which books belong in the Bible. This argument is based on faulty assumptions. The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated: These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church. -First Vatican Council[1] The process of writing and recognizing the New Testament books began long before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. The night before the Lord was crucified, He told His disciples that they, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would bear witness to His life and teaching: When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. -John 15:26-27 Through the Holy Spirit, the disciples would also receive further revelation: I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. -John 16:12-14 In certain writings of the apostles and their associates, the first Christians recognized the prophetic and authoritative teaching of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had taught, “My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me” (John 10:27). In these writings, the early Christians heard the Savior’s voice. They compared the doctrinal content of these new writings to that of the Old Testament Scriptures and found agreement. They applied the teaching to their lives and experienced its transforming power. In these writings, they recognized the dynamic interaction between book and reader that is unique to Scripture: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. -Hebrews 4:12 The writings were self-authenticating. They demonstrated by their uniquely divine wisdom and power that God was their author. F. F. Bruce wrote: Divine authority is by its very nature self-evidencing; and one of the profoundest doctrines recovered by the Reformers is the doctrine of the inward witness of the Holy Spirit, by which testimony is borne within the believer’s heart to the divine character of the Holy Scripture.[2]
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
You are ignoring the issue with the Deutercanonicals. The Jews never unanimously agreed on the Deutercanonicals being inspired. But it had Jewish history that helped with Daniel 7. I have looked at these books myself, and conclude they can be valuable, but they are not inspired. Again, it is helpful, but not inspired.
According to who? Yourself and the way you feel about "edifying"? The apostles and Jesus Christ himself used these books in their divinely inspired teaching; good enough for Christ, just not good enough for you and Wes.
Why we should care about you or any other reformer opinion about what they think about the deutercanonicals books? The Church decide they were inspired way before Luther was born.
It’s interesting how much you folks talk religion. Jesus told the religious of His day that those who didn’t follow religion were the ones who would get saved. Glory in religion your predecessors the Pharisees n Judaizers did as well. Mean while the prostitutes are getting saved by faith 😂😂😂.
Wes Huff is an incredible human being! May he continue to witness the Resurrection with fidelity and zeal!
Thanks for pinning this. He's great, no ones perfect. I never felt an anti catholic view from him. The fact that he has such reverence for early Christians means from a certain point of view he very much supports Catholicism. A 3 hour podcast with Joe, your not going to please everyone with perfect articulation 😂
@@kirilusf1968 You weren't listening carefully for his position and inimical aspects, or haven't listened much. Yes he's a Calvinist anti-Catholic.
He did a good job on simple scholarship on Bible, but not on Church. He's a Calvinist anti-Catholic.
You know which other books the jews rejected from their canon? The entire new testament.
Protestants often use the jews as a way to substitute the authority they lost splitting from the church.
🤭 Good point.
I was listening to a Bible historian about a year ago that showed how the old Protestant bibles have 73 book and were used for a very long time. I was so surprised that the books were removed because of the printing cost and yet the Protestants have not learned this as all!
It's weird to think their 66 book bibles are only about 140 years old when at the start of the reformation, they had the 73 just in the apocypha. But then agian the Jews seemed to go back into idolatry every 2-3 generations in the old testmant. Also, it was found that they had to remove it because protestants were becoming Catholic after reading them back in the day.
Their canon was 66 books but they included the 7 books as ‘good’ books but not part of the canon.
@@coloradodutch7480Why remove these 7 "good books"?
@@coloradodutch7480 Why include “good books” in the Bible the video asks. That is a good question. There are many good books, but if that’s all they are, they shouldn’t be in the Bible.
@@Sevenspent yes! It’s better for the Protestants to keep saying the bible only has 66 books then acknowledging that Luther was it the man to remove anything. It’s the same old thing: “The Bible says you shouldn’t pray for the dead.” “Well. Actually it does right here.” “Well that’s not reeeaaaly a part of the Bible”. If you remove every book that disagrees with you, the Bible would be very thin and you are left with a personal version of a faith no one believed.
Wes is quickly defaulting to his Calvinist bigotry, he just can't help himself to express anti-Catholicism.
He's a Calvinist?!
