@@TimSpangler-rd6vs Yes. The trinity. You will not find the trinity as we know it defined and explained fully. You have to be a trinitarian to be a Christian. There are others who call themselves Christians yet reject the trinity like Mormons, Jehovas witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and biblical Unitarians. Arianism (a heresy that denies the trinity) has plagued Christianity since the very beginning.
73 books of the bible and by example you find in all 73 books of the bible no one prays to anyone other than God, for anything. So here you are praying to an angel to get a result that only God can provide? Why? Heb 4:15,16 tells you who to go to!
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 12:46 Pretty much answers the question you ask, which I bet has been answered many times before. I wonder why they call it _cherry picking_ I don't like cherry's but if I did, I wouldn't choose just one or two but probably all I could pluck.
As someone who came back to my faith only at the age of 24 (just over a decade ago), I love your channel and even though I was never protestant I do believe your channel will also speak to the "reverts" to the Faith. God bless you!
My group did a Bible study on Tobit, and you are right that it’s both theologically rich and hilarious 😂 the mental image of Sarah’s dad asking a grave to be dug, requesting it be refilled, and then greeting Tobias the next morning as if none of that had happened cracked us up for a solid five minutes. I especially love the verses after Tobias chases the demon out and he and Sarah are getting ready for bed. The pair kneel together and start praying in thanks for all that God has done for them, demonstrating how a solid marriage foundation should be started. That’s when I decided that would be my OT wedding mass reading 😇🥰
The absolute irony of Tobit chapter 12 for Protestants is the fact that verse 8 is quoted by Jesus almost directly in his Sermon on the Mount, like the Greek is exactly the same
My bible has a footnote on tobit 12:8 leads to sirach 29:8-13 ive noticed sirach is quoted alot by our Lord. Shame they rob themselves by saying these books arent scripture
Eh, that verse is basically a generic proverb. An allusion in Matthew is at least possible, but it's a pretty generic sentiment and there's very little distinctive to prove a genuine quote. Regardless, Jude quotes Enoch, Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17.28 and Epimenedes in Titus 1.2. A quotation or allusion hardly proves that the author considered it canonical.
@@gilbertculloden87 A quotation or allusion doesn't prove it on it's own but is one piece of evidence among many that it is inspired scripture. The Septuagint is what the early Christians used to know Scripture. It's what the Biblical canon was based on. The 73 book bible is what Christians used until the 1500's. You'd have to think Christianity was mislead for over 1000 years which would show the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church.
Wrong. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them is from these books.
@@christopherjohnson9167 You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Septuagint circulated as a complete set of books in the 1st century AD, but that is simply not the case. Aside from the pentateuch and the 12 minor prophets, the books of the Septuagint appear to have been translated separately and (at least in the pre-Christian era) the individual books of the Septuagint circulated separately. For instance, the Septuagint version of Leviticus was found among the dead sea scrolls (4Q120), but we do not have any evidence that they had any other books in Septuagint translations (as an aside it's really only in the Christian era that we start to see sets of books circulating as a codex; the Jews of the pre-Christian era seem to have largely utilized separate scrolls of individual books). To the best of my knowledge, we do not have evidence of the Septuagint circulating as a "set" when Paul and the other New Testament writers were writing. Accordingly, when Matthew, Paul, or any other New Testament writer quote the Septuagint version of an Old Testament book, it only proves that they had a copy of that particular Old Testament book in the Septuagint form, not that they had a "complete set" of what we now call the Septuagint. Now once we reach the Christian era, we do start seeing the Septuagint circulate as a "set" in codex form, with Codex Alexandrinus being a notable example (though I would note Alexandrinus includes texts that are not regarded as canonical by anyone -like 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon - as well as books regarded as canonical by the Orthodox church and not Catholics - like 3 Maccabees and the 151 Psalm). Regarding your second point, there were many, many early church fathers who rejected the apocrypha and embraced an Old Testament canon closer to the Protestant canon. To quote something I posted elsewhere: The earliest Christian old testament canon that we have is Melito of Sardis in the 2nd century, whose canon matches the Protestant/Jewish Old Testament with the exception of Esther. See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4. 26.13-14). Meanwhile Athanasisus' Festal letter 39 likewise endorsed an Old Testament canon matching the Protestant/Jewish canon with the exception of Esther and the addition of Baruch. In the same letter he explicitly excludes the apocrypha from the canon of scriptures stating, "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read" Moreover, Jerome in his "helmeted" preface to the Vulgate edition of Kings lists an old testament canon that matches the Protestant/Jewish canon and denies the canonical status of the apocrypha, stating "This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles." Additionally Pope Gregory the Great in Moralia on Job (written after he became pope) states that 1 Maccabees is not part of the canon: "With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6, 46]." Moralia on Job Book 19 ch. 34. Even when we reach the mediaeval era, a large number of Catholic writers endorsed Jerome's Old Testament canon (ie the Protestant canon). Notably, Nichola of Lyra in the 14th century wrote a commentary on the Bible and specifically stated that Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Maccabees were "not in the canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith" Quoted in Alexander, The canon of the Old and New Testament ascertained, p. 60. Notably, Cardinal Cajetan, a Catholic contemporary of Luther, omitted the apocrypha from his commentary on the Bible, stating "“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.” Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Clearly, a Catholic in good standing like Cajetan could reject the apocrypha even in the decades leading up to Trent. Again, the Apocrypha was not definitely declared part of the canon for Catholics until Trent and there was a wide variety of attitudes among Catholics toward these books prior to that (ranging from endorsement to rejection). Now obviously none of the preceding prevents a Catholic from considering them inspired. You can simply hold that the matter was not defined until Trent and those who came before had freedom of conscience. However, you absolutely cannot claim that Luther and the Protestants "removed" these books from the Bible. They were simply following the precedent of Jerome and the other early fathers.
I just saw the funniest thing today. I'm a Catholic in Germany btw. Just this morning I went on a bike tour with some other guys. There are many Lutheran (originally Catholic) churches here and we stopped by one to enjoy the view, since it's on a little mountain. The church is (or was, since now it's just a name, really) dedicated to St. Ottilia, a Catholic medieval nun from my region here who miraculously got her blindness cured, which is already ironic enough, but as me and a friend of mine decided to enter, we saw a very old German Bible on the altar. Now, the Bible was open. And it was open right on the beginning of First Macabees. Yikes.
I literally had this argument with a prot friend over the July 4th holiday. This was the core issue and I've been seeking this information and someone to study it with. ...I don't think this a coincidence. keep going, this video will be useful in articulating truth to those who need it. Peace be with you.
The Book of Tobit is boring and bizarre like a fairy tale book and has nothing to do with your salvation. Why would you even want to read something that does nothing for you? It's a waste of time. Good for funny stories though. Toby reminds me of some bizarre and funny stories like the Koran. Birds drop their excrement on Toby's eyes for the Catholics and Salomon flies on a carpet with his entire army for many miles for the Muslims. LOL.
@jpd4676 LOL. The Book of Jonah is a lot of like a fairy tale too. It actually is one, no one thinks the story is realistic. Yet you probably accept Jonah while you reject Tobit. As for me, I find the book very edifying and that's my experience. Your preference may be different. I shared mine.
@@barborazajacova7633 Wrong it is not a lot like a fairy tale, Jesus quoted it to be a true story to compare the days he will be in the grave before he comes out just like Jonah was in the belly of the beast for three days. Jesus never quoted anything that was said in Tobit when He was asked about Himself. Get it right will you sinner? You sure don't know the Bible do you? Besides they don't use it they got their lies from the man-made book Catechism. Imagine how much the Catholics will go so far as to even insult Jesus to prove their false man-made religion. You have strengthened my belief that your false religion was never chosen by Jesus Christ to be His church. Yeah, you are right Tobi edified you to believe in the lies of the Catholic's doctrines of lies. Congratulations it made you a good one. Don't forget what the Bible says about lying. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire of hell and it only takes one lie to end up there plus there is no such place called purgatory which is another lie from your RCC. Repent what you said or you likewise will perish. Come to Jesus Christ not to Mary she is dead and her bones are still in her grave.
@@LordVader1094 I'm not your brother OK? Why are you lying? Where did I say that the OT or even the NT are fairy tales? I never said they were. I believe literally what the words of God said that is true that pertains to my salvation but there are others I don't take literally like Jesus saying He is the door, He is not a real door, or He will separate the sheep from the goats referring to those who are wicked sinners and those who are the saints. Wicked sinners are not real goats and saints are not real sheep. Don't say things I never said it is your Catholic friends who believe it is all a fairy tale because saying that Sola Scriptura is self-defeating or Jonah in the belly of the beast is a fairy tale. Go and talk to your buddies and rebuke them instead of coming here and lying and criticizing where you know nothing about me and the Bible. Typical Catholics, they are well trained to lie by their priests, the clergy, and the Vatican all on their way to hell for lying.
Yes, keep going. As brief as I can...My wife converted to Catholicism to marry me. We have four children together. We are practicing Catholics. My mother-in-law is concerned about our salvation. She is Sola scriptura. She knows about the missing books of the Bible and, out of curiosity, wanted to read those as well. It's nice to have a resource that explains these removed books. Thank you for your input. I'm working up the nerve to share this with her and not start a fight in the process.
