In a paper, I wrote I said that the Jews rejected the Septuagint because the early church accepted it and it had many prophecies in it that confirmed Christian teaching. For example, the Septuagint says in Isaiah "born of a virgin" but the later Hebrew translation says "Young women"
I think it begs the question, why were these 7 books accepted at all if the Protestant position is correct. And where is the pushback from church fathers arguing that these 7 books are to be left out, unless I missed that point. It just seems strange that 1100 hundred years later, give or take, Martin Luther with his superior knowledge of everything says “Oh I see the problem, these 7 books need to be removed.” And no one else east or west came to the same conclusion?
There is no Church Father who write a canon list that includes all seven books apart from Augustine. The majority give essentially a 22 book OT canon with disputes whether Baruch is part of the one book of Jeremiah.
@@YajunYuanSDAI’m not aware of a single church father who affirms the Protestant 66 book canon. Some seem to get close, but it’s never exact. One list I saw essentially got the Protestant OT, but the NT excluded Hebrews and Revelation. We have numerous examples (Augustine especially, various local councils) affirming the 73 book canon used by Catholics, but I’m not sure we can find a canon list that totally matches up with the 66 Protestant canon until the Reformation.
3 місяці тому
@@christopherponsford8385exactly. Idk where these Protestants are coming up with this stuff. None of the early church fathers accepted a 66 canon. Again it was the Protestants that took books out to fit their man made doctrines.
Another canon argument that I’ve become interested in is how undecided it was all the way up to its solemn dogmatizing at Trent. While yes we have many regional councils and even ecumenical councils prior to Trent that corroborate the Catholic canon, we can still see disputes over certain books through history even with cardinal Cajetan in the 16th century. This indicates that the canon was not so big an issue for most Christians that the church had to define it, because they had the church to teach sound doctrine. If Sola Scriptura was the paradigm, we should expect to see the canonizing of scripture far earlier in history and far more solemnly, but we don’t.
So true. And because the Reformation didn't so forcefully impact the East, the Orthodox still haven't ratified it exactly. It's a bit looser with more books that they read.
Oh, and where is your church in the first millennium with an early and solemnly defined canon? Again, if God intended Sola Scriptura, we should expect an early closed canon (and don’t give me “fallible list of infallible books”) Just because the church was the paradigm for teaching sound doctrine (widespread copies of scripture only comes with the printing press), it does not follow that therefore their teaching wasn’t ruled by scripture. The faithful received scripture truth through the church as the church keeps the deposit of faith safe.
I was raised as a protestant as well, then thought to have found Him in Judaism, but Jesus had mercy on me and opened my eyes 2 years ago. Now I'm Catholic and I finally feel that I came home, in His church!:) Even though I don't need any "evidence" for myself, there are so many around me who have doubts, biased complaints or misconceptions about our faith, messianic Jews included. It was a pleasure to watch your video. Soooo clear and detailed. God bless you for your work and we pray and help that others' hearts will open as well to the full truth as only can be found in the Catholic Church.
As I understand it, the Hebrew at the time of Christ until the 10th Century did not have vowels. It only had consonents. The Greek Septuigint on the other hand was translated by pre Christian Jews from this Hebrew into Greek. It is possible then to produce alternative readings of the Hebrew text by changing the vowels in some words post Christ. That would make the Septuigint a more reliable Old Testament than the later Masoretic text from the 10th century. This is why I have a bible exclusively translated from the Greek Old and New Testaments (as well as several other translations). Genesis refutes faith alone. In fact the whole OT does not affirm faith alone. Neither does the NT but that is a different story.
Even more damning for the Masoretic text was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was more congruent to the Septuagint than the modern Hebrew bible. Combined with the fact that the NT authors routinely quote the Septuagint makes the Greek OT the version Christians should prefer.
@@BensWorkshop Look up what Nicholas King says about how Luke 1:28 should be translated. See what he says about whether the Greek means "Full of Grace"
@@BensWorkshop On a Catholic Bibles blogspot. Question: "I’ve grown up praying the rosary so I’m wondering why in your translation, and in most others, “full of grace” is not used in Luke when addressing Mary, but Stephen is “full of grace” in the Acts of the Apostles? For someone who doesn’t know the original languages, it would seem that it should be the other way around. Can you explain the Greek text behind these two verses to help us why they are translated the way they are?" Nicholas King reply is 'The translation of Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” is not quite accurate. The original is kecharitomene, which could be translated as “Cheer up, you lucky thing”, and means “rejoice, woman who has been graced.” Acts 6:8, however, has Stephen as “full of grace”, and there it is correctly translated.'
Several NT books were still being disputed into the 4th century (James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude). There was more consensus on the OT than NT in the early centuries (which included Deuteros)! The agreement on the NT since then conceals just how much division and confusion there was about the NT.
You make an interesting point. Our separated brethren often argue that by quoting from an OT book, Jesus implicitly endorses their inspiration. But by the same token, of Our Lord attends a festival mentioned in a book of the OT, is this not also an endorsement of the inspiration of that book where the festival was mentioned? Doesn't that mean that a book like 2 Maccabees is inspired?
@@HAL9000-su1mzI never thought of it that way but I think you have it. Ultimately protestants rely on their own interpretation of scripture. Each is ultimately his own pope and very often ego prevents them from realizing the truth (some do realize the errors of their tradition).
@@anthonymarimpietri8409 Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. All unified in opposition to the Catholic Church! Brothers in arms. The three horsemen of the European apocalypse. But what happened? Disagreements, with each being his own authority. Ultimately Luther condemned Zwingli to the fires of hell for denying the Eucharist. Calvin decided that Jesus might love us. Luther seduced a nun, smuggled her out of her convent and married her. Uncontrolled ego. Genesis 3. The serpent appealed to Eve's ego. He told her that she and Adam could be like gods, possessing knowledge of good and evil. Indulging the ego caused the fall from grace and indulging the ego has lead to all subsequent division. Consider the arguments we get here: we are not arguing against their intellect, but against their egos. We cannot win that battle. Victory comes only when they are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their error. Only after they humble themselves are their eyes opened. We all struggle against our egos. We succeeed as human beings, as nations, as Christians, only to the degree to which we overcome our egos.
Thank you for this video! I’d love to understand more about the Catholic view on “end times” or the teachings primarily around Revelation. My Protestant group of friends have a variety of interpretations of it and it seems there really isn’t any unity on what’s to come. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Read THE LAMBS SUPPER by Dr Scott Hahn. He was a Presbyterian minister until he figured out the book of Revelation. He is now a prominent figure in Catholicism. This book will completely answer your questions.