@@The_Catholic_Christian From the way he speaks about theology, he is very much a “Reformed” Christian, which places him in the Calvinist arena.
Hey I have a question about Calvinism : if they beleive in total depravity how can they believe in sola scriptura… 🧐
@@SaintlySaavyso is your argument that total deprived people cannot recognize which books are inspired?
@@SaintlySaavy God isn't depraved. It isn't that total.
3:49 small correction from a fellow Catholic, I believe Eastern Orthodoxy has 76 major books in their Bible (adding 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabees, splitting Baruch into Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and adding an extension to 2 Chronicles called the Prayer of Manasseh) but they may include one to two books in an appendix; i.e. 4 Maccabees or 2 Esdras.
As for the Oriental Orthodox Churches, almost every one of them has a different Biblical canon, the Ethiopian (and I think Eritrean) Orthodox have 81, being the most of any denomination, however they are even missing some books that some of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches have.
That’s all, I love your work, keep doing what you’re doing!
Thank you!
If Protestants appeal to Romans 3:2 to define the canon of scripture then they're in trouble. By their logic, Romans 3:2 would prove too much since it would nullify the entire New Testament since Jews then and now reject the New Testament. How am I wrong?
Romans 3:2 refers to the OT.
ColoradoDutch is correct, however, it never states which Jews. The Sadducees and Samaritans who only believed in the Torah, the Essenes or Pharisees who believed in the deuterocanon at the time. The 66 book canon came from rabbinic Judaism not 1st century Judaism. The temple was gone and only 1 Jewish faction remained in power since the Sadducees were irrelevant without a Temple. Follow that up with the fact early Christians were probably using books like wisdom to show without doubt Jesus is Messiah and the Rabbinics who were persecuting Christians had every reason to get rid of those books.
@michaelandrews4424 No, he is not correct, obviously. Please to me where Romans 3:2 says the Jews have the authority to decided specifically only the Old Testament canon, or where Romans 3:2 says that they decide any canon for that matter. It’s an obvious faulty personal interpretation that anyone with simple reading comprehension wouldn’t make.
To the point that an agreed upon Jewish canon was an actual fact, according to Gary Michuta, a bible scholar in his own right, it was not agrred upon by the Jews.
There were 5 main sects of Jews at the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans & the Jews of the Diaspora) and before the time of Jesus they did not all agree on a canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, some believed only 39 were inspired and some 46. After the first few centuries after Christ came, the Jewish Rabbis (by this time it was predominately just the Pharisees who existed since the Romans had wiped out the others) saw that they needed to separate themselves from the growing Christian sect and decided to reject the 7 books that the Christians had in their Septuagint and agreed upon 39 books in the OT.
We have writings in the Mischna and elsewhere from many of the Rabbis in the later part of the 100’s into the 300’s where the Rabbis disagree as to whether or not that books were inspired and should be part of the Hebrew Canon…these included Esther, Sirach, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Tobit for example. So to say it was definitely only 39 books should be included cannot be proved.
The Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Septuagint have slightly different wording of the same passages so it is possible in most cases to tell which version it was that Jesus and the apostles were quoting. In fact, what we find is that 90% to 95% of the time when the NT quotes from the OT, we find that the quotes are taken from the Septuagint which had 46 books. Of the approximate 330 OT quotes found in the NT, 300 are from the Greek Septuagint.
Here are just two examples to illustrate:
In Genesis 46:27 in the Hebrew OT it says that Joseph brings 70 members of his family into Egypt. In the Greek OT (Septuagint) that same passage says Joseph brings 75 members of his family into Egypt. When it is quoted in the NT in Acts 7:14, we see Stephen refers to this account and tells us that Joseph brought 75 members into Egypt.
The second example is Isaiah 7:14 where the Hebrew Scripture prophesied that a young woman will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Hebrew word for young woman is “almah” and it means a young woman of child bearing age. In the Greek OT Septuagint that same passage says that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Then in the NT in Matthew 1:23 it quotes from the OT and says that Jesus’ birth has fulfilled the prophecy by saying that the virgin will be with child, will bear a son and his name will be Emmanuel. Note: The Greek word used here is “parthenos'' which means a virgin.