God bless you and your wife! Hopefully I wasn't too rude in the video to make her receptive to what I have to say. I'll tone it down in the future haha
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. So read Tobit and see if it lines up with the rest of scripture? The name of the angel in Tobit is found only in the book of Tobit and nowhere else and if you look at what the angel claims , you will see some false belief.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072The Archangel Raphael is the angel of healing and was well known at the time of Jesus. The Jews still believe in this angel even today. Some believe this is the angel in the book of John because he is known for healing. I couldn't see any contradiction. Could you be specific with what it is the angel says that contradicts scripture? Also, Tobit is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran people were known for dedicating their lives to writing sacred scripture
@@Humbleservant0707 In the book of Tobias, Raphael identifies himself as one of seven archangels “who stand before the Lord” (Tobit 12:15). Raphael also offers prayers on Tobias’ behalf, and Tobias, in turn, thanks the angel because he is “filled with all good things through him” (Tobit 12:3). John sheds some light on the religious notions in the time of Christ. “A great multitude of sick people” are sitting beside a pool in Jerusalem, waiting for “the moving of the water.” They believed that an angel would descend from heaven and stir the water, making the pool a place of healing for them. Jesus approaches a man who had been infirm for 38 years and asks him if he wants to be healed. The man’s sad, superstitious reply is that he cannot be healed, because he cannot get into the pool quickly enough. Jesus then bypasses all superstition and shows His power to immediately heal the man (John 5:3-9). Although the Book of Tobias was not included in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint did include it; therefore, the story of Raphael would have been familiar to almost everyone in Jesus’ day. It is quite possible that the “angel of the pool” the sick man was waiting for was, in his mind, Raphael. It is interesting that Raphael never shows up in John 5. It is Jesus, not an angel, who “heals all your diseases” (Psalm 103:3). I couldn't see any contradiction. Could you be specific with what it is the angel says that contradicts scripture? Tobit 6: removing demons by having the possessed person walk through the smoke of burning fish entrails , you won't find that anywhere else in scripture. Healing the eyes with a fishes gall bladder? Tobit 12 8 Prayer with fasting is good. Almsgiving with righteousness is better than wealth with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold, 9 for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, 10 but those who commit sin and do evil are their own worst enemies. Lets buy our way into heaven!
It's also interesting that the original King James Version included the books of the apocrypha. That means that even some Protestant bibles used to have them, which raises another question about why they were removed, who made the decision, and when?
While Luther only moved the books to a separate section, he had already done the necessary damage by de-canonizing them. It was sometime in the 18th or 19th century that the Bible society or so was looking to print/distribute Bibles cheaply and one way to reduce cost was to remove some of the books ie the de-canonized books. This was incentivised by a particular sponsor of the Bible society insisting that the books be removed in order to support the cause. Gary Michuta did an excellent video on the topic.
+According to Wikipedia they were included as the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles for hundreds of years until 1820 when the British and Foreign Bible Society chose to remove them because fewer pages in the Bible meant lower printing costs. So, it was an economic decision, not a theological decision. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha_controversy
This is correct British Foreign Bjble society took the books out of the Bible completely to save money and prevent people from converting to Catholicism, because when Protestants read the deuterocanonical books they realize the ideas of purgatory, praying for dead, etc are all true even thought Protestants say there false. They lied to people and still do today. Sad
@@chidmania8485they were already called a secondary canon, also various books of the deuterocanon continue to be read in Lutheran congregations today (also used as supporting texts in the Lutheran Confessions).
@@TommyGunzzzYou must be thinking of the Protestant versions. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many non-denominational churches have started to accept the LGBT+ agenda. The Catholic Church stands firmly against it.
@@andreeattieh2963 The books of the Bible already existed. How did the Catholic church make something that already existed. And it's God who preserved His Word. (Psalm 12:.7 and Isaiah 40:8). Is the Catholic church also claiming the Old Testament? lol.
Thank you for giving a brief summary of Tobit. As a Protestant, I know very little about these books that were removed from Protestant Bibles. I think it's important to recognize and respect how these books are valued by Catholics.
I have an observation that I'd like your opinion on. There are actual apocryphal books in both the Old and New Testaments (I don't mean such books as the book of Tobit, which are considered the deuterocanon, or thr second canon). The OT apocrypha include the Book of Enoch. Now, my observation is that Protestants are more familiar with apocryphal books like the book of Enoch, read them and are fascinated by them to the point that they wonder how those books cannot be inspired and included as canon in the Bible. But these same Protestants do not, or very rarely, read the deuterocanon and are not curious about their contents. I daresay they may also wonder how those books weren't included in their Bibles. I think the reason for this is that Protestants are inoculated against these books as some Catholic thing and so have a native bias against them. Whereas the actual OT apocrypha do not suffer from these native suspicions that allow Protestants to read them freely. What do you think?
@@chidmania8485 I've heard of the Book of Enoch, but I don't really know anything about it except that it may be quoted in the book of Jude. I think Protestants probably don't read the deuterocanon mostly because it's not included in Bibles sold in Protestant book stores and we have never ventured out to a Catholic book store to see what books are included in a Catholic Bible.
@@PolymorphicPenguin There is a video of Father Iannuzi explaining that the Book of Enoch has some truths but also lies and so could not be included in the Bible.
awesome video! thank you for this series, this is a great idea and really helps both catholics and protestants as to why it was important for Luther to change the canon of scripture and where in scripture catholics can go to, to defend their faith. if it's 2000 years old and it isn't broke, don't fix it until you break it!
I think because the latter part of Daniel was ironically written in Greek rather than Hebrew and this caused many Protestant scholars to debate the legitimacy of it. Though I believe it, especially the part about the dragon. We just call them dinosaurs today. Besides, I don't question the legitimacy seeing as it is firstly, culturally authentic, hence it is more believable, and that shows that it is most likely historically accurate.
Tobit 12:8-9 the alms giving part connects with in Matthew 19:21 Jesus said “If you wish to be perfect,[p] go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Also connects with the acts when people were giving all they had to the Apostles to give to the poor. Really amazing the book of Tobit.
The thing that drives me insane about the dueterocanon and protestants is the new testament quotes the deuterocanon directly and when compared to the masoretic texts, you can easily see the apostles used the septuigint which contains the dueterocanon. Protestants are dead wrong about their canon
Exactly. It's bizarre to remove something that was a part of all Christianity for its entire existence. At the word of ONE man, in fact, rather than a proper council of Church elders.
@@LordVader1094 Yeah i think the boundaries of scripture wasnt something the average man thought of. They trusted the church before this…. Germany just became so radicalized
Amazing idea for a series, keep on going, brother :) Also, every time I read Tob 12, 15 when Raphael reveals his name and his true nature sends shivers down my spine; it's epic!
@@johnbrowne2170The Bible is a Catholic book. The Magisterium of the Church is the sole authority to determine the biblical canon. I will teach you how bishop of Rome canonized the Bible... (short canon history) In AD -382 Pope Damasus-I At the First Council of Rome, the first complete canon was promulgated ... All 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament) are included in today's Bible. Pope Damasus declared that not a book should be added to this canon, nor should a book be taken away from it. Council of Hippo (AD - 393) Reaffirmed (state again strongly) 73 books in the Bible. Council of Carthage - Reaffimed the declarations of the Council of Rome in AD - 382 and the Council of Hippo in AD -393. In AD - 419 the 4th Council of Carthage confirmed all the decisions of the 3rd Council of Carthage. The Council of Florence (AD - 1442) reaffirmed the canon. Council of Trent AD-1546 Reaffirmed the canon. St. Jerome's Bible (Latin Vulgate) is officially announced once again. The Purpose of the Council was to counter the false doctrines caused by Protestant heresies. *British Bible society* and Robert Haldane (not Calvin or Zwingli or Luther) was responsible for removing 7 books from the Protestant Bible. Under Haldane's leadership, in 1821, a protest began against the British Bible Society demanding that funds not be given to Bible societies that were printing the Deutero Canon. The resolution was passed in 1822, which means that it has been only 200 years since Protestant churches started using the 66-book Bible. In the Heidelberg Disputation (AD1518) and Theses - 17 and 35, Luther quotes from the book of wisdom, Sirach ( Deutero Canon) for his arguments. Martin Luther debated with Catholic theologian Fr.Johann Eck in AD-1519 about the doctrine of purgatory... Luther's Arguments are Debunked... With that moment Luther took a stand the book of Maccabees was not part of the Canon ... Luther who rejected the canon of Septuagint rejected classified Epistle to the Hebrews(as it teaches about the priesthood -Hebrew 13:17), James( as it teaches that there is a reward for man's good works, James 2:24) , Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John as disputed( The Book of Revelation It is not useful to understand Christ, it does not have the work of the Holy Spirit). The question is But why are these books still included in Protestant Bibles? Some Protestants argue that the Catholic Church established the canon at the Council of Trent. !!! So how did the Deuterocanon appear in Martin Luther's and other Protestant Bibles? Doesn't it sound strange...!!! Huldrch Zwingli published the Bible in German in 1531, Martin Luther in 1534(German), and John Calvin in 1560 (English)All these included 73 books. In AD -1611 the king James version of the Bible was released ... and it had 73 books. The 7 books of the Old Testament were included under the name Deuterocanon....Interestingly, many references were used from these for the New Testament. After AD-1885 the Deutero Canon books were removed from king James Bible... Gutenberg Bible www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/eframes/index.html Luther Bible 1535 archive.org/download/lutherbibel1535 Geneva Bible of 1560 Edition: archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560 King James Bible of 1611 Edition: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1661-Bible/
I loved this video! Sat through the whole thing and it flew by. Very insightful and already changes my perspective on these 7 books. I 1000% support you making more of these!!!!
Martin Luther was also an ordained Catholic Priest, he wasn't just some lay person who stood up to the Church. I've seen online a few times that just prior to his protest (that's where the word Protestant comes from btw) he was expecting to be appointed as a Catholic Bishop , but the Pope denied him the position. Hence his whole spiel was actually brought on by anger, for not getting the new appointment. I didn't bother to check on the facts of this because after listening to his incessant raving in his book "On Jews and Their Lies " on audio on youtube it made my stomach turn enough to make a personal judgment about him as a true heretic of Christianity.