Think of this--the book of Revelation was written after all the other apostles had passed from the scene. This means that the other apostles and early Christians never knew anything about what the Book of Revelation describes. Which further means that they didn't need to know, that the apostles had already preached the full gospel before Revelation was written. Revelation was also late into being accepted into the canon.
Please don't shorten your show, Joe. I could listen to you for hours. My son introduced me to you a couple years ago. I think you know him. Fr. Stephen Schumacher.
Correction: this Apocryphal Apocalypse. A big hand for Gary Michuta for covering for Joe Heschmeyer again during his vacation. ;-) Sincerely in Xto Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
The Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, and everyone else got together and decided. The first thing they decided was that the Mormons had to leave so they left and then they got to work. It took more than 3 years to decide, but in the end, 66 books were agreed upon and King James put his imprimatur on it.
@@truthnotlies To be fair, I would not equate the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Baptist with the Mormons. The first 3 are all Trinitarians, the latter is not.
@@palermotrapani9067 The Trinity is a Catholic doctrine that the reformers retained. The Mormons then protested against the reformers and threw out the Trinity.
Great video as always, Joe! You would have my full attention if you ever do a deep dive into the origins and reliability of the Septuagint compared to the Hebrew Bible we have today.
@@rhwinner they really are. I'll give their apologists credit though, it does take skill to try to defend claims not based in facts and some people are swayed by them.
I was the protestant pope of our time, then I studied every detail of church history, every doctrine and every Christian concept, and now I'm a catholic. /sarcasm
I'm 100% down for your two videos a week model: a 30 minute one and a longer! If you are able to release your second video on Tuesday, that would be especially good, because the upload order we would have is: Trent, Joe, Trent, Joe, and Jimmy and we would get a video every day of the week!
Hello! I'm planning on buying a russian grammar book in order to learn Russian, but I found this book to download freely on a website. This website is an academic website where people can upload their paper, articles, researchings, etc; and people can download them, some for free, other ones buying. I don't know if this russiam grammar book is legally their or if it is piracy. What should I do? I think it is ligal because I have a certain confidence this website is ok, but, at the same time, I'm not a hundred percent sure if they uploaded it legally! Should I give up from using this pdf?
For me, it's the New Testament. Its canon was Historically compiled through the *CATHOLIC CHURCH's authority.* Since the protestants use the same NT books as we do, they de facto admit that the Catholic Church was inspired by God to do so. Following the logic, it means the Catholic Church was (and remains) the One True Church founded by God, because God would certainly not use anything less than His own Church do establish and spread His words. This is literally a checkmate... there is nothing they could say to deny this, except if they have no problem lying to themselves to preserve their heretical views.
Following the logic, it means the Orthodox Church was (and remains) the One True Church founded by God. You need to understand that convergence onto same set of received writings from the apostolic era, doesn't give an organisation a monopoly on it. See Timestamp 3:44 Vatican council explicitly says *not* by Church authority.
I wish I could find the quote, but one of the Early Church Fathers said that the canon of the Christians was larger than the later Jewish canon. Also, we have Justin Martyr in his dialog with Tryphos saying that the Jews changed their scriptures from the accepted Septuagint to hide Jesus Christ in the scriptures. Pre-Christian Jewish writings said that Greek was the ONLY language that the scriptures could be translated into from the original Hebrew because it could be translated exactly. It wasn't until after the spread of Christianity that this changed and was forbidden. Protestants will deny that there were other "canons" during the early Church and among Jewish sects at the time of Christ and also want to claim that it was a "closed canon". But, they will admit that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah (first 5 books) as their canon and rejected everything else. So, within the NT, we see evidence of different Jewish Canons. We also have Jewish writings from after the time of Jesus Christ STILL debating certain books of the OT if they were scripture or not. Lastly, the Sadducees power was derived from the Temple. When it was destroyed, they lost all power and influence. Except for some remaining Pharisees, the other Jewish groups were either killed off or lost any influence. The Pharisees "redid" Judaism into the Rabbinical Judaism we have today as a response to Christianity. This understanding of history was not known at the time of the Protestant Movement, so Luther and the others believed that the Jewish Bible was what the scriptures were at the time of Jesus Christ. They didn't know that the canon passed on in the Catholic Church was the canon of the early Church and passed on.
"I wish I could find the quote, but one of the Early Church Fathers said that the canon of the Christians was larger than the later Jewish canon." No such quote exists because no Church Father apart from Augustine wanted to add all 7 books.
@@YajunYuanSDA There was no "adding" the books, they were always a part of the Septuagint in the 2nd Temple Period. Most scholars agree with this, other than certain Protestant scholars who refuse to admit this because it goes against everything that they have to hold onto. Here is a quote from Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70, "But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders". (written about 155-160 AD). Here he says that the Jews removed scriptures from the Septuagint, which was the "Bible" used by the early Christian Church. This included the 7 books that were later removed by Protestants.
@@YajunYuanSDA Not sure your point. Even Jewish scholars will admit that the Judaism today was in response to Christianity and things were changed because of that and the destruction of the temple.
The Pharisees are the original Protestants and the Sadducees are the original cults. Protestantism subjects you to the devil; look at what the Pharisees did to Jesus. “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God.” [John 16:2] ❤️🔥
Given the connection to “Catholic Answers” and its apologetic methods, one thing is clear: there’s defending an institution that has become increasingly fossilized and irrelevant as opposed to defending the Gospel - in which CA is very clever at defending the former and not the latter.
Your " fossilized and irrelevant" church was promised by Jesus to have the spirit of truth forever. And Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. So you obviously don't trust Jesus.
@@bridgefin I trust Christ. I don’t trust the Papacy whatsoever. Plus, this parroting of “the gates of hell shall not prevail” narrative fails to expound upon Christ himself as opposed to a relic of a religious institution that is bloated and corrupt. Big, big difference.
@@716Expat You: Plus, this parroting of “the gates of hell shall not prevail” narrative Me: That promise was made about the church which Jesus was establishing. Protestants believe that Jesus was wrong. Therefore he is not God. Therefore they are all Jehovah Witnesses. Therefore they have no salvation.
@@bridgefin not true. We non-papists have never said that Christ was wrong. You took my words and twisted them. Plus, I am not and will never be a Jehovah’s Witness. Furthermore, if you are going to “condemn me to hell” for not paying homage to the Pope, then I will gladly go there. But I know I’m not, because I have already been redeemed by Christ through imputation and expiation. And, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, all popes are in hell.