My point is that it was the Greek Septuagint that had 46 OT writings that was the predominantly quoted version in Jesus’ time. So to repeat a conclusion mentioned before...these 46 plus the 27 of the NT make up the canon of the Bible established as inspired by the Holy Spirit and compiled as such by the Catholic Church with the main criteria of the writings as follows:
Must be Apostolic. (written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle)
Must have a consensus and frequency of use by the Bishops in the liturgical worship of God. (The Mass)
Must affirm the question, “Does it contain authentic and correct teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?”
By A.D. 48, and the beginning of the deaths of the apostles, people began to be concerned about writing things down. Also, by the middle of the 300’s, the gnostic forgeries were causing confusion, so the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) called for a compilation of the writings to be put into the common (vulgar) language of the people (Latin). This became the Latin Vulgate. Pope Damasus appointed St Jerome (a renowned linguist) to translate the Septuagint (Greek) Hebrew & Aramaic texts.
The first printed copy of the Bible in 1455 was The Gutenberg Bible & had all 73 books in it.
So too, believe it or not, did the original 1611 King James Bible. There were actually 80 total Books originally listed in the original Table of Contents of the 1611 King James. (39 OT Books, 14 Apocrypha Books and 27 NT Books) Some of those 80 books were combined or titled differently and the result was 73 total books given during each of the Councils of the Church. The original 1611 King James Bible Table of Contents that historians keep is in a museum in London.
According to Gary Michuta, a bible scholar in his own right, up until 1632 all English Bible translations included the so-called “apocrypha” books. This included the Matthew Bible 1537, the Great Bible 1537. the Geneva Bible 1560, the Bishops Bible 1568 and yes, even the original King James 1611 and many subsequent later versions of the KJV. It was starting in 1632 that out of the 579 editions published in England between 1632 and 1826 that 227 (about 40%) of Protestant Bibles no longer had the so-called apocrypha. (Source: an article by Wilhelm Gunder entitled, “The Bible Societies and the Deuterocanonical Writings” from a book called “The apocrypha and ecumenical perspective the place of the later writings of the old testament among the biblical writings and their significance in the eastern and western church traditions” from 1991 by United Bible Societies
These 7 books did not disappear completely from Protestant Bibles until after the year 1826 led by the British Informed Bible, Foreign Bible Societies and followed suit by the American Bible Society as the main publishers who based the decision mainly on economical reasons according to scholars. Although the apocrypha books remained in Bibles in Switzerland, France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden as they refused to accept British monies and go along with the political, monetary arm twisting by a group of Reformed Scottish Evangelicals that had first initiated the change.
This is an excellent summary.
Also to add to your well typed point, the Sadducees and Samaritans only believed in the Torah sighting Scripture for why the other 41 ascented to by the Pharisees were apocryphal.
So glad you did this. His anti-Catholic story lines are misguided at best. I saw his video on the Bible and it's pure fantasy.
What is interesting is that Jerome really is the basis for all future discussion on the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. I call this the appeal to 4th century scripture scholar.
This needs to be juxtaposed to expressions of ground up universal acceptance of these books that comes from local councils, such as several in Carthage, official decrees from Innocent I, and other Roman councils in the 4th century. Augustine sides with these local councils and authorities as the expression of the tradition of the church.
Jerome, thought that there was only one Jewish version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic text, and it was from this that the various translations, including the Septuagint, were based. And so it ought to be considered the source of truth. And it did not include the deuterocanon. A couple of problems with this theory are:
1-This canon was only solidified over a hundred years after the time of the Apostles by the surviving remnants of the Jews, mainly the pharisee, who form around synagogues. We have evidence from around this time that they rejected the books of the Christians, and in the same breath, the books included in the Deuterocanon. Why should we accept their authority on rejecting the deuterocanon - the very same authority that rejects the books of the New Testament?