Yes he was a priest, but I’m not sure if he was expecting to be appointed a bishop. May have to check up on that. I do know he suffered from a LOT of scrupulosity, often trying to receive absolution mere hours after his last confession and never trusting in God’s grace in the confessional. That’s why I think he focused so hard on applying his “faith alone” mindset into Scripture, so he could justify to himself that he didn’t need to ‘do’ anything for his faith.
@@jendoe9436 That’s why I think he focused so hard on applying his “faith alone” mindset into Scripture, so he could justify to himself that he didn’t need to ‘do’ anything for his faith. Interesting conclusion but totally false as all through the scriptures we are to go by faith , in everything we do. There is no go by faith and do nothing . Titus 3:5 points out there is nothing we do to make ourselves righteous in the sight of God but all through the new testament are exhortations to do good ,and to do good things you can not sit idle.Eph 2:8 salvation is a gift. Eph 2:9 no works add anything to that gift. Eph 2:10 we were created to do the works of God . Eph 2:10 we do the works of God because of the gift of salvation never to be taken away , never for the gift as if we can attain a better life.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 funny, as in James it specifically says how we are not justified by faith alone and faith without works is dead. Even Jesus points out that merely following and believing in him is not always enough, that we must do works and actions to better live out the faith. Martin Luther’s problem is he wanted faith in his salvation, but he didn’t trust in God enough to feel secure when graces were given to him and it’s led to the mindset where people think they don’t have to do anything for themselves. That no matter what they do God will have them covered. Which also goes against Jesus’s warning that those who cry to him “Lord, lord!” but never did anything for others such as help the lowly and help the sick will not be welcomed into the kingdom. Faith is one part, works is another, and we cannot separate the two.
@@jendoe9436 Martin Luther’s problem is he wanted faith in his salvation, but he didn’t trust in God enough to feel secure when graces were given to him I don't follow Luther , I try to follow Christ in scripture. and it’s led to the mindset where people think they don’t have to do anything for themselves. I keep hearing this but in all the denominations I have been to ,I have never heard any such teaching as have faith and do nothing. Every denomination going by faith in God's word is also doing the very things that you ascribe to in Matthew where Jesus says I never knew you! Faith is one part, works is another, and we cannot separate the two. We receive by faith and do works because of the free gift of salvation , but none of those works does anything to enhance our gift of salvation.
Please continue this series! I’ve always wanted to know more about these books but didn’t have the time to look into them. You laid everything out perfectly
Raphael, when he gave his name and his father’s name, they translated to healer of God, which is what Raphael means, and Mercy of God. Protestants might say that Raphael lied, but he didn’t.
Very informative I went and read the book of Tobit it’s very similar to Jonah and has referenced the city of Nineveh😮 Interesting things that are there!
Great Job my friend ...... I've read Tobit twice in the past but by reviewing with you, it was a reinforcing and satisfying ... Thanks !!! I did Subscribe and i feel you should continue with the other books ...
When you come to II Maccabees, don't just take chapter 12, prayers for the dead, therefore some kind of purgatory, but also include chapter 15, acceptance of revelation, and the affirmation that Jeremias is currently praying for the Jewish people = prayers to the saints, nearly.
Martin Luther threw out the apocrypha, but in some later writings he went back to referring to some of them as his scriptural basis. He was kind of a contradiction.
Martin Luther didn't remove the books, this is a misunderstanding caused by a poor knowledge of history. Luther only sorted them into their own category as "deuterocanonical books" and said that it is good for Christians to read them. Deuterocanonical books remained in Protestant Bibles until 1826, when the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to cut corners to save money and the association removed the books to reduce the amount of paper and ink used to print the Bible, as they created costs. However, some of the churches belonging to the association, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, continued to print deuterocanonical books and update translations at their own expense behind the association's back, but only as separate booklets and as part of large family Bibles (funfact: the reason for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland to continue printing and re-translating books "without permission" after 1826 was Book of Sirach)
I appreciate your point very much. However, "deutero"canonical means "second" to the canon. Luther was still removing them from the canon of inspired Scripture. Whether or not they were published between the covers of a book called The Bible is beside the point.
I do love the book of Tobit. It reads in some ways a bit like a fairy tale in it's structure, which is fun. It has so much symbolism and a beautiful happy end. I always wondered why anyone would it out of the canon. But it makes sense, the whole story only works through Tobits and Tobias obedience, and Raphaels intercession.
The white scales on tobias's eyes. Same as the white scales on Paul Saul eyes. Tobias was taught by an Angel how to heal tobit's eyes. Jesus sent one of his disciples to heal Saul's eyes
When we read in Acts 17 that Paul relied on “scripture alone” to reason with the Jews, it was the Tanakh that he used. The Old Testament scriptures. He could have used the traditions of the Jews, but chose not to. He relied on the word of God alone. Since these books are not in the Tanakh, he would not have been using them. Just an observation. God bless.
This channel has gone from my 5th-favourite "Catholic Guy with Beard and Icons and Books Talks about Catholicism" channel to my 2nd-favourite "Catholic Guy with Beard and Icons and Books Talks about Catholicism" channel.
Condones the use of magic Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.” Is it true that the smoke from a fish’s heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God. Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. Salvation by works: Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.” Tobit 12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.” We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us - not money or food given to poor people. “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,” (1 John 1:7). Money as an offering for the sins of the dead: 2 Maccabbees 12:43, “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.” Can anyone truly accept that money isn’t offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture. Historical Errors Wrong historical facts: Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.” The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1 Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Conclusion Obviously, the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts - it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn’t inspired by God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man’s false tradition rather than God’s absolute truth.
I'm working on another video that will be arguing for the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books more generally. It will have a more academic tone so that one might be better to share with them. Hoping to upload it Monday.
Nice video. I love the Book of Tobit. It’s such a beautiful story and, yes, unintentionally funny. Regarding the Prot explanation that these books were removed because of the Hebrew canon. It’s the canon the Jewish people developed after Christ. At the time of Jesus, they had and accepted the books of the Septuagint.
The Hebrew Canon wasn't settled until long after Christ, so that's another reason for Christians not to follow the current Hebrew Canon. At the time of Christ, there were different Jewish schools of thought, each of which followed a different Canon. Some only accepted the first 5 books, the Pentateuch. Why didn't Christians adopt that model from the beginning? There's a clue in the Gospel, where Jesus explains the law of marriage as God intended. The Gospel writer notes that the questioner only accepted the Books of Moses, and shows that Jesus used that Canon to explain the answer. Elsewhere in the New Testament, both in the canonical Gospels and the Epistles, there are references to the Old Testament Books that Catholics use (that is, the same ones Protestants accept plus the ones that Luther decided to remove from the Canon; as a side note, there's even a reference to one of the Books of Enoch that the Catholic Church ended up not including, but hasn't condemned either).
Because he realized he was committing a sin against God. He wanted only what supported his own ideas. Luther was obsessed with humanity being their own gods.
No, we’re fully aware that Luther was skeptical about the canonicity of James. That’s not a problem for us because of Sola Scriptura. Priests get things wrong, so James is still in our Bibles but the non-canon books aren’t.
Good job with Tobit. Luther was a trainwreck. He decided he knew more than Jesus so he set up his own brand of christianity. Besides removing the seven deuterocanonical Old Testament books Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation from the New Testament because they didn’t fit his new theology either.
@@Spiritof76Catholic There is a conflict between sacred scripture and sola scripture… That is why Martin Luther placed the 7 books of the Old Testament with the name Apocrypha.. Luther who rejected the canon of Septuagint rejected classified Epistle to the Hebrews(as it teaches about the priesthood -Hebrew 13:17), James( as it teaches that there is a reward for man's good works, James 2:24) , Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John as disputed( The Book of Revelation It is not useful to understand Christ, it does not have the work of the Holy Spirit). James 2:24 is the only verse in the Bible that uses the phrase “faith alone”-and it says that people are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” This is one reason why *Martin Luther wanted the epistle of James removed from the Bible* . Luther himself admitted that sola fide *contradicts* James-even claiming, “I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle.” In the pre-1530 version of his Preface to the Epistles of St. James, Luther held that James “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. . . . He mangles the scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture.” Luther then issued the following challenge: “To him who can make these two agree I will give my doctor’s cap, and I am willing to be called a fool.” Thus, instead of adjusting his theology to fit Scripture, Luther’s solution was to *relegate the book of James to the canonical cheap seats* , declaring flatly in his Preface: “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books.” Indeed, Luther’s advice was that they “*should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much* ” And of course, Luther famously declared *James to be an “epistle of straw* ” It is a wonder that Book of James is still in the Bible of Protestant believers who cut their feet according to the shoe.
Yes, now that I've realized this I was already moving away from Protestantism but now I view it as full blown heresy. "Sola Scriptura" indeed, what a joke lol
Thank you @jineshfrancis and @LordVader for your thoughts. Look at 2 Peter 1:20-21, First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. These simple verses absolutely destroy Luther and sola scriptura and backup what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years. What I don’t get is why Luther, this brilliant man has he been able to dupe so many millions of people for centuries about sola scriptura???
I am joining the Roman Catholic church, and ironically, my Assemblies of God Protestant parents don't mind one bit. I'm glad we can still view each other as fellow Christians. However, I have a few questions, one of them my priest couldn't answer. Do we know for sure that Baruch was really written by Jeremiah's scribe? Also, why do we have Judith seeing as it's not entirely historically accurate?
@daguroswaldson257 for a Bible study about Baruch go to Reason and Theology and their Bible studies playlist with Louis Dizon - he explains it there, incl. the historical facts about it. I don't remember if he has a study on Judith but my Bible says the book is not meant to be historically accurate, which is made abundantly clear by how it uses historical references, but it is an exhortation and encouragement.. it is by no means a real historical account but it doesn't make the book untrue.