@@716Expat You: We non-papists have never said that Christ was wrong. Me: Not to his face at least. But you do prefer a church made by a sinner in opposition to the only one which Christ set up. The Protestant excuse is that the Catholic Church failed and needed to be reformed with something different. That calls out the promise of Jesus that his church would not fail as inadequate and not true. Then you spend your time attacking his church thinking maybe that it wasn't attacking him. Anyway you look at it, you don't win that argument. You: Furthermore, if you are going to “condemn me to hell” Me: Not my job to judge others. You: And, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, all popes are in hell. Me: How pathetic! As you judge so will you be judged. Unbridled ignorance will be your best defense. Your presumed salvation is merely that.
The Bible says God entrusted the "oracles of God" to the Jews. Jesus quoted from the "Old Testament" so we know the Roman Church didn't decide the books in the Old Testament canon. We know the apocryphal books were written before the Roman church was founded because the Jews debated among themselves whether they were inspired. We know that all of the books included in the New Testament were written by the Jews and that those scriptures included in it were originally passed along to the various churches long before the Roman church began around 325 AD.
Yessir! The Bible used by the early Christians (and by Catholics today) contains books which the Christians inherited from their Jewish forefathers. Or do you think that St. Paul in Romans 3 was trying to say, "centuries from now, Jews who have rejected Jesus will have the authority to remove books from the Christian Bible"? Because that is some pretty wild eisegesis.
@@shamelesspopery "The Bible used by the early Christians (and by Catholics today) contains books which the Christians inherited from their Jewish forefathers." You have in the two hundreds Origen talking explicitly about how books like Tobit and Judith not by Jews in their scriptures, *not* even in their Hebrew apocrypha. There is no connection to rejecting Jesus and rejecting Aramaic folktales.
No Christian remained Jewish and still was awaiting the Messiah as he worshiped in the Temple following hundreds of Jewish purity and dietary laws. The dream that Peter had makes that obvious.
@@geoffjsUntil the year 132 AD the Church celebrated Passover, not the Roman Catholic mass. The original church was corrupted by the gentiles after the Apostolic fathers died.
I’m Orthodox. I reject a “canon” of scripture. No matter what anachronistic definition the Latins want to use. I have the same “canon” as St Paul and St Peter, AND we have different books we consider to be scripture. Latins have redefined canon to mean a book. There is only 1 source of canon and that is God and it’s not limited to books.
God decided! as the books were decided way before the catholic church by the OC jews origanal NC apostle's who first preached it then wrote it down. Only hubris man thinks he assembled gods word because they do not know the voice of the sheepard Obviously you have never studied Esther along with Ruth, the only two books named after women and theirs a reason for it! Esther depicts the pagan Persian (one of the 7 heads of the beast after Babylon ) culture in which Esther must fight for her survival and eventually that of her people. Esther hid her idenity as a jew and ended up saving her people, Problem is, Catholics do not understand Gods ways or his will or the Gospel they are to obey! In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
First thing that dropped when I was Protestant. I was so furious and disturbed by the historical truth that it propelled me into researching almost every doctrine throughout Christendom. Now I’m no longer Protestant.
Yes! Same for me! Plus the explaining away of scriptures that ARE in their Bible that contradict their doctrine. Protestantism leads seamlessly into progressive Christianity for this reason.
This subject is a major argument for the need for a magisterium and sacred tradition. We are 2,000 years into this religion and still having arguments among adherents on the sacred texts of the faith. While this is not a big deal with orthodox, Copts and Catholics because we don’t subscribe to sola scriptura, it’s a huge deal for Protestants, because their position is the clear historical interloper and severely weakens the reliability of the canon.
What it does is threatens the catholic mind control of their members, therefore they dont like it. The more people leave the catholic church, the less money comes in and its been ALL about the money for centuries. Seriously..would Jesus have built the Vatican, much less lived in it?
Depending which pope you lived under, the books were considered part of the canon or they weren’t part of the canon. Gregory the great for example didn’t consider them part oof the canon. Also, Jerome didn’t consider them part of the canon. The 1st century Jews didn’t have them as part of the canon. Even at the council of Trent there were plenty of votes against these books. These were disputed books and should never have been added.
Prots would always cite a Catholic figure who once disagreed on or had different views on certain things. But ignored what is finally settled by the church where everyone submits. Well, that is one thing that does not exist in Prots - a single authority that decides via council when there is a dispute. Everyone in Prots is authority hence 40K+ denominations. Even during the apostles they had these scenarios, where they settled issues when disputed arose. As for the Jews, even after the time of apostles there was no single canonized list of books. But it was clear that Jesus and the apostles used LXX which includes deuterocanonical. Dead Sea Scrolls also has them.
@@shamelesspopery Timestamp 17:27 if the Jewish had no practically settled canon at the Christ, then what is your explanation for Jews *universally* not including Tobit and Judith in there canon less than 200 years later? Why unlike Esther, is there lack of any disputes recorded for these books? Note these books contain nothing Messianic for them not to include these books for Christian reason.
@@shamelesspopery I made a poll on my channel regarding a statement you made in one of your Catholic Answer articles, if you would like to vote on it. It relates to whether there is a difference between adoration/worship.
I did a Sunday school class in my Protestant church on textual criticism and briefly touched canonicity- although I gave arguments from Kruger and James White I was nervous and thought the arguments were shaky and cut that section short. An honest look at the canon is wont to dispel Sola Scriptura.
Kruger's arguments are so horrendous I couldn't believe anyone actually thinks they're acceptable. I read his book, Revisiting the Canon, and was appalled that it was supposed to be the best.
The 4 criteria that bible.animations present have so many holes. 1) Came from an Apostle? Scholars debate endlessly on the historicity of the traditional authorship, so you need to rely on Church tradition as witness to who wrote these books. 2) Accepted by Christians? Who are these? and how many? You won't get unanimous consensus unless you appeal to a council. 3) Consistent doctrine? Protestants can't even agree on consistent doctrines when they are all working from the same text. This is completely subjective. 4) Values of the Holy Spirit? How do you determine these values absent a canonical list? You would need already have scripture to get any sort of understanding of the values of the Holy Spirit, at which point you've introduced circular reasoning. That is on top of this point being just as subjective as the others.
1) Yes, need tradition (history) of Jews to tell you who the Prophets are and Christians to tell you who the Apostles are. Cannot use Gentiles to tell you what the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Covenant. 2) Local councils of hippo/carthage do *not* get you unanimous consensus.