2-The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls shows that there are various other Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Bible that date back to the 1st century. So Jerome's idea that the Masoretic text being used by the Jews of his day, was the original version of the Old Testament from which all others were based is not correct. To be fair to all the supporters of Jerome throughout the centuries, this evidence was only discovered in the mid 1900s. But since their discovery, we can now say definitively, that Jerome was wrong. Yes, there were Hebrew text variants that aligned closely with the Masoretic texts of Jerome's day, but there were also Hebrew texts that align more closely with the Septuagint, and some Hebrew text that align with the Samaritan texts. What is interesting is that there is a large majority of Hebrew texts that appear to point to textual traditions different from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. Additionally, Tobit and Sirach are included in the dead sea scrolls. Not all the deuterocanon were there, but several of them are.
3-Jerome's preference to the Masoretic text seems to contradict the New Testament's perference for the Septuagint. 70 to 80% of all quotes used in the New Testament are from Septuagint texts. Only 20 to 30% appear to align more closely with the Masoretic texts. Because the New Testament authors appear to prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic, that certainly gives credence to preferring the Septuagint canon over the Masoretic canon.
4-Justin Martyr makes reference to how Christian perceived the Jewish Canon when it was formed in the early 2nd century. He accuses them of having taken away many scriptures. This must be referencing their exclusion of the deuterocanon, since we have it on other 2nd century Jewish sources, that they did so around this time.
"CHAPTER LXXI -- THE JEWS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX [This means 70, which is means Septuagint]., FROM WHICH, MOREOVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME PASSAGES.
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you."
Is this a case of approaching a topic with a preconceived outcome? Wes seems to have a deep desire to support the "reformers" for example, a frog without legs...cannot hear.
In 350, the Catholic council of Rome gathered all the scrolls of scripture and agreed on 73 of them. In 393, the council of Hippo supported the 73 as canon. And again, in 397 at the council of Carthage supported the council of Rome. Therefore, when Luther was studying to be a monk and priest, he read the Catholic bible with the 73 books.
Gee, how unusual for a Protestant "scholar" to be wrong about the Bible. 😅🤣
Yeah, I watched a video where he said something like the Protestant Canon of scripture was in the scripture that the early church gave us which is true but the way he said it was really misleading like he was insinuating that the other seven books were not in there lol. I was hoping someone would call him out on this. He’s also said other misleading things.
Misleading. Or just ways in which a historian makes sense with his protty upbringing. We can only become good friend with these dudes. It's significant in converting them.
He was referring to the books that was at the temple, that was agreed upon by the Jews. They unanimously believed the 39 books protestants have in the Old Testament is inspired (number is different with the Jews due to the way the books are broken up, but the content is the same). They never unanimously agreed on the Deuterocanonical books. When Jesus referred to "the scriptures", this suggests there was a unanimous agreement on what they were, amongst the audience Jesus was speaking too.
@@soteriology400 no, this is wrong. There was no consensus among the Jews during the first century when Jesus was alive. It was only after his death that the consensus formed. The dead sea scrolls dated to 2nd century BC to 1st century AD do include the deuterocanonical books(i think maybe one or two of them wasn't included, though that doesn't mean they didn't use them).
So we have good reason to believe the Essenes did think the deuterocanon to be canonical.
Then, we have the Sadducees who thought only the Torah was scriputral.
And then there were the Pharisees, who accepted a broader canon, torah, prophets, and writings.
So no, there was no consensus while Jesus was alive. The consensus didn't start to form until after the temple was destroyed and was fully consolidated during the 2nd to 3rd centuries.
but that's kinda besides the point. Even if everything I just said was false, and you were correct, there is still no reason why a Christian should appeal to those who denied Christ for our biblical canon.
@@Fiddleslip When Jesus was talking about the scriptures, as well as the apostles, they were talking about the scriptures they unanimously agreed upon as inspired. There were no prophecies being given, when the 7 books of the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books were written.
@@soteriology400btw not every book is phrophetic thats from thr nabiim, the ketubim are historical books, but the book of wisdom fits and the chapter 2 is a clear phrophecy about Jesus, you would be surprised how the deuterocanon is christian, wow you are wrong on so many levels here. The phrophecies are only seen as correct after they are fuffiled, except when the genre is escaton like david and Isaiah (which has 3 autors) so your argument is so dumb. The septuagianta was the most common canon at the time of Jesus, and it has the deuterocanonical books
I was with you that he was smart. Until he said we worship saints lol crazy accusation
I'm Anglo-Catholic and I disagree with Wes Huff too on the Canon. I've watched him discuss this and found his perspective very wanting which is disappointing because he's such a smart guy. . I think there is the best evidence for the Eastern Orthodox Canon based on the Greek Septuagint.