I've heard that Luther used the Messoretic canon instead of the Latin Vulgate or Septuagint, and apparently the reason the Messoretic text was without those 7 books is because the Jews lost those books a long time ago. Even though it's in the Greek Septuagint. Either way, I enjoy the videos and look forward to the rest! Sirach / Ecclesiasticus is one of my favorite books in the Bible. If you want a chuckle, look up Sirach 9:10, but it's only in the Douay-Rheims. All other translations seem to have removed that verse. 😂
What did Martin Luther say about the scripture in Mathew 25 seperating the sheeps from the goats, where it appeared that people were justified by feeding the hungry ect?
Jesus and His apostates quoted and used some of these books to write scriptures including Tobit, Macabees and Sirach. Research the Book of James in reference to the book of Sirach. AMAZING!! Of Jesus and His apostles used, read and quoted from these books, NO HUMAN BEING had any right or authority to say they are not the truly inspired word of god.
I started to it after this I couldn't find it on Bible app the version I had. But I have a Bible that has it. Very good read tonight getting hot about the goat was so unnecessary. It was good intentions but he didn't believe his wife and got anger and argued with his wife plus blinded. I see Tobias married Sarah I thought you said tobit so I was surprised he had a wife. I got confused. My first time reading tobit
St Jerome didn’t think they were infallible like other parts of scripture it was a reformation not a revolution and the pope has even said it was a good thing that was deserved
The Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Written in 325AD, canonized in 382AD & reaffirmed in 393AD & 397AD. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here & there can negate the meaning of Gods words. Revelation 22:18 For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book. Revelation 22:19 And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book. Jeremiah 26:2 “Thus says the Lord: Stand in the atrium of the house of the Lord, and speak to all the cities of Judah, from which they come to adore in the house of the Lord, all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. DO NOT CHOOSE TO SUBTRACT ANY WORD.”
The one point in Tobit saying that almsgiving wipes away ALL sin is a big problem. Even for Catholics. So why did Jesus have to come, why do you have the eucharist, why do you have confession, if almsgiving is all that is required for salvation? That is the main reason Tobit was removed. I think its fair.
That, also I personally discovered the power of Confession and the Eucharist, and saints to the extent of baring the Stigmata (not even the Orthodox have at least one), why I'm open to help from Protestants, but will never leave the Catholic faith. That is if I ever find any Protestants who don't hate Catholics more, than the devil itself 😂! I wish this was sarcasm, but it's not.
Dear friend, I love and respect the Roman Catholic tradition. I am a confessional lutheran. Please, permit me to start with a counsel. You are a young man. Be true. Do not be disingenuous. When Luther translated the Bible in german he kept all the books, canonical and deutero-canonical or apocrypha. The only thing he did was he put the latter between the Old and New Testament. This was not an innovation. He followed st Jerome, the Vulgata translator. St Jerom argued that is better to do a distinction between the Hebrew Bible and books added in it. St Jerome believed that these books are not included in the Canon, they are not canonical books. St Jerome said that these books are indeed good for instruction and strengthening but not for confirming the ecclesiastical authority of dogmas. So, Lutherans read these books but they do not consider them to be canonical. They do not use them for defining the ecclesiastical dogmas. In fact, Luther put Jerom's ideas in practice. We love these books. Luther wrote preface for each book he translated, including the apocrypha. He also used them, for example Tobit, when he spoke about the 1st commandment. He wrote many good things in favor of them. Not only this. With his translation, he made these books very famous and popular among the simple people, in their mother tongue. In the first lutheran liturgies, parts of these books were used as antiphons and introits. In some cases, Luther preached based on them. With all my love, please, be true in what you say for the greatest reformer of the catholic church, a reformer the system of the church did not accept with big damage of the simple people. Read Luther' s work, read in general good lutheran theological books and you will find the law/gospel distinction and the true gospel in them. I send you also this video that helped write to you this comment. God's grace be with you always. ua-cam.com/video/0FhZbOeGI9A/v-deo.html
I find it hard to take your video seriously, when you fail to acknowledge that the Catholic church did not definitely declare the apocrypha canonical until Trent. Luther and the Protestants did not "remove" anything from the Bible, instead they followed what was arguably the consensus view of the early fathers prior to Trent. The earliest Christian old testament canon that we have is Melito of Sardis in the 2nd century, whose canon matches the Protestant/Jewish Old Testament with the exception of Esther. See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4. 26.13-14). Meanwhile Athanasisus' Festal letter 39 endorsed an Old Testament canon identical to the Protestant/Jewish canon with the exception of Esther and the addition of Baruch. In the same letter he explicitly excludes the apocrypha from the canon of scriptures stating, "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read" Moreover, Jerome in his "helmeted" preface to the Vulgate edition of Kings lists an old testament canon that matches the Protestant/Jewish canon and denies the canonical status of the apocrypha, stating "This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles." Additionally Pope Gregory the Great in Moralia on Job (written after he became pope) states that 1 Maccabees is not part of the canon: "With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6, 46]." Moralia on Job Book 19 ch. 34. Even when we reach the mediaeval era, a large number of Catholic writers endorsed Jerome's Old Testament canon (ie the Protestant canon). Notably, Nichola of Lyra in the 14th century wrote a commentary on the Bible and specifically stated that Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Maccabees were "not in the canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith" Quoted in Alexander, The canon of the Old and New Testament ascertained, p. 60. Notably, Cardinal Cajetan, a Catholic contemporary of Luther, omitted the apocrypha from his commentary on the Bible, stating "“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.” Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Clearly, a Catholic in good standing like Cajetan could reject the apocrypha even in the decades leading up to Trent. Again, the Apocrypha was not definitely declared part of the canon for Catholics until Trent and there was a wide variety of attitudes among Catholics toward these books prior to that (ranging from endorsement to rejection). Now obviously none of the preceding prevents a Catholic from considering them inspired. You can simply hold that the matter was not defined until Trent and those who came before had freedom of conscience. However, you absolutely cannot claim that Luther and the Protestants "removed" these books from the Bible. They were simply following the precedent of Jerome and the other early fathers. Aside from this, Tobit itself does not portray anyone praying to Raphael. Raphael is merely the angel tasked with presenting the prayers of Tobit and Sarah to God. Therefore, the book cannot be used to justify prayer to the saints in any meaningful way.
can you hear yourself? Luther, sitting in his little room, removed books from all the bibles on earth. He could cut them out of his bible. How did he sneak into every home bookstore church on the planet and remove books? Your hate for Luther exposing the rot in the CC has clouded your thinking.
With your permission @SipswithSerra i would like to make a response video to your claims. I will make sure to appropriately credit you, but i would like to use your footage.
@sonsofpolaris6102 you're OK brother, I do not condemn you. You haven't heard of anything I would like to say. I simply would like to make a response video to the points our brother makes. I may not agree with everything he says, but that does not mean I'm entirely opposed to him, you or anyone else.
![attacking ideas | my changing view of Islam [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X9rTbh4a57o/mqdefault.jpg)
The irony of subscribing to sola scriptura when you don’t even have the full scriptures
Can you name one thing we must believe for salvation which is NOT in the bible?
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs Yes. The trinity.
You will not find the trinity as we know it defined and explained fully. You have to be a trinitarian to be a Christian.
There are others who call themselves Christians yet reject the trinity like Mormons, Jehovas witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and biblical Unitarians.
Arianism (a heresy that denies the trinity) has plagued Christianity since the very beginning.
Yes very ironic. Sola scrptura is self-defeating
@@Michael-pw2td belueving whatever the roman church says is crazy under Francis.
@@wilsontexas Prot cope alert
Saint Raphael Archangel, pray for us! 🙏
Amen! I always saw statues of him and wondered what his story was.
73 books of the bible and by example you find in all 73 books of the bible no one prays to anyone other than God, for anything. So here you are praying to an angel to get a result that only God can provide? Why? Heb 4:15,16 tells you who to go to!
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 2nd Maccabees.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072protestant detected
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
12:46 Pretty much answers the question you ask, which I bet has been answered many times before.
I wonder why they call it _cherry picking_ I don't like cherry's but if I did, I wouldn't choose just one or two but probably all I could pluck.
As someone who came back to my faith only at the age of 24 (just over a decade ago), I love your channel and even though I was never protestant I do believe your channel will also speak to the "reverts" to the Faith. God bless you!
Thank you! Hopefully I can stop some folks from being convinced to leave the Faith by Protestant arguments.
@@SipswithSerra Is anyone still falling for that? 😆😝
I'm pretty sure the flow is headed the other way now.
My group did a Bible study on Tobit, and you are right that it’s both theologically rich and hilarious 😂 the mental image of Sarah’s dad asking a grave to be dug, requesting it be refilled, and then greeting Tobias the next morning as if none of that had happened cracked us up for a solid five minutes.
I especially love the verses after Tobias chases the demon out and he and Sarah are getting ready for bed. The pair kneel together and start praying in thanks for all that God has done for them, demonstrating how a solid marriage foundation should be started. That’s when I decided that would be my OT wedding mass reading 😇🥰
The absolute irony of Tobit chapter 12 for Protestants is the fact that verse 8 is quoted by Jesus almost directly in his Sermon on the Mount, like the Greek is exactly the same
My bible has a footnote on tobit 12:8 leads to sirach 29:8-13 ive noticed sirach is quoted alot by our Lord. Shame they rob themselves by saying these books arent scripture
Eh, that verse is basically a generic proverb. An allusion in Matthew is at least possible, but it's a pretty generic sentiment and there's very little distinctive to prove a genuine quote. Regardless, Jude quotes Enoch, Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17.28 and Epimenedes in Titus 1.2. A quotation or allusion hardly proves that the author considered it canonical.