@@YajunYuanSDA the SDA legend himself (herself?) Catholics don't need unanimous consensus because we accept the authority of the councils decision. My point for (2) was that an appeal to "Christians" in general is not helpful for the Protestant perspective because WHICH ancient Christians were correct and why? You can either take all of the tradition or none of the tradition. Cherry picking tradition is a broken methodology.
@@sentjojo My point is a local council whether Catholic or SDA has no authority other than local. Only an Ecumenical council has authority, there was *no* ecumenical council in the first millennium of the Church that gave a canon list. So basically all you can say is that Augustine's diocese accepted the Apocrypha in ~400AD. That has nothing to do with Tradition, because every other Church Father canon list excluded all the apocrypha in there explicitly numbered 22 book OT canon, the only dispute between them was whether Baruch was part of the one book of Jeremiah.
@@YajunYuanSDA didn't he specifically say in the video that Origin of Alexandria talked about people using Tobit as scripture? I think the only one explicitly excluding them is Jerome.
@@YajunYuanSDA well you're leaving some massive historical facts out there. The primary one being Pope Damasus making the Vulgate the canon of the West. Whether or not you think the Pope had universal jurisdiction, he definitely did have jurisdiction at that time over the Latin church. The East also accepted the Deuterocanon because they used (and still use) the Septuagint. That Catholic canon predates Augustine, as evidenced by Origen using it. So exactly which Church Fathers are you referring to? If you say Jerome then just lmao he was a Papist and did what Pope Damasus told him to do.
Who are these people that are only watching Shameless Popery videos for half an hour? That was really shocking and disappointing to find out. During Lent I gave up online streaming, with two exceptions. The first was Fr Mike Schmitz’s homilies, and the last, but certainly not least, Shameless Popery. And for the same reason did I permit them, for being edifying. If you manage to do two a week at 30 minutes each, then I guess that’ll hold me over. But man I’m really going to miss the hour long episodes. They’re TOO GOOD. Seriously, those of you who give up halfway, shame! Lol
I watch them at night and usually fall asleep at some point 😁 Sometimes I remember to go back and finish but often by then there's a new video out so I start that one.
Days are only 24 hours long, people have lives (pray, work eat...) and there are literally thousands of books worth reading and studying (among which, surprise... the Bible). Those are some of the very rational reasons why even the best videos are not watched till the end.
Does the other video give any sources for their claims? Joe/CatholicAnswers go above and beyond with their context and sources. Maybe it’s a leap of faith, but I just trust what they are telling us is accurate, and if it’s not then they’ll correct themselves and tell us.. I feel bad for those who are only getting the kind of info in the other video. When I converted almost 3 years ago now, I felt as though why did no one ever tell me about any of this treasure chest of knowledge there is to be known and learned within the Catholic Church. I’d never heard of these other books in the Bible, along with so many other things. I thank God he lead me into his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 🙏🏻
This was a huge one for me. Growing up protestant I had no idea what the Septuagint was. Once I found out that the early church used it and most of Christianity did as well, I refused to say "The early church got these books wrong and we didn't catch it till Luther but got complex doctrines like the Trinity correct". I couldn't reconcile that
There is no single Septuagint, it just means a translation of scriptures into Greek from Hebrew. It originally was only the Torah. Septuagint is a translation not a collection. A Septuagint canon is like saying RSV canon. I can buy RSV bibles with and without the apocrypha. I can also buy KJV with and without the apocrypha. Wisdom of Solomon was written *originally* in Greek, it cannot possibly be a translated by the seventy translators.
This whole topic is ridiculous. Without the rise of literacy and translating of the Bible into the local vernacular none of us would be having this conversation. Which translation Greek Vetus Latina Syriac Peshitta. Latin Vulgate., first English translation of Scripture from Protestantism, and the first early modern English translation, came from William Tyndale, who completed his translation of the New Testament in 1525. Tyndale was eventually arrested and killed by Holy Roman Empire
Noooo, this can't be... GOD IS GOOD! I was struggling with protestant objections on the canon and the apocryphta. I literally have been watching videos for 4 hours. Now I got recommended this video.
If one is a Protestant, then one must accept that the Holy Spirit acted through people and nailed the New Testament, but at the same time had a brain fart and completely screwed up the Old Testament, and let this result stand for 1,500 years. A thinking man cannot accept that.
I had a similar experience. I know it can be overwhelming but I will say a prayer for you. Not everything has to be discovered today. Just give yourself grace and patience and allow yourself to explore with an open mind.
@@TJBowman-vr1coTalk of flatulence is scandalous vulgarity and is not to be tolerated, even in the abstract. watch your language; there are children reading. ❤️🔥
The scholarly consensus is that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century also. You can make a conservative argument that it wasn’t. But the only reason you would make that argument is because you are presupposing the canon.
@@shamelesspopery How so? Hanukkah is like Purim, it an ethnic custom rather than a Holy day given by God such as Yom Kippur. Hanukkah might display God's continued providence but it has no connection to Divine Revelation.
Luis Dizon and William Albrecht have an interesting argument from linguistics about daniel, saying the language of chapter 7(i think) is archaic pre hasmonean, close to Persian period aramaic, demonstrating that most of the prophecies are older than the maccabean language used by an editor
The foundation doctrine of the reformation was Luther's sola fide. It is not surprising that he wanted to delete the book of James particularly because it had the verse that said salvation by works at not by faith alone. in the 16th century, Martin Luther argued that several of the NT books lacked the authority of the Gospels, and therefore proposed removing a number including Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. His theology was grounded in a part vs you won't find "saved by Faith alone apart from works".
3 місяці тому+10
@truthsayer6414 he wanted to get rid of revelation as well because it supported intercession of the saints. Again the revolutionaries had no authority from god to do this. If they did they would have showned miracles which they didn’t.
I always say, if Luther isn’t in hell right now. He’s going to be burning in purgatory until judgment day. He single handily lead so many souls astray even centuries and generations later. He’s done so much damage it infuriates me.
3 місяці тому
@@levrai944 I mean there was talk of reform in the church. It’s a human institution. A lot of corruption. Sometimes god works in mysterious ways. Luther was a herectic along with the others. Idk why it was called a reformation. It was a revolution against the church. We saw the true reformers of the church later on. Luther had his chance to be one of the great saints of the church but was a heretic in the end when he basically preached a different gospel from Christ.