But the orthodox dont agree on a canon lol, and some use our canon
@@Onlyafool172 I have 4 different English Translations of the Septuagint. Yes the Orthodox do have a Canon with a number of slight variation readings. The Roman Church And Protestants use the Masoretic with the Protestants omitting the deuterocanonical books. Which Orthodox use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint ?
Wes Huff is awful. Just because Joe Rogan invited him doesn’t mean he’s knowledgeable. He debated a complete conspiracy theorist that Joe happened to see it
Some say that Protestantism appeals to the ego, but no way, right?
Thank you for commenting on this I have been waiting for it
We don't have a copy of the LXX from the time of Christ.
“Jean Driedo was a sixteenth century theologian and member of the faculty of the Catholic University at Louvain who condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519. He stated that the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the Old Testament canon. The Church used them for the purposes of edification but they did not carry the same authority as the canonical books, which alone were used for the confirmation of the doctrines of the faith.”
Thank you for this video. I really appreciated Wes' takedown of con man, Billy Carson, and acknowledge his impressive credentials. He is charismatic and I want to trust what he says in good faith, but he seems to subtly, cleverly, and purposely shade history to support to his vision and faith tradition. As you suggest, he is too smart and learned to be mistaken, so doing apparent "spin" comes across as a little underhanded. I've listened to other respected Protestant apologists, most notably Gavin Ortland, and they advocate for their beliefs in a seemingly more open fashion.
Massive muscles are a red flag. People who spend that much time in the gym have something going on in their mind that they haven’t healed.
I don’t know man, William albrecht is totally built and he’s one of the best catholic apologists we got
Don't need to resort to reading into such things like physical fitness. Wes' arguments are easily refutable without potentially sliding into ad hominem territory.
May Our Lord and Blessed Mother , Bless You for your Great Work in correcting these Protestants heretics.
10:03 he didnt use the word canon here. Hes just saying that the 66 books the prots accept doesnt have anyone contesting them "early on"
good point at 29:00. If there's a book in the bible that you think not only isn't inspired, but actually teaches heresy(like protestants believe about Maccabees and purgatory), then why would you still include it in the bible, even under a non-canon section? Should a Christian be claiming that heretical works are so edifying that they belong next to sacred scripture?
Thank you for your work. We must keep these guys honest. There is too much hypocrisy in protestantism that needs to be called out.
Luther said that Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation were disputed in his german translation. I don't see how he can make the claim that the 66 had no debate.
Same. Never knw who he was until the Debate or dialog with this individual Carlson. Lol....but he gets many Catholic info wrong. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞✝️🕊
“A church father doesn’t determine canon” Pope - Father 😅
We have him coming to New Zealand for a tour and I'll be looking after him. Looking forward to asking him specific questions. Please comment what i should ask him and vote on the best.
@@theignorantcatholic there is so much you could ask him. I would ask him what are the criteria for determining that the book of Hebrews belongs in the canon. Who wrote it; how does he know…how does he know it’s inspired.
@The_Catholic_Christian yeah I saw Cameron's recent work on that. I was thinking about that as an option.
Ask him if the Bible it´s a fallible canon of infallible books
You should ask him about the Hebrew manuscripts of Tobit and Sirach at the dead sea scrolls. I heard him claiming that the "apocrypha" all originates in Greek.
You should also ask him why Protestants consider Esther as scripture, most of the early Christian quote unquote "canonical lists" that Protestants appeal to for their canon exclude Esther, St. Athanasius puts it in the same category as Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, and no copy of it has been found at the dead sea scrolls.
I would love to see him in an open discussion with Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin. Matt Fradd could host. I wouldn't want a debate because that format is competitive and adversarial and often less useful toward pursuing actual truth.