@@gilbertculloden87 A quotation or allusion doesn't prove it on it's own but is one piece of evidence among many that it is inspired scripture. The Septuagint is what the early Christians used to know Scripture. It's what the Biblical canon was based on. The 73 book bible is what Christians used until the 1500's. You'd have to think Christianity was mislead for over 1000 years which would show the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church.
Wrong. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them is from these books.
@@christopherjohnson9167 You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Septuagint circulated as a complete set of books in the 1st century AD, but that is simply not the case. Aside from the pentateuch and the 12 minor prophets, the books of the Septuagint appear to have been translated separately and (at least in the pre-Christian era) the individual books of the Septuagint circulated separately. For instance, the Septuagint version of Leviticus was found among the dead sea scrolls (4Q120), but we do not have any evidence that they had any other books in Septuagint translations (as an aside it's really only in the Christian era that we start to see sets of books circulating as a codex; the Jews of the pre-Christian era seem to have largely utilized separate scrolls of individual books). To the best of my knowledge, we do not have evidence of the Septuagint circulating as a "set" when Paul and the other New Testament writers were writing. Accordingly, when Matthew, Paul, or any other New Testament writer quote the Septuagint version of an Old Testament book, it only proves that they had a copy of that particular Old Testament book in the Septuagint form, not that they had a "complete set" of what we now call the Septuagint. Now once we reach the Christian era, we do start seeing the Septuagint circulate as a "set" in codex form, with Codex Alexandrinus being a notable example (though I would note Alexandrinus includes texts that are not regarded as canonical by anyone -like 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon - as well as books regarded as canonical by the Orthodox church and not Catholics - like 3 Maccabees and the 151 Psalm).
Regarding your second point, there were many, many early church fathers who rejected the apocrypha and embraced an Old Testament canon closer to the Protestant canon. To quote something I posted elsewhere:
The earliest Christian old testament canon that we have is Melito of Sardis in the 2nd century, whose canon matches the Protestant/Jewish Old Testament with the exception of Esther. See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4. 26.13-14).
Meanwhile Athanasisus' Festal letter 39 likewise endorsed an Old Testament canon matching the Protestant/Jewish canon with the exception of Esther and the addition of Baruch. In the same letter he explicitly excludes the apocrypha from the canon of scriptures stating, "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read"
Moreover, Jerome in his "helmeted" preface to the Vulgate edition of Kings lists an old testament canon that matches the Protestant/Jewish canon and denies the canonical status of the apocrypha, stating "This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles."
Additionally Pope Gregory the Great in Moralia on Job (written after he became pope) states that 1 Maccabees is not part of the canon: "With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6, 46]." Moralia on Job Book 19 ch. 34.
Even when we reach the mediaeval era, a large number of Catholic writers endorsed Jerome's Old Testament canon (ie the Protestant canon). Notably, Nichola of Lyra in the 14th century wrote a commentary on the Bible and specifically stated that Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Maccabees were "not in the canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith" Quoted in Alexander, The canon of the Old and New Testament ascertained, p. 60.
Notably, Cardinal Cajetan, a Catholic contemporary of Luther, omitted the apocrypha from his commentary on the Bible, stating "“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.” Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Clearly, a Catholic in good standing like Cajetan could reject the apocrypha even in the decades leading up to Trent.
Again, the Apocrypha was not definitely declared part of the canon for Catholics until Trent and there was a wide variety of attitudes among Catholics toward these books prior to that (ranging from endorsement to rejection). Now obviously none of the preceding prevents a Catholic from considering them inspired. You can simply hold that the matter was not defined until Trent and those who came before had freedom of conscience. However, you absolutely cannot claim that Luther and the Protestants "removed" these books from the Bible. They were simply following the precedent of Jerome and the other early fathers.
I just saw the funniest thing today. I'm a Catholic in Germany btw. Just this morning I went on a bike tour with some other guys. There are many Lutheran (originally Catholic) churches here and we stopped by one to enjoy the view, since it's on a little mountain. The church is (or was, since now it's just a name, really) dedicated to St. Ottilia, a Catholic medieval nun from my region here who miraculously got her blindness cured, which is already ironic enough, but as me and a friend of mine decided to enter, we saw a very old German Bible on the altar. Now, the Bible was open. And it was open right on the beginning of First Macabees. Yikes.
It’s almost like the premise of this video is dumb
@@willieclark2256 Telling the truth is "dumb" how exactly?
I literally had this argument with a prot friend over the July 4th holiday. This was the core issue and I've been seeking this information and someone to study it with.
...I don't think this a coincidence. keep going, this video will be useful in articulating truth to those who need it. Peace be with you.
I love the Book of Tobit. It taught me a lot about spiritual warfare!
The Book of Tobit is boring and bizarre like a fairy tale book and has nothing to do with your salvation. Why would you even want to read something that does nothing for you? It's a waste of time. Good for funny stories though. Toby reminds me of some bizarre and funny stories like the Koran. Birds drop their excrement on Toby's eyes for the Catholics and Salomon flies on a carpet with his entire army for many miles for the Muslims. LOL.
@jpd4676 LOL. The Book of Jonah is a lot of like a fairy tale too. It actually is one, no one thinks the story is realistic. Yet you probably accept Jonah while you reject Tobit. As for me, I find the book very edifying and that's my experience. Your preference may be different. I shared mine.
@@jpd4676 Bro you're gonna have a lot of trouble with the Old Testament in general if you dismiss them based off them sounding like fairy tale books 💀
@@barborazajacova7633 Wrong it is not a lot like a fairy tale, Jesus quoted it to be a true story to compare the days he will be in the grave before he comes out just like Jonah was in the belly of the beast for three days. Jesus never quoted anything that was said in Tobit when He was asked about Himself. Get it right will you sinner? You sure don't know the Bible do you? Besides they don't use it they got their lies from the man-made book Catechism.
Imagine how much the Catholics will go so far as to even insult Jesus to prove their false man-made religion. You have strengthened my belief that your false religion was never chosen by Jesus Christ to be His church.
Yeah, you are right Tobi edified you to believe in the lies of the Catholic's doctrines of lies. Congratulations it made you a good one. Don't forget what the Bible says about lying. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire of hell and it only takes one lie to end up there plus there is no such place called purgatory which is another lie from your RCC.
Repent what you said or you likewise will perish. Come to Jesus Christ not to Mary she is dead and her bones are still in her grave.
@@LordVader1094 I'm not your brother OK? Why are you lying? Where did I say that the OT or even the NT are fairy tales? I never said they were. I believe literally what the words of God said that is true that pertains to my salvation but there are others I don't take literally like Jesus saying He is the door, He is not a real door, or He will separate the sheep from the goats referring to those who are wicked sinners and those who are the saints. Wicked sinners are not real goats and saints are not real sheep.
Don't say things I never said it is your Catholic friends who believe it is all a fairy tale because saying that Sola Scriptura is self-defeating or Jonah in the belly of the beast is a fairy tale. Go and talk to your buddies and rebuke them instead of coming here and lying and criticizing where you know nothing about me and the Bible. Typical Catholics, they are well trained to lie by their priests, the clergy, and the Vatican all on their way to hell for lying.
Yes, keep going.
As brief as I can...My wife converted to Catholicism to marry me. We have four children together. We are practicing Catholics. My mother-in-law is concerned about our salvation. She is Sola scriptura. She knows about the missing books of the Bible and, out of curiosity, wanted to read those as well.
It's nice to have a resource that explains these removed books.
Thank you for your input. I'm working up the nerve to share this with her and not start a fight in the process.
God bless you and your wife! Hopefully I wasn't too rude in the video to make her receptive to what I have to say. I'll tone it down in the future haha
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
So read Tobit and see if it lines up with the rest of scripture?
The name of the angel in Tobit is found only in the book of Tobit and nowhere else and if you look at what the angel claims , you will see some false belief.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072how?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072The Archangel Raphael is the angel of healing and was well known at the time of Jesus. The Jews still believe in this angel even today. Some believe this is the angel in the book of John because he is known for healing. I couldn't see any contradiction. Could you be specific with what it is the angel says that contradicts scripture? Also, Tobit is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran people were known for dedicating their lives to writing sacred scripture
@@Humbleservant0707
In the book of Tobias, Raphael identifies himself as one of seven archangels “who stand before the Lord” (Tobit 12:15). Raphael also offers prayers on Tobias’ behalf, and Tobias, in turn, thanks the angel because he is “filled with all good things through him” (Tobit 12:3).
John sheds some light on the religious notions in the time of Christ. “A great multitude of sick people” are sitting beside a pool in Jerusalem, waiting for “the moving of the water.” They believed that an angel would descend from heaven and stir the water, making the pool a place of healing for them. Jesus approaches a man who had been infirm for 38 years and asks him if he wants to be healed. The man’s sad, superstitious reply is that he cannot be healed, because he cannot get into the pool quickly enough. Jesus then bypasses all superstition and shows His power to immediately heal the man (John 5:3-9).
Although the Book of Tobias was not included in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint did include it; therefore, the story of Raphael would have been familiar to almost everyone in Jesus’ day. It is quite possible that the “angel of the pool” the sick man was waiting for was, in his mind, Raphael. It is interesting that Raphael never shows up in John 5. It is Jesus, not an angel, who “heals all your diseases” (Psalm 103:3).
I couldn't see any contradiction. Could you be specific with what it is the angel says that contradicts scripture?
Tobit 6: removing demons by having the possessed person walk through the smoke of burning fish entrails , you won't find that anywhere else in scripture. Healing the eyes with a fishes gall bladder?
Tobit 12 8 Prayer with fasting is good. Almsgiving with righteousness is better than wealth with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold, 9 for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, 10 but those who commit sin and do evil are their own worst enemies.
Lets buy our way into heaven!
Thank your effort here! As a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church this is extremely helpful.