Hey if White, Winger or Washer want to claim that the Bible supports sola fide, the foundation document of the reformation, then consider the following analogy: for those who say "we can't add to what Christ did on the cross," my father worked very hard to save enough money to support ALL his children not just a favoured one or two. Without his unconditional love and support, I would never have made it to University. There was nothing we could do growing up to add to what our father achieved for his children, except for us to love, honor and obey him. I certainly needed faith in my own beliefs but necessarily had to work extremely hard for the privilege of my father's love and support, persevering in my studies for some four years. In the very end, I had to stand before the judgment seat of my university professors and give an account of all I achieved, both the good and not so good results, to justify my degree. Were all victories our family based on the faith I had in myself or my father alone? What does Paul say in 2 Cor 5:10, or Rom 2 6, and Matt 16 27, Revelation 20 12? Now be honest!
The total reliance on the Hebrew Torah that wasn't even completed until the 9th century has always been in the "bold move" category for. But a great reason I'm confident the Church got it right is the book of Tobit. There is no book that appears more in the Dead Sea Scrolls collections than Tobit. So it seems that the "Jews never even bothered with the Apocrypha (Deuterocannonical) books!" claim is wrong.
I looked that up myself and was shocked to see how Tobit, Judith, Wisdom... All in the Dead Sea Scrolls and so many of them. I felt like I have been totally ripped off!!!
EVERYONE! Read TOBIT! Amazing book with the most advanced "Angelology" in the entire OT. It is a wonderfully warm, human, hope-inspiring book that contains vietually every human experience and emotion. A mini-Job, but with an angel and a dog wagging its tail. The versions based on Saint Jerome's Vulgate are far better, IMO.
@@HAL9000-su1mz It’s also the only book outside the book of Revelation that mentions “the seven” that stand before the Lord. Tob 12:15 For I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord. Rev 8:2 And I saw seven angels standing in the presence of God: and there were given to them seven trumpets.
@@christopherponsford8385Well said! It explains why Jesus produced such a huge amount of wine at Cana: wedding feasts lasted two solid weeks. It demonstrates the linguistic use of "brother" and "sister" in ancient Israel, which indicates that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were relatives or others from Galilee. It explains the reason for our suffering. Utterly amazing book.
Don’t ever stop clearing out the lies in Christendom. Former Protestant here, gonna do confession soon and have been attending mass because of Catholic Answers work
The biblical canon is the Achilles heel of sola Scriptura and Protestantism. Really gets to heart of authority, history, etc. Tradition and Magisterium are the only way we can really know the true canon.
And that was my first question after being in a Protestant church. It was so badly addressed, that here I am with wayyyy more questions and definitely no longer a Protestant.
@@truthnotlies Praise God, esp if it was an escape from JWs. I recommend Gary Michuta's books and YT content on this particular question/topic: Apocrypha Apocalypse.
This is why when I started my serious Faith Journey I decided to get a Catholic bible to read alongside with my Protestant Bible. It's important to know the translation differences and get a deeper context.
So, let me get this right. Protestants say the Bible proclaims its own sufficient authority. So I guess about 500 years ago they did not believe in the sufficient authority of the Bible as it was handed to the Reformers, therefore they had to come up with a new canon of the Bible based on Jewish traditions established many years after they rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and now they can say that the Bible can proclaim its own sufficient authority???? If we follow that reasoning, Protestants should reject the New Testament as well as Jesus as the Messiah.
Will blow your mind like it did mine. Douey Rheims reads "after the days of Pentecost.". protestant Bible reads "on the DAY of Pentecost". Which 2 me are two TOTALLY different readings. They also take out our Father's and put ancestors
@marlam8625 because that Greek word, PARADOSEIS, can also mean teaching, instruction, or doctrine. Koine Greek did not have as many words as English has, but a word could have several meanings, depending on the context. Paradosis Definition "a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. of the body of precepts, esp."
I actually do not have a big problem with the KJV but my KJV is the original 1611 edition that weighs over 10 pounds and includes the deuterocanonicals!I read it every morning and I am in 1st Kings.
Just on the shorter / longer forms of Daniel and Esther. An often over looked piece, I've noticed Protestant bibles have changed the prophecy of Simeon too. In Protestant bibles, it concludes with "and you a sword shall pierce your soul" whereas in the Catholic bible this comes a bit early and is tied to "so the thoughts of many will be revealed". I am paraphrasing the verses here as UA-cam automatically deletes comments with any copy / pasting. involved.
UA-cam doesn’t deletes comments with copy/paste unless you are spamming. In my country we don’t have any Catholic approved translations, and I can’t say I’ve ever seen any difference in Luke 2:34.
Some put the “so the thoughts of many will be revealed” before the “a sword will pierce your soul”. It varies within both Catholic and Protestant translations, so I don’t think we can conclude it to be anything other than the discretion of the translatorsZ
Sometimes i tap out because I'm a busy mom but i always come finish the video and then usually watch the whole thing with my husband later. But often still in fragments because we're always busy with the kids. And when i can listen to an hour long one all in one go - that's a great time for me ⭐
@Vaughndaleoulaw wouldn't they quote the epistle to Timothy that scripture shall not be added to? I never understood that line given Paul's time and how undecided the scripture was for other jews and the lack of so much of the new testament being written.
@@ryandelaune139 That is a misleading statement. If the Bible is Christian scriptures then yes, Luther did remove seven books from the Bible in his translation. By labeling them as not scripture and still physically including them in the book doesn't mean they weren't taken out of the Bible. If the Bible is just a collection of books and it doesn't matter if they are scripture, then all he did was rearrange them.
@@thundersmite2162 the canon of scripture was not infallibly defined by Rome until Trent, in which the deuterocanon was given an equal standing with the rest of scripture.
@@ryandelaune139 Did the deuterocanon not have equal standing with the rest of scripture before Trent? Are you trying to say something about Trent or the deuterocanon? Or perhaps still trying to defend Luther removing books from the Bible?
@@ryandelaune139 That is entirely correct--the canon was not infallibly defined until Trent. That is because there was no need to define it, as everybody already accepted what the canon was. That is, until the Reformers challenged the canon. Then the canon had to be decided infallibly in response.
@michaelogrady232 The, conclusion doesn't follow. There were several different biblical traditions around at the time, the Septuagint is one (the later Masoretic, the Essenes at Qumran, the Aramaic Targums, etc.) Also, I am pretty sure that there are times when the NT quotes the OT, and the citation is not to the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to follow that when Paul says "all Scripture," we should interpret that as "the Septuagint." The Septuagint is fine. I just don't think the argument accounts for all the data
@StoaoftheSouth Please read what I wrote. It is known to historians the Jews of the Diaspora in the first century used the Septuagint. Some even say exclusively. The other writings you cite are used by specific groups. There was no widespread use. Timothy was also a Jew of the Diaspora with a Greek father. He wasn't even circumcised when Paul met him, so it is doubtful, nearing impossible, the Scriptures he knew from his youth were the Hebrew Scriptures as an uncircumcised man was not allowed to touch either the Scriptures or the Rabbi instructing him. When Paul says to Timothy "all Scripture," he is no doubt making a statement easily understood by Timothy that needs no further explanation. The only Scripture that Timothy has known from his youth is the Septuagint. I think that is a convincing argument.