I remember seeing this video from Wes and I was kinda perturbed by it. How exactly did those books get knocked out by the Protestants? It really confused me and made me question the Catholic Bible for a bit. But I have since found a lot of resources that explained very clearly why the deuterocanonical books are in the Catholic Bible. The fact that The Bible pulls from the Septuagint, which has the deuterocanonical books, pretty much solidified for me that that Catholics have it right.
It’s simple for those who think 66 is correct. Which Bible translations had 66 books, and what years are they from? Every canon and translation from the Latin Vulgate in the 300’s to and including the original King James of 1611 have 73.
I think the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians have the largest Canon on earth, but paradoxically, the Ethiopian jews have the smallest Canon on earth.
Wes purposely uses the term ancient so that he's not questioned. I, like you, want to know which Jews and when is this ancient time frame. He conspicuously leaves that info out.
At Council of Florence were Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox to reunite the Church, and all of them agree to 73 books as inspired, there's list of books.If Wess try to say that all of them were wrong, that mean all apostles around the world failed to preach the Gospel and how to worship.
Even today all of those Churches agree on 95% or more Dogmas.
Eastern Orthodox were depart in the 4th century, Orthodox in 1054 so it would be a hard to agree on main Dogmas and books.
Protestants don't understand difference between the worhip and the venerate.
Thank you. Yes, Wes does a good job with simple scholarship on Bible, but is also a Calvinist anti-Catholic.
Wes Huff did a misrepresentation of my denomination and has shown he doesn't do real research.
READ LINE BY LINE, ISAIAH 28:11-13,
PROVERBS 30:3-4 ?
PSALMS 22:3, 75:6-7, 103:2-4, 107:23-30,
PSALMS 53:1,
PSALMS 33:4,
MATTHEW 5:17,
1 CORINTHIANS 14:33,
😎🙏
JOHN 1:1, 1;18,
JOHN 3:6,
JOHN 3:13,
NUMBERS 23:19, HEBREWS 7:1-3, ACTS 7:48,
JOHN 4:24,
JOHN 15:26,
😎🙏
ROMANS 3:4,
1 SAMUEL 16:7,
ISAIAH 48:8,
2 TIMOTHY 3:1-5,
ECCLESIASTICUS 37:8, 2 PETER 2:6-9, 1-22,
MATTHEW 15:8-9,
JAMES 3:1,
ISAIAH 5:20-21,
JOHN 8:44,
JOHN 8:11,
😎🙏
ECCLESIASTICUS 15:20,
ECCLESIASTICUS 15:1-19, 5:4, 5, 6, 1-15,
ACTS 2:38,
JOHN 5:14,
1 CORINTHIANS 14:33,
PROVERBS 28:26, 23:9, 18:2,
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11, REVELATION 21:8,
PROVERBS 13:20,
PROVERBS 30:6,
PROVERBS 30:8-9, HEBREWS 13:5-6,
1 THESSALONIANS 4:3-8,
1 TIMOTHY 1:8-11,
😎🙏
PSALMS 4:4,
ROMANS 6:23,
PROVERBS 4:26,
GENESIS 1:26,
LEVITICUS 20:26,
PROVERBS 6:16-19,
ACTS 9:5,
ACTS 2:38,
JOHN 5:14,
😎🙏
HOSEA 4:6,
ROMANS 2:26-29,
GALATIANS 4:21-31,
ECCLESIASTES 1:9,
😎🙏
YEHOAH IS THE MOST HIGHEST AUTHORITY, OUR ELOHIYM,
PSALMS 97:12,
PSALMS 7:8, 7-10,
EXODUS 3:13-15, 6:2-7,
PSALMS 90:2, 93:2, 5, 33:6-9,
ISAIAH 43:15,
EXODUS 20:1-17,
ISAIAH 45:15,
EXODUS 33:20,
ISAIAH 7:14,
😎🙏
HE MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH AS THE SON OF MAN, THE MASHIACH,
JOHN 1:1, 1:18,
JOHN 3:6,
JOHN 3:13,
1 TIMOTHY 3:16,
1 TIMOTHY 6:15-17,
JOHN 4:25-26,
JOHN 5:46,
😎🙏
ISAIAH 53:1-12, 35:4-6,
PSALMS 22:3, 75:6-7,
MATTHEW 9:4-7,
PSALMS 103:2-4, 107:23-30,
MATTHEW 8:5-13, 8:23-27, 9:1-8,
PSALMS 23:1-4,
PSALMS 16:11,
ISAIAH 55:8-9,
LEVITICUS 20:26,
JOHN 5:14,
JOHN 15:26,
😎🙏
OUR ADONAI, IMMANUEL.