It's also interesting that the original King James Version included the books of the apocrypha. That means that even some Protestant bibles used to have them, which raises another question about why they were removed, who made the decision, and when?
While Luther only moved the books to a separate section, he had already done the necessary damage by de-canonizing them.
It was sometime in the 18th or 19th century that the Bible society or so was looking to print/distribute Bibles cheaply and one way to reduce cost was to remove some of the books ie the de-canonized books. This was incentivised by a particular sponsor of the Bible society insisting that the books be removed in order to support the cause.
Gary Michuta did an excellent video on the topic.
+According to Wikipedia they were included as the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles for hundreds of years until 1820 when the British and Foreign Bible Society chose to remove them because fewer pages in the Bible meant lower printing costs. So, it was an economic decision, not a theological decision.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha_controversy
This is correct British Foreign Bjble society took the books out of the Bible completely to save money and prevent people from converting to Catholicism, because when Protestants read the deuterocanonical books they realize the ideas of purgatory, praying for dead, etc are all true even thought Protestants say there false. They lied to people and still do today. Sad
@@chidmania8485they were already called a secondary canon, also various books of the deuterocanon continue to be read in Lutheran congregations today (also used as supporting texts in the Lutheran Confessions).
Ordering a catholic bible soon, really excited for this series!
NRSV is decent, but go for the RSV or ESV-CE if you can. God bless!
@@shepherddog1199 thank you, I was going to go for nrsv, what makes RSV better?
Nah, get the LGBTQI Vatican version.
@@TommyGunzzzYou must be thinking of the Protestant versions. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many non-denominational churches have started to accept the LGBT+ agenda. The Catholic Church stands firmly against it.
May people see the truth, with guidance from the blessed Virgin Mary, they will see the church ⛪️🇻🇦🙏♥️
Mary has nothing to do with seeing the truth of the Bible.
The catholic church made the bible @johnbrowne2170
@@andreeattieh2963 Do you mean put the letters in book form?
@@johnbrowne2170You seem fun at parties
@@andreeattieh2963 The books of the Bible already existed. How did the Catholic church make something that already existed. And it's God who preserved His Word. (Psalm 12:.7 and Isaiah 40:8). Is the Catholic church also claiming the Old Testament? lol.
Thank you for giving a brief summary of Tobit. As a Protestant, I know very little about these books that were removed from Protestant Bibles. I think it's important to recognize and respect how these books are valued by Catholics.
As someone who is neither Catholic or Protestant, but just started RCIA, it just makes sense to go to the original source.
I have an observation that I'd like your opinion on.
There are actual apocryphal books in both the Old and New Testaments (I don't mean such books as the book of Tobit, which are considered the deuterocanon, or thr second canon).
The OT apocrypha include the Book of Enoch.
Now, my observation is that Protestants are more familiar with apocryphal books like the book of Enoch, read them and are fascinated by them to the point that they wonder how those books cannot be inspired and included as canon in the Bible.
But these same Protestants do not, or very rarely, read the deuterocanon and are not curious about their contents. I daresay they may also wonder how those books weren't included in their Bibles.
I think the reason for this is that Protestants are inoculated against these books as some Catholic thing and so have a native bias against them. Whereas the actual OT apocrypha do not suffer from these native suspicions that allow Protestants to read them freely.
What do you think?
@@chidmania8485 I've heard of the Book of Enoch, but I don't really know anything about it except that it may be quoted in the book of Jude. I think Protestants probably don't read the deuterocanon mostly because it's not included in Bibles sold in Protestant book stores and we have never ventured out to a Catholic book store to see what books are included in a Catholic Bible.
@@PolymorphicPenguin There is a video of Father Iannuzi explaining that the Book of Enoch has some truths but also lies and so could not be included in the Bible.
awesome video! thank you for this series, this is a great idea and really helps both catholics and protestants as to why it was important for Luther to change the canon of scripture and where in scripture catholics can go to, to defend their faith. if it's 2000 years old and it isn't broke, don't fix it until you break it!
*there is also a change to Daniel
And Baruch!
I think because the latter part of Daniel was ironically written in Greek rather than Hebrew and this caused many Protestant scholars to debate the legitimacy of it. Though I believe it, especially the part about the dragon. We just call them dinosaurs today. Besides, I don't question the legitimacy seeing as it is firstly, culturally authentic, hence it is more believable, and that shows that it is most likely historically accurate.
Tobit 12:8-9 the alms giving part connects with in Matthew 19:21 Jesus said “If you wish to be perfect,[p] go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Also connects with the acts when people were giving all they had to the Apostles to give to the poor. Really amazing the book of Tobit.
The thing that drives me insane about the dueterocanon and protestants is the new testament quotes the deuterocanon directly and when compared to the masoretic texts, you can easily see the apostles used the septuigint which contains the dueterocanon. Protestants are dead wrong about their canon
Exactly. It's bizarre to remove something that was a part of all Christianity for its entire existence. At the word of ONE man, in fact, rather than a proper council of Church elders.
@@LordVader1094 Yeah i think the boundaries of scripture wasnt something the average man thought of. They trusted the church before this…. Germany just became so radicalized
Amazing idea for a series, keep on going, brother :)
Also, every time I read Tob 12, 15 when Raphael reveals his name and his true nature sends shivers down my spine; it's epic!
Thank you for the video. Love the idea of a brief introduction and explanation for Luther's removal of the books. Pax
I love Tobit!! It's my favorite Book for a lot of reasons, a big one being that its quite hilarious at times!
It isn't the Bible.
@@johnbrowne2170says who oh right martin Luther
@@andreeattieh2963 I'm not a Lutheran.
@@johnbrowne2170The Bible is a Catholic book. The Magisterium of the Church is the sole authority to determine the biblical canon.
I will teach you how bishop of Rome canonized the Bible...
(short canon history)
In AD -382 Pope Damasus-I At the First Council of Rome, the first complete canon was promulgated ...
All 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament) are included in today's Bible. Pope Damasus declared that not a book should be added to this canon, nor should a book be taken away from it.
Council of Hippo (AD - 393) Reaffirmed (state again strongly) 73 books in the Bible.
Council of Carthage - Reaffimed the declarations of the Council of Rome in AD - 382 and the Council of Hippo in AD -393. In AD - 419 the 4th Council of Carthage confirmed all the decisions of the 3rd Council of Carthage.
The Council of Florence (AD - 1442) reaffirmed the canon.
Council of Trent AD-1546 Reaffirmed the canon. St. Jerome's Bible (Latin Vulgate) is officially announced once again.
The Purpose of the Council was to counter the false doctrines caused by Protestant heresies.
*British Bible society* and
Robert Haldane (not Calvin or Zwingli or Luther) was responsible for removing 7 books from the Protestant Bible.
Under Haldane's leadership, in 1821, a protest began against the British Bible Society demanding that funds not be given to Bible societies that were printing the Deutero Canon. The resolution was passed in 1822,
which means that it has been only 200 years since Protestant churches started using the 66-book Bible.
In the Heidelberg Disputation (AD1518) and Theses - 17 and 35, Luther quotes from the book of wisdom, Sirach ( Deutero Canon) for his arguments.
Martin Luther debated with Catholic theologian Fr.Johann Eck in AD-1519 about the doctrine of purgatory... Luther's Arguments are Debunked... With that moment Luther took a stand the book of Maccabees was not part of the Canon ...
Luther who rejected the canon of Septuagint rejected classified Epistle to the Hebrews(as it teaches about the priesthood -Hebrew 13:17), James( as it teaches that there is a reward for man's good works, James 2:24) , Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John as disputed( The Book of Revelation It is not useful to understand Christ, it does not have the work of the Holy Spirit).
The question is But why are these books still included in Protestant Bibles?
Some Protestants argue that the Catholic Church established the canon at the Council of Trent. !!!
So how did the Deuterocanon appear in Martin Luther's and other Protestant Bibles?
Doesn't it sound strange...!!!
Huldrch Zwingli published the Bible in German in 1531, Martin Luther in 1534(German), and John Calvin in 1560 (English)All these included 73 books. In AD -1611 the king James version of the Bible was released ... and it had 73 books. The 7 books of the Old Testament were included under the name Deuterocanon....Interestingly, many references were used from these for the New Testament. After AD-1885 the Deutero Canon books were removed from king James Bible...
Gutenberg Bible
www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/eframes/index.html
Luther Bible 1535 archive.org/download/lutherbibel1535
Geneva Bible of 1560 Edition:
archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560
King James Bible of 1611 Edition:
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1661-Bible/
So you think that you know the canon and are infallible on it yourself that’s so wacky
Great vid. I'll be here for the rest of them. God bless
Fantastic! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
I loved this video! Sat through the whole thing and it flew by. Very insightful and already changes my perspective on these 7 books. I 1000% support you making more of these!!!!
Thank you for this video, I can't wait for the next part!
Thanks! That speech from Tobit to his son really hit hard with my wife and I.
I think you are doing a fantastic job with your style, structure and information. Keep it just like it is! 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Very informative, thank you!
I love your sane, gentle and intelligent videos. Thank you 🙏
Martin Luther was also an ordained Catholic Priest, he wasn't just some lay person who stood up to the Church. I've seen online a few times that just prior to his protest (that's where the word Protestant comes from btw) he was expecting to be appointed as a Catholic Bishop , but the Pope denied him the position. Hence his whole spiel was actually brought on by anger, for not getting the new appointment. I didn't bother to check on the facts of this because after listening to his incessant raving in his book "On Jews and Their Lies " on audio on youtube it made my stomach turn enough to make a personal judgment about him as a true heretic of Christianity.
Yes he was a priest, but I’m not sure if he was expecting to be appointed a bishop. May have to check up on that.