Awesome idea doing two 30 min episodes! I think protestants really dont have any answers when it comes to the issue of the canon. Which bible you accept must be an infallible tradition outside of scripture. Someone hands you a protestant bible, you accept it. Anyone of them that does a little research into what the other side says, its over. Truly i think it’s one of the easiest ways to prove the Catholic Church
Totally. I asked this question in a Protestant church and was given Revisiting the Canon by Michael Kruger. It was appallingly terrible in its argumentation. That triggered a whole slew of further questions. I can no longer consider myself Protestant.
@@truthnotlies I love that. For me, i raised methodist, my grandfather had a really old bible that contained the dueterocanon but they were pushed in the back after revelation. They really confused me and was the first thing i asked my grand dad about. He said those books were in all the bibles but didnt contain anything too important. Eventually they fell out of popularity and were removed entirely. It was the catalyst for me leaving the faith entirely, how silly the idea of a religion using a set of books as a rule for the faith but having the ability to ignore or remove things they deem unpopular or unimportant centuries later. I left the church that year.
True Christians know exactly how the Books of the Bible were decided, they were all inspired by God and decided by God. But who decided the Eucharist, Mass, Rosary, the Catholic Idolds, the Catholic Mary, the Catholic Ten Commandments, etc etc.??
I remember talking to a Protestant who claimed Jesus dictated the Bible word-for-word in King James English to the Apostles who were killed by the Catholics in order to suppress the scriptures until Martin Luther rediscovered them. This was a funny fringe belief.
That is quite… interesting to say the least. Sometimes I genuinely wonder if mass literacy and internet is actually a mistake and we should go back to upping the education requirements for the population 😅
My go to question is: can you prove to me what the Written Word of God is without appealing to a logical fallacy like circular reasoning? Never heared a good answer.
Protestant response. Excellent point! The most fundamental concern is whether the Roman Catholic model, in some sense, makes the Scripture subordinate to the church. The answer to that question is revealed when we ask another question: How does the Roman Catholic Church establish its own infallible authority? If the Roman Catholic church believes that infallible authorities (like the Scriptures) require external authentication, then to what authority does the church turn to establish the grounds for its own infallible authority? Here is where the Roman Catholic model runs into some difficulties. There are three options for how to answer this question.” “(1) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by (and derived from) the Scriptures. But this proves to be rather vicious circular reasoning. If the Scriptures cannot be known and authenticated without the authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, on an exegetical level, one would be hard-pressed to find much scriptural support for an infallible church….” “(2) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by external evidence from the history of the church: the origins of the church, the character of the church, the progress of the church, and so forth. However, these are not infallible grounds by which the church’s infallibility could be established. In addition, the history of the Roman Church is not a pure one - the abuses, corruption, documented papal errors, and the like do not naturally lead one to conclude that the church is infallible regarding ‘faith and morals.’” “(3) It seems that the only option left to the Catholic model is to declare that the church’s authority is self-authenticating and needs no external authority to validate it. Or, more bluntly put, we ought to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church because it says so.” “The Roman Catholic Church, then, finds itself in the awkward place of having chided the Reformers for having a self-authenticating authority (sola scriptura), while all the while it has engaged in that very same activity by setting itself up as a self-authenticating authority (sola ecclesia). On the Catholic model, the Scripture’s own claims should be received on their own authority. The Roman Catholic Church, functionally speaking, is committed to sola ecclesia.” Here’s Kruger’s helpful critique of Rome’s view of the church over the Word. “…This presents challenges for the Catholic model. Most pertinent is the question of how there can be a canon at all - at least one that can genuinely challenge, correct, and transform the church - if the validation structure for the canon, in effect, already presupposes that the church bears an authority that is even higher? On the Catholic system, then, the canon’s authority is substantially diminished. What authority it does have must be construed as purely derivative - less a rule over the church and more of an arm of the church, not something that determines the church’s identity but something that merely expresses it.” This sheds some new light on the Reformation phrase, “always reforming according to the Word.” Rome can’t logically say this phrase because it does not believe that the Scriptures alone are the highest authority for faith and life; Rome believes in sola ecclesia, not sola scriptura. One cannot have it both ways.
@@paulsmallwood1484 Ok so you decide to begin your response with a blatant "tu quoque...". That's not a good choice. I'm not interested in answering your critique, I'm asking you a simple question. Can you prove that the Bible is the Word of God without appealing to a logical fallacy? forget catholicism or anything else, pretend I'm an atheist. Come on, answer the question.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription If you my friend are not interested in answering my critique then I am certainly not interested in answering your question. Move along now my Sola Ecclesia friend. We will get nowhere on this. Let’s not waste each other’s time. Blessings
@@paulsmallwood1484 Thanks for proving my point. Your false man made beliefs cannot answer this single question. Your perversion of the true religion stands on illogical reasoning. This is something many many converts from protestantism into christianity adamantly propose, it's not a matter of misunderstanding the protestant position. I asked the question first, it's typically expected you do not answer a question with another question. If you change your mind and attempt to answer my challenge, I'll be glad to answer you.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I am not interesting in conversing with someone treating me in such an accusatorial fashion. My false man made beliefs? Sorry but that is over the line. Have a great day.
Where is the Protestant canon Who developed it When was this done. Where was this done Protestants will point to the Council of Trent for the Catholic Canon. What do we point at for their canon?
@St.AdalbertOfPrague they know because of apostolic tradtion. I'm not saying that I don't believe in the inspiration of the holy spirit. What I am saying is that the church wouldn't choose a gnostic book because that would contradict the teachings given to the apostles by christ.
I recently discovered that the Tanakh, the Jewish _canon_ only has 24 books in it. Protestants who claim to be using the Jewish canon have 39 books. Like the Ten commandments there is not extra books, just how they number them. So, how did the protestants grow these extra book divisions if it is so important to be using the Jewish canon?
Jesus celebrated the feast of dedication, it says so in the gospel....with out the book of macabees, the would be no feast of dedication.....good enough for Jesus good enough for me.