ISAIAH 9:6-7,
JOHN 3:6, 3:13,
MATTHEW 1:22-23,
ISAIAH 43:10, 41:13, 48:17,
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11, 12-18, 1-18,
ROMANS 14:17,
😎🙏
JOHN 15:26,
JOHN 10:27-28,
JOHN 14:1-14,
PSALMS 33:4,
PSALMS 118:8-9,
MATTHEW 5:17,
😎🙏
"Are those books cardboard books?😂😂😂
You say there are over 500 passages in the Bible about purgatory. Can you give me one verse that refers to purgatory as a place?
It’s not a place.
@@The_Catholic_Christian Thank you.
It is probably easier to think of purgatory as a process of sanctification rather than a place of punishment. To enter heaven you must be perfect, since none of are perfect we must be purged of our imperfections (sanctified) prior to entering the kingdom of heaven.
@@Freedombde Problem is it was not always defined that way. But I do agree some works do get burned up, and others passes through. However, one is already sanctified if one is born again, per John 3:8. I don't think one gets re-sanctified.
Heres the source concerning to "debate on cannon" timestamp @22:26 source: Trust me bro
Wes Huff did not "crush" the other guy in that debate. The other guy more or less crushed himself. He was an obvious moron and scam artist who any minimally competent opponent could have defeated. Wes seemed better educated and prepared than your average Protestant, true, but that's not a particularly high bar to have to clear, and when you hear his opinions in greater detail you soon discover that he's not nearly the intellectual Superman his fellow Lillipudlians are making him out to be.
Just as Protestantism is a pick and choose religion so is protestant history is pick an choose history as well as ignore the historical timeline.
Why is he so promoted recently?
Too many “I don’t knows”…..just say eeeeeet!
YEHOAH IS THE MOST HIGHEST AUTHORITY, OUR ELOHIYM,
PSALMS 7:8, 7-10,
EXODUS 20:1-17,
EXODUS 3:13-15, 6:2-7,
EXODUS 33:20,
ISAIAH 7:14,
😎🙏
HE MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH AS THE SON OF MAN, THE MASHIACH,
1 TIMOTHY 3:16, 6:15-17,
NUMBERS 23:19, HEBREWS 7:1-3, ACTS 7:48,
JOHN 1:1, 1;18,
JOHN 3:6,
JOHN 3:13,
JOHN 4:24,
😎🙏
JOHN 15:26,
JOHN 10:27-28,
JOHN 14:1-14,
JOHN 5:46,
JOHN 5:14,
LEVITICUS 20:26,
😎🙏
OUR ADONAI, IMMANUEL.
ISAIAH 9:6-7,
MATTHEW 1:22-23,,
MATTHEW 5:17,
ECCLESIASTICUS 15:20,
ECCLESIASTICUS 15:1-19, 5:4, 5, 6, 1-15,
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11, REVELATION 21:8,
ACTS 2:38,
ROMANS 6:23,
JOHN 5:14,
ROMANS 14:17,
😎🙏
READ LINE BY LINE , ISAIAH 28:11-13,
PSALMS 33:4,
PSALMS 97:12,
PSALMS 90:2, 93:2, 5, 33:6-9,
PSALMS 22:3, 75:6-7, 103:2-4, 107:23-30,
😎🙏
HOSEA 4:6,
PSALMS 53:1,
1 SAMUEL 16:7,
ISAIAH 48:8,
JOHN 8:44,
ACTS 9:5,
PSALMS 97:12,
ACTS 2:38,
JOHN 8:11,
😎🙏
DEUTERONOMY 12:32, 18:20,
JEREMIAH 10:10, 44:26,
REVELATION 21:6-8, 22:18-19,
HEBREWS 4:11-12,
PSALMS 118:8-9,
😎🙏
Protestsnt never establish the time the canon was completed sunce their came in 16th century well ahead of the year a biblical canone was complete
Thanks!