I do know he suffered from a LOT of scrupulosity, often trying to receive absolution mere hours after his last confession and never trusting in God’s grace in the confessional. That’s why I think he focused so hard on applying his “faith alone” mindset into Scripture, so he could justify to himself that he didn’t need to ‘do’ anything for his faith.
@@jendoe9436the song Nailed by Theocracy displays this almost perfectly
@@jendoe9436 That’s why I think he focused so hard on applying his “faith alone” mindset into Scripture, so he could justify to himself that he didn’t need to ‘do’ anything for his faith.
Interesting conclusion but totally false as all through the scriptures we are to go by faith , in everything we do. There is no go by faith and do nothing . Titus 3:5 points out there is nothing we do to make ourselves righteous in the sight of God but all through the new testament are exhortations to do good ,and to do good things you can not sit idle.Eph 2:8 salvation is a gift.
Eph 2:9 no works add anything to that gift.
Eph 2:10 we were created to do the works of God .
Eph 2:10 we do the works of God because of the gift of salvation never to be taken away , never for the gift as if we can attain a better life.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 funny, as in James it specifically says how we are not justified by faith alone and faith without works is dead. Even Jesus points out that merely following and believing in him is not always enough, that we must do works and actions to better live out the faith.
Martin Luther’s problem is he wanted faith in his salvation, but he didn’t trust in God enough to feel secure when graces were given to him and it’s led to the mindset where people think they don’t have to do anything for themselves. That no matter what they do God will have them covered. Which also goes against Jesus’s warning that those who cry to him “Lord, lord!” but never did anything for others such as help the lowly and help the sick will not be welcomed into the kingdom.
Faith is one part, works is another, and we cannot separate the two.
@@jendoe9436 Martin Luther’s problem is he wanted faith in his salvation, but he didn’t trust in God enough to feel secure when graces were given to him
I don't follow Luther , I try to follow Christ in scripture.
and it’s led to the mindset where people think they don’t have to do anything for themselves.
I keep hearing this but in all the denominations I have been to ,I have never heard any such teaching as have faith and do nothing. Every denomination going by faith in God's word is also doing the very things that you ascribe to in Matthew where Jesus says I never knew you!
Faith is one part, works is another, and we cannot separate the two.
We receive by faith and do works because of the free gift of salvation , but none of those works does anything to enhance our gift of salvation.
Please continue this series! I’ve always wanted to know more about these books but didn’t have the time to look into them. You laid everything out perfectly
Excellent idea for a video series.
Yes, please keep these as your next discussion ❤❤
Please keep going with this series! I liked this structure and I want to learn more about these books.
This is a great idea for a video series. I'm looking forward to the next. Really enjoying your Channel.
I’ve been waiting for this!!! 🎉🎉🎉 Thank you 🙏🏽
Raphael, when he gave his name and his father’s name, they translated to healer of God, which is what Raphael means, and Mercy of God. Protestants might say that Raphael lied, but he didn’t.
Very informative I went and read the book of Tobit it’s very similar to Jonah and has referenced the city of Nineveh😮 Interesting things that are there!
If are a great storyteller. Your explanation of Tobit was awesome
Great Job my friend ......
I've read Tobit twice in the past but by reviewing with you, it was a reinforcing and satisfying ...
Thanks !!! I did Subscribe and i feel you should continue with the other books ...
As a non catholic this was super cool hearing and I’m def gonna read the duterocanon after this
I really enjoy this series. Looking forward to more.
Thank you! New video in this series came out yesterday.
When you come to II Maccabees, don't just take chapter 12, prayers for the dead, therefore some kind of purgatory, but also include chapter 15, acceptance of revelation, and the affirmation that Jeremias is currently praying for the Jewish people = prayers to the saints, nearly.
Excellent idea and very well presented.
Martin Luther threw out the apocrypha, but in some later writings he went back to referring to some of them as his scriptural basis. He was kind of a contradiction.
Interesting
Martin Luther didn't remove the books, this is a misunderstanding caused by a poor knowledge of history. Luther only sorted them into their own category as "deuterocanonical books" and said that it is good for Christians to read them. Deuterocanonical books remained in Protestant Bibles until 1826, when the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to cut corners to save money and the association removed the books to reduce the amount of paper and ink used to print the Bible, as they created costs. However, some of the churches belonging to the association, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, continued to print deuterocanonical books and update translations at their own expense behind the association's back, but only as separate booklets and as part of large family Bibles (funfact: the reason for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland to continue printing and re-translating books "without permission" after 1826 was Book of Sirach)
I appreciate your point very much. However, "deutero"canonical means "second" to the canon. Luther was still removing them from the canon of inspired Scripture. Whether or not they were published between the covers of a book called The Bible is beside the point.
I am a baptist and i love Tobit. My favorite apocrypha book and Judith number 2.
@emiljohann88 oh those two are my favorite too! And exactly in that order.
It says "God has sent ME TO HEAL YOU..." which means the angel had the power to heal and not God alone, even if the power is given by God.
I do love the book of Tobit. It reads in some ways a bit like a fairy tale in it's structure, which is fun.
It has so much symbolism and a beautiful happy end. I always wondered why anyone would it out of the canon. But it makes sense, the whole story only works through Tobits and Tobias obedience, and Raphaels intercession.
I want this to be a movie now!!!
Thanks, Fr clearly pointing out these supporting “scriptural” verses that uphold the Catholic Faith.
Excellent summary! But you forgot to mention Tobit’s dog! The only positive image of dogs in the Bible!
The white scales on tobias's eyes. Same as the white scales on Paul Saul eyes. Tobias was taught by an Angel how to heal tobit's eyes. Jesus sent one of his disciples to heal Saul's eyes
Great video!!!
Thank you! Looking forward for more and for this reason, I have subscribed.
Awesome video brother! Please continue this series
When we read in Acts 17 that Paul relied on “scripture alone” to reason with the Jews, it was the Tanakh that he used. The Old Testament scriptures. He could have used the traditions of the Jews, but chose not to. He relied on the word of God alone. Since these books are not in the Tanakh, he would not have been using them. Just an observation. God bless.
This channel has gone from my 5th-favourite "Catholic Guy with Beard and Icons and Books Talks about Catholicism" channel to my 2nd-favourite "Catholic Guy with Beard and Icons and Books Talks about Catholicism" channel.
The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius - Lib. IV. Cap. 26
Thank you, please keep going. Grear content!
Characters in the bible: *prays for death*
God: how ‘bout you take a nap?
Condones the use of magic
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
Is it true that the smoke from a fish’s heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.
Salvation by works:
Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
Tobit 12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us - not money or food given to poor people. “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,” (1 John 1:7).
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabbees 12:43, “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.”
Can anyone truly accept that money isn’t offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Historical Errors
Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”
Conclusion
Obviously, the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts - it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn’t inspired by God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man’s false tradition rather than God’s absolute truth.
I like it a lot. I'm just wondering if I should share this with my protestant sister and brother in law. I expect they will not take it well.
I'm working on another video that will be arguing for the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books more generally. It will have a more academic tone so that one might be better to share with them. Hoping to upload it Monday.
Nice video. I love the Book of Tobit. It’s such a beautiful story and, yes, unintentionally funny.
Regarding the Prot explanation that these books were removed because of the Hebrew canon. It’s the canon the Jewish people developed after Christ. At the time of Jesus, they had and accepted the books of the Septuagint.
The Hebrew Canon wasn't settled until long after Christ, so that's another reason for Christians not to follow the current Hebrew Canon. At the time of Christ, there were different Jewish schools of thought, each of which followed a different Canon. Some only accepted the first 5 books, the Pentateuch. Why didn't Christians adopt that model from the beginning? There's a clue in the Gospel, where Jesus explains the law of marriage as God intended. The Gospel writer notes that the questioner only accepted the Books of Moses, and shows that Jesus used that Canon to explain the answer. Elsewhere in the New Testament, both in the canonical Gospels and the Epistles, there are references to the Old Testament Books that Catholics use (that is, the same ones Protestants accept plus the ones that Luther decided to remove from the Canon; as a side note, there's even a reference to one of the Books of Enoch that the Catholic Church ended up not including, but hasn't condemned either).
Because he realized he was committing a sin against God. He wanted only what supported his own ideas. Luther was obsessed with humanity being their own gods.
Great video! Keep it up
Thank you. Very good presentation.
This is a great idea to highlight all the catholic things in those books
Quick question. When were you confirmed? Was it on this year’s Easter Vigil?
Yes
@@SipswithSerra Nice.
No, we’re fully aware that Luther was skeptical about the canonicity of James. That’s not a problem for us because of Sola Scriptura. Priests get things wrong, so James is still in our Bibles but the non-canon books aren’t.
But they were before Luther removed them from the canon, how is that sola scriptura?
Good job with Tobit. Luther was a trainwreck. He decided he knew more than Jesus so he set up his own brand of christianity. Besides removing the seven deuterocanonical Old Testament books Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation from the New Testament because they didn’t fit his new theology either.
@@Spiritof76Catholic
There is a conflict between sacred scripture and sola scripture…
That is why Martin Luther placed the 7 books of the Old Testament with the name Apocrypha..
Luther who rejected the canon of Septuagint rejected classified Epistle to the Hebrews(as it teaches about the priesthood -Hebrew 13:17), James( as it teaches that there is a reward for man's good works, James 2:24) , Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John as disputed( The Book of Revelation It is not useful to understand Christ, it does not have the work of the Holy Spirit).
James 2:24 is the only verse in the Bible that uses the phrase “faith alone”-and it says that people are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” This is one reason why *Martin Luther wanted the epistle of James removed from the Bible* . Luther himself admitted that sola fide *contradicts* James-even claiming, “I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle.” In the pre-1530 version of his Preface to the Epistles of St. James, Luther held that James “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. . . . He mangles the scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture.”