The Bible Canon started in the Catholic Church with "The Council of Rome" and his "Decree of Damasus" of 382AD. Said Canon was reiterated at all future Catholic councils dealing with The Bible.
Joe. I would love to see you address the notion of Darwinism. It would be off the beaten path for you but I think you could address it like you did Mormonism. Much love and appreciation
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, during his time in the wilderness,.At one point, God told Moses to meet him on Mt Sinai. Then God wrote the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone, and handed the Ten Commandments over to Moses". Then Moses recorded the Ten Commandments of God in one of his five books of the OT called Exodus. "Exodus chapter 20", after Moses died, Joshua replaced Moses, and Joshua wrote the book of Joshua, "again while still in the wilderness". Soon after the Israelites reached the promised land after their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and Joshua died, God spoke to his prophets which make up the OT. {God rejected 7 books, the same 7 books that were added by the pagans}. The 7 books were not written by any of God's prophets". They were written by evil men to mislead just like the rest of the Catholic books". How many catholic books were written by Moses, and by God's prophets? If my memory serves me right, the answer is... None whatsoever.
It makes more sense to assert that God dropped a Bible out of the sky than to assert that man voluntarily and by their own power and wisdom, elected the canon of Scripture. This exactly implies man seized control of all Scripture, which precedes the catholic church entirely, and elected the content of Gods Word instead of God. It is much more reasonable to believe that God never lost control of His Word, that He had established the canon before He created the universe, had the manuscripts written, and then compiled under the commission of pope damascus and finally, when the time was right, orchestrated The Reformation in order for the compilation of Scripture to undergo its refinement into the perfect and harmonious 66 book Bible. And finally, Protestantism was born; truly Catholic and united under the sovereign authority of God by His eternal and authoritative Word. This is why we can comprehend and define faith, works, grace, justification, being Born Again, the sovereign works of The Holy Spirit and The Gospel. The Catholic church is stuck in the past of its apostate traditions and church fathers. Catholics wont be saved until they leave behind the church and return to Christ; just as Mary did.
I just watched a video that gave these three questions from T. Gordon: Were the bible books written by a single author? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents? Can scriptural inerrancy be known without a promulgation? Can promulgation be done without an infallible promulgater?
14:52 the 22 are the 24 just ordered different. Ruth was attached to Judges and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah. See Saint Jerome's preface to the Vulgate book of kings.
I'm a simple guy I see a new Shameless video, I shamelessly click
I Second this!
When I see Joe has posted, I’m pumped.
very shameless
Trve
Shame on you
Archbishop Fulton Sheen: “The Church did not come out of the Gospels, the Gospels came out of the Church."
Ora pro nobis. +JMJ+
Wasn't Fulton Sheen a false traditionalist tho
@@RespuestasCatolicasTRADno.
@@RespuestasCatolicasTRAD NO! Listen to him. Be wiser.
@@RespuestasCatolicasTRADwtf is a false traditionalist
@@RespuestasCatolicasTRADnever.
Protestants trusting Jews like they don't have a dog in the fight is insane.
"Yah, I'm going to agree with the Jews who denied Christ's divinity"
@@brendansheehan6180"and continued to blaspheme and insult him in their religious texts"
In a paper, I wrote I said that the Jews rejected the Septuagint because the early church accepted it and it had many prophecies in it that confirmed Christian teaching. For example, the Septuagint says in Isaiah "born of a virgin" but the later Hebrew translation says "Young women"
The earliest official Jewish Canon we have is from about 400 years after Pentecost when they had long before lost all authority to do such a thing.
@@josh39684 The Masoretes corrupted the Text in many places.
I think it begs the question, why were these 7 books accepted at all if the Protestant position is correct. And where is the pushback from church fathers arguing that these 7 books are to be left out, unless I missed that point. It just seems strange that 1100 hundred years later, give or take, Martin Luther with his superior knowledge of everything says “Oh I see the problem, these 7 books need to be removed.” And no one else east or west came to the same conclusion?
The Orthodox! Have always sued the 73 books. Always. p.s. they rejected Luther and the 'reform'.
There is no Church Father who write a canon list that includes all seven books apart from Augustine. The majority give essentially a 22 book OT canon with disputes whether Baruch is part of the one book of Jeremiah.
@@YajunYuanSDA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST lies.
@@YajunYuanSDAI’m not aware of a single church father who affirms the Protestant 66 book canon. Some seem to get close, but it’s never exact. One list I saw essentially got the Protestant OT, but the NT excluded Hebrews and Revelation. We have numerous examples (Augustine especially, various local councils) affirming the 73 book canon used by Catholics, but I’m not sure we can find a canon list that totally matches up with the 66 Protestant canon until the Reformation.
@@christopherponsford8385exactly. Idk where these Protestants are coming up with this stuff. None of the early church fathers accepted a 66 canon. Again it was the Protestants that took books out to fit their man made doctrines.
Another canon argument that I’ve become interested in is how undecided it was all the way up to its solemn dogmatizing at Trent. While yes we have many regional councils and even ecumenical councils prior to Trent that corroborate the Catholic canon, we can still see disputes over certain books through history even with cardinal Cajetan in the 16th century. This indicates that the canon was not so big an issue for most Christians that the church had to define it, because they had the church to teach sound doctrine. If Sola Scriptura was the paradigm, we should expect to see the canonizing of scripture far earlier in history and far more solemnly, but we don’t.
So true. And because the Reformation didn't so forcefully impact the East, the Orthodox still haven't ratified it exactly. It's a bit looser with more books that they read.
Yes it shows the Roman Catholic church wasn't using Sacred Scripture as the *Ruler* of faith (Canon means rule or measure, the limits).
Oh, and where is your church in the first millennium with an early and solemnly defined canon? Again, if God intended Sola Scriptura, we should expect an early closed canon (and don’t give me “fallible list of infallible books”)
Just because the church was the paradigm for teaching sound doctrine (widespread copies of scripture only comes with the printing press), it does not follow that therefore their teaching wasn’t ruled by scripture. The faithful received scripture truth through the church as the church keeps the deposit of faith safe.
@@YajunYuanSDA Discussion beats throwing Scripture away.
I was raised as a protestant as well, then thought to have found Him in Judaism, but Jesus had mercy on me and opened my eyes 2 years ago. Now I'm Catholic and I finally feel that I came home, in His church!:) Even though I don't need any "evidence" for myself, there are so many around me who have doubts, biased complaints or misconceptions about our faith, messianic Jews included. It was a pleasure to watch your video. Soooo clear and detailed. God bless you for your work and we pray and help that others' hearts will open as well to the full truth as only can be found in the Catholic Church.