Just because one does not believe the Deutercanonicals are not inspired, does not mean we should get rid of them. There is Jewish history in them. That helps with fulfillment of Daniel 7. This does not make it inspired. There are no prophecies in it.
🙏
Doesn't matter how many books you want to include in God's inspired word, if you don't understand and put all your faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ you will never understand God and the salvation he offers through grace, something man cannot work for! From the very beginning of the foundation of the world it's always been Faith in God alone that has saved anyone from the wages of sin we deserve!
"If ye (everyone) will enter my (God's) rest" . For only God can do the work necessary which is why he sat down on 7th day. He completed all his work including salvation for sinful man.
It's only by the Gospel you will find fellowship with God!
10:02 that a headshot
He was referring to the Jewish canon at that time. Josephus says in the temple they kept the Jewish OT which consist of the 22 books.
The 7 books didn’t exist in 250bc, so they couldn’t have included them at that time. Jerome conceded because the submitted to the church. Cardinal Cajetan wrote a book about the books of the Bible and excluded the the deuteronomical books. At the council of Trent 15 voted against the canon and 26 voted for. Luther was right not to include controversial books, that is how. At the time of the reformation the other books were practically unanimous. Even Luther had doubts about some books but church unanimity held.
Lastly, the twelve apostles and Jesus didn’t quote the 7 books as scripture. Jesus himself in Luke 24:44 an only says that the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms are what is written about him that he came to fulfill.
You would rather follow a few men than the eccumenical councils? very narcissistic and swlf important. you prots think you can just decide what's right, refusing to submit to any authority but your own.
Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible. If it were not for the Church, they argue, no one could know with certainty even which books belong in the Bible.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions. The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated:
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church. -First Vatican Council[1]
The process of writing and recognizing the New Testament books began long before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. The night before the Lord was crucified, He told His disciples that they, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would bear witness to His life and teaching:
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. -John 15:26-27
Through the Holy Spirit, the disciples would also receive further revelation:
I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. -John 16:12-14
In certain writings of the apostles and their associates, the first Christians recognized the prophetic and authoritative teaching of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had taught, “My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me” (John 10:27). In these writings, the early Christians heard the Savior’s voice. They compared the doctrinal content of these new writings to that of the Old Testament Scriptures and found agreement. They applied the teaching to their lives and experienced its transforming power. In these writings, they recognized the dynamic interaction between book and reader that is unique to Scripture:
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. -Hebrews 4:12
The writings were self-authenticating. They demonstrated by their uniquely divine wisdom and power that God was their author. F. F. Bruce wrote:
Divine authority is by its very nature self-evidencing; and one of the profoundest doctrines recovered by the Reformers is the doctrine of the inward witness of the Holy Spirit, by which testimony is borne within the believer’s heart to the divine character of the Holy Scripture.[2]
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
You are ignoring the issue with the Deutercanonicals. The Jews never unanimously agreed on the Deutercanonicals being inspired. But it had Jewish history that helped with Daniel 7.
I have looked at these books myself, and conclude they can be valuable, but they are not inspired. Again, it is helpful, but not inspired.
According to who? Yourself and the way you feel about "edifying"? The apostles and Jesus Christ himself used these books in their divinely inspired teaching; good enough for Christ, just not good enough for you and Wes.
Why we should care about you or any other reformer opinion about what they think about the deutercanonicals books? The Church decide they were inspired way before Luther was born.
@@frankovstovski I like how you have no evidence nor provided any evidence about the Jesus used these books for their inspired teaching.
@@ghostapostle7225 Don't you care that the Jews that rejected Christ didn't accept these books centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection?
It’s interesting how much you folks talk religion. Jesus told the religious of His day that those who didn’t follow religion were the ones who would get saved. Glory in religion your predecessors the Pharisees n Judaizers did as well. Mean while the prostitutes are getting saved by faith 😂😂😂.