Luther then issued the following challenge: “To him who can make these two agree I will give my doctor’s cap, and I am willing to be called a fool.”
Thus, instead of adjusting his theology to fit Scripture, Luther’s solution was to *relegate the book of James to the canonical cheap seats* , declaring flatly in his Preface: “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books.” Indeed, Luther’s advice was that they “*should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much* ” And of course, Luther famously declared *James to be an “epistle of straw* ”
It is a wonder that Book of James is still in the Bible of Protestant believers who cut their feet according to the shoe.
Yes, now that I've realized this I was already moving away from Protestantism but now I view it as full blown heresy. "Sola Scriptura" indeed, what a joke lol
Thank you @jineshfrancis and @LordVader for your thoughts. Look at 2 Peter 1:20-21, First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
These simple verses absolutely destroy Luther and sola scriptura and backup what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years. What I don’t get is why Luther, this brilliant man has he been able to dupe so many millions of people for centuries about sola scriptura???
Nice, good job. I’m interested in these vids.
I love when Protestants say they were removed bc they don’t agree with the correct interpretation of scripture 😂
Very well done 👌🏾
I am joining the Roman Catholic church, and ironically, my Assemblies of God Protestant parents don't mind one bit. I'm glad we can still view each other as fellow Christians. However, I have a few questions, one of them my priest couldn't answer. Do we know for sure that Baruch was really written by Jeremiah's scribe? Also, why do we have Judith seeing as it's not entirely historically accurate?
@daguroswaldson257 for a Bible study about Baruch go to Reason and Theology and their Bible studies playlist with Louis Dizon - he explains it there, incl. the historical facts about it. I don't remember if he has a study on Judith but my Bible says the book is not meant to be historically accurate, which is made abundantly clear by how it uses historical references, but it is an exhortation and encouragement.. it is by no means a real historical account but it doesn't make the book untrue.
Who gave Luther the authority to revise scripture anyway?
How could Protestants have the fullness of faith if the they don’t have the fullness of the bible
Good work! I approve!
Great vid!
I've heard that Luther used the Messoretic canon instead of the Latin Vulgate or Septuagint, and apparently the reason the Messoretic text was without those 7 books is because the Jews lost those books a long time ago. Even though it's in the Greek Septuagint. Either way, I enjoy the videos and look forward to the rest! Sirach / Ecclesiasticus is one of my favorite books in the Bible. If you want a chuckle, look up Sirach 9:10, but it's only in the Douay-Rheims. All other translations seem to have removed that verse. 😂
No, it's actually because the new Jewish canon was made in response to Christianity lol
@@LordVader1094 Makes sense. Thanks for the heads up. They are pretty antithetical to Christ to say the least, so yeah I believe what you say is true.
What did Martin Luther say about the scripture in Mathew 25 seperating the sheeps from the goats, where it appeared that people were justified by feeding the hungry ect?
The quotes from the new testament are from the septugent
I always think of Tobit as the soap opera of the Bible. 😅 Thank you for making this video!
I seriously doubt Luther rejected Tobit because of what it said about almsgiving. After all, Jesus said almost the identical idea.
Vivat Jesus!
Jesus and His apostates quoted and used some of these books to write scriptures including Tobit, Macabees and Sirach. Research the Book of James in reference to the book of Sirach. AMAZING!! Of Jesus and His apostles used, read and quoted from these books, NO HUMAN BEING had any right or authority to say they are not the truly inspired word of god.
I started to it after this I couldn't find it on Bible app the version I had. But I have a Bible that has it. Very good read tonight getting hot about the goat was so unnecessary. It was good intentions but he didn't believe his wife and got anger and argued with his wife plus blinded. I see Tobias married Sarah I thought you said tobit so I was surprised he had a wife. I got confused. My first time reading tobit
St Jerome didn’t think they were infallible like other parts of scripture it was a reformation not a revolution and the pope has even said it was a good thing that was deserved
The Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Written in 325AD, canonized in 382AD & reaffirmed in 393AD & 397AD. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here & there can negate the meaning of Gods words.
Revelation 22:18 For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book.
Revelation 22:19 And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book.
Jeremiah 26:2 “Thus says the Lord: Stand in the atrium of the house of the Lord, and speak to all the cities of Judah, from which they come to adore in the house of the Lord, all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. DO NOT CHOOSE TO SUBTRACT ANY WORD.”
The one point in Tobit saying that almsgiving wipes away ALL sin is a big problem. Even for Catholics. So why did Jesus have to come, why do you have the eucharist, why do you have confession, if almsgiving is all that is required for salvation? That is the main reason Tobit was removed. I think its fair.
it refers to temporal punishment. all can be non-literal and just hyperbolic
That, also I personally discovered the power of Confession and the Eucharist, and saints to the extent of baring the Stigmata (not even the Orthodox have at least one), why I'm open to help from Protestants, but will never leave the Catholic faith. That is if I ever find any Protestants who don't hate Catholics more, than the devil itself 😂! I wish this was sarcasm, but it's not.
Like the series and the structure
Whoa whoa whoa, bro. Please, trigger warning.
I didn't know this was a guns channel. 💪
@@rafecolii 😂😂😂
Great. Idea great structure
Dear friend, I love and respect the Roman Catholic tradition. I am a confessional lutheran. Please, permit me to start with a counsel. You are a young man. Be true. Do not be disingenuous. When Luther translated the Bible in german he kept all the books, canonical and deutero-canonical or apocrypha. The only thing he did was he put the latter between the Old and New Testament. This was not an innovation. He followed st Jerome, the Vulgata translator. St Jerom argued that is better to do a distinction between the Hebrew Bible and books added in it. St Jerome believed that these books are not included in the Canon, they are not canonical books. St Jerome said that these books are indeed good for instruction and strengthening but not for confirming the ecclesiastical authority of dogmas. So, Lutherans read these books but they do not consider them to be canonical. They do not use them for defining the ecclesiastical dogmas. In fact, Luther put Jerom's ideas in practice. We love these books. Luther wrote preface for each book he translated, including the apocrypha. He also used them, for example Tobit, when he spoke about the 1st commandment. He wrote many good things in favor of them. Not only this. With his translation, he made these books very famous and popular among the simple people, in their mother tongue. In the first lutheran liturgies, parts of these books were used as antiphons and introits. In some cases, Luther preached based on them. With all my love, please, be true in what you say for the greatest reformer of the catholic church, a reformer the system of the church did not accept with big damage of the simple people. Read Luther' s work, read in general good lutheran theological books and you will find the law/gospel distinction and the true gospel in them. I send you also this video that helped write to you this comment. God's grace be with you always. ua-cam.com/video/0FhZbOeGI9A/v-deo.html
I find it hard to take your video seriously, when you fail to acknowledge that the Catholic church did not definitely declare the apocrypha canonical until Trent. Luther and the Protestants did not "remove" anything from the Bible, instead they followed what was arguably the consensus view of the early fathers prior to Trent.
The earliest Christian old testament canon that we have is Melito of Sardis in the 2nd century, whose canon matches the Protestant/Jewish Old Testament with the exception of Esther. See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4. 26.13-14).
Meanwhile Athanasisus' Festal letter 39 endorsed an Old Testament canon identical to the Protestant/Jewish canon with the exception of Esther and the addition of Baruch. In the same letter he explicitly excludes the apocrypha from the canon of scriptures stating, "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read"
Moreover, Jerome in his "helmeted" preface to the Vulgate edition of Kings lists an old testament canon that matches the Protestant/Jewish canon and denies the canonical status of the apocrypha, stating "This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles."
Additionally Pope Gregory the Great in Moralia on Job (written after he became pope) states that 1 Maccabees is not part of the canon: "With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6, 46]." Moralia on Job Book 19 ch. 34.
Even when we reach the mediaeval era, a large number of Catholic writers endorsed Jerome's Old Testament canon (ie the Protestant canon). Notably, Nichola of Lyra in the 14th century wrote a commentary on the Bible and specifically stated that Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Maccabees were "not in the canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith" Quoted in Alexander, The canon of the Old and New Testament ascertained, p. 60.
Notably, Cardinal Cajetan, a Catholic contemporary of Luther, omitted the apocrypha from his commentary on the Bible, stating "“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.” Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Clearly, a Catholic in good standing like Cajetan could reject the apocrypha even in the decades leading up to Trent.
Again, the Apocrypha was not definitely declared part of the canon for Catholics until Trent and there was a wide variety of attitudes among Catholics toward these books prior to that (ranging from endorsement to rejection). Now obviously none of the preceding prevents a Catholic from considering them inspired. You can simply hold that the matter was not defined until Trent and those who came before had freedom of conscience. However, you absolutely cannot claim that Luther and the Protestants "removed" these books from the Bible. They were simply following the precedent of Jerome and the other early fathers.
Aside from this, Tobit itself does not portray anyone praying to Raphael. Raphael is merely the angel tasked with presenting the prayers of Tobit and Sarah to God. Therefore, the book cannot be used to justify prayer to the saints in any meaningful way.
That's very, very bad. But it's also arguable if the inquisitions weren't even more. Either way, both groups have to admit to their wrongs and repent.
can you hear yourself? Luther, sitting in his little room, removed books from all the bibles on earth. He could cut them out of his bible. How did he sneak into every home bookstore church on the planet and remove books? Your hate for Luther exposing the rot in the CC has clouded your thinking.
With your permission @SipswithSerra i would like to make a response video to your claims. I will make sure to appropriately credit you, but i would like to use your footage.
@sonsofpolaris6102 you're OK brother, I do not condemn you. You haven't heard of anything I would like to say.
I simply would like to make a response video to the points our brother makes. I may not agree with everything he says, but that does not mean I'm entirely opposed to him, you or anyone else.