As I understand it, the Hebrew at the time of Christ until the 10th Century did not have vowels. It only had consonents. The Greek Septuigint on the other hand was translated by pre Christian Jews from this Hebrew into Greek.
It is possible then to produce alternative readings of the Hebrew text by changing the vowels in some words post Christ. That would make the Septuigint a more reliable Old Testament than the later Masoretic text from the 10th century. This is why I have a bible exclusively translated from the Greek Old and New Testaments (as well as several other translations).
Genesis refutes faith alone. In fact the whole OT does not affirm faith alone. Neither does the NT but that is a different story.
Even more damning for the Masoretic text was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was more congruent to the Septuagint than the modern Hebrew bible. Combined with the fact that the NT authors routinely quote the Septuagint makes the Greek OT the version Christians should prefer.
@@sentjojo Yes. I bought The Bible translated by Nicholas King. All from the Greek, Old and New Testaments.
@@BensWorkshop Look up what Nicholas King says about how Luke 1:28 should be translated. See what he says about whether the Greek means "Full of Grace"
@@YajunYuanSDA He translates it as:
"'Rejoice, you have received favour: The Lord is with you.'
@@BensWorkshop On a Catholic Bibles blogspot.
Question: "I’ve grown up praying the rosary so I’m wondering why in your translation, and in most others, “full of grace” is not used in Luke when addressing Mary, but Stephen is “full of grace” in the Acts of the Apostles? For someone who doesn’t know the original languages, it would seem that it should be the other way around. Can you explain the Greek text behind these two verses to help us why they are translated the way they are?"
Nicholas King reply is 'The translation of Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” is not quite accurate. The original is kecharitomene, which could be translated as “Cheer up, you lucky thing”, and means “rejoice, woman who has been graced.” Acts 6:8, however, has Stephen as “full of grace”, and there it is correctly translated.'
Several NT books were still being disputed into the 4th century (James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude). There was more consensus on the OT than NT in the early centuries (which included Deuteros)! The agreement on the NT since then conceals just how much division and confusion there was about the NT.
"Rome has spoken. All the rest are posers." - "slight" paraphrase of Augustin.
Hey Joe love your channel. Could I make a request that you do a long video specifically on the topic of "Soul Sleep" and how to debunk it?
Honestly, this one always gets me. How can you have sola scriptura if someone had to have the authority to put the actual scriptura togetha?
You make an interesting point.
Our separated brethren often argue that by quoting from an OT book, Jesus implicitly endorses their inspiration.
But by the same token, of Our Lord attends a festival mentioned in a book of the OT, is this not also an endorsement of the inspiration of that book where the festival was mentioned?
Doesn't that mean that a book like 2 Maccabees is inspired?
I can only give this episode half of a like since it is only half of an episode 😇
Ah, but a two thumbs up is a double like of half an episode.
It is impressive how protestant distorts some pretty clear facts just because they can't admit they are wrong.
Protestantism is founded on the individual ego.
@@HAL9000-su1mzI never thought of it that way but I think you have it. Ultimately protestants rely on their own interpretation of scripture. Each is ultimately his own pope and very often ego prevents them from realizing the truth (some do realize the errors of their tradition).
@@anthonymarimpietri8409 Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. All unified in opposition to the Catholic Church! Brothers in arms. The three horsemen of the European apocalypse. But what happened? Disagreements, with each being his own authority. Ultimately Luther condemned Zwingli to the fires of hell for denying the Eucharist. Calvin decided that Jesus might love us. Luther seduced a nun, smuggled her out of her convent and married her.
Uncontrolled ego.
Genesis 3. The serpent appealed to Eve's ego. He told her that she and Adam could be like gods, possessing knowledge of good and evil. Indulging the ego caused the fall from grace and indulging the ego has lead to all subsequent division.
Consider the arguments we get here: we are not arguing against their intellect, but against their egos. We cannot win that battle. Victory comes only when they are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their error. Only after they humble themselves are their eyes opened.
We all struggle against our egos. We succeeed as human beings, as nations, as Christians, only to the degree to which we overcome our egos.
@@HAL9000-su1mzOoorrrrr the power of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus who would “lead us into all truth”.
@@EveryHappening CONTEXT! He said that ONLY to the Apostles. You and I are not Apostles.
Thank you for this video! I’d love to understand more about the Catholic view on “end times” or the teachings primarily around Revelation. My Protestant group of friends have a variety of interpretations of it and it seems there really isn’t any unity on what’s to come. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Read THE LAMBS SUPPER by Dr Scott Hahn. He was a Presbyterian minister until he figured out the book of Revelation. He is now a prominent figure in Catholicism. This book will completely answer your questions.
Think of this--the book of Revelation was written after all the other apostles had passed from the scene. This means that the other apostles and early Christians never knew anything about what the Book of Revelation describes. Which further means that they didn't need to know, that the apostles had already preached the full gospel before Revelation was written. Revelation was also late into being accepted into the canon.
Please don't shorten your show, Joe. I could listen to you for hours. My son introduced me to you a couple years ago. I think you know him. Fr. Stephen Schumacher.
I do know him! He's a good man, and (I'm sure) a good priest.
Correction: this Apocryphal Apocalypse.
A big hand for Gary Michuta for covering for Joe Heschmeyer again during his vacation.
;-)
Sincerely in Xto
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
The Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, and everyone else got together and decided. The first thing they decided was that the Mormons had to leave so they left and then they got to work. It took more than 3 years to decide, but in the end, 66 books were agreed upon and King James put his imprimatur on it.
Mormons??
@@truthnotlies To be fair, I would not equate the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Baptist with the Mormons. The first 3 are all Trinitarians, the latter is not.
@@palermotrapani9067 The Trinity is a Catholic doctrine that the reformers retained. The Mormons then protested against the reformers and threw out the Trinity.
@@MackBŗislawn Yes I agree.
Great video as always, Joe! You would have my full attention if you ever do a deep dive into the origins and reliability of the Septuagint compared to the Hebrew Bible we have today.
Some of my favorite books of the OT are among the 7 the Prots deny (Tobit and Judith specifically).
The Prods always have to have something to pick about, and the canon is one of them.
Did the original intro get killed? Liked it
Shamelessly dunking on Prots
Well they are a soft target, but yeah. 😄
@@rhwinner they really are. I'll give their apologists credit though, it does take skill to try to defend claims not based in facts and some people are swayed by them.
I was the protestant pope of our time, then I studied every detail of church history, every doctrine and every Christian concept, and now I'm a catholic.
/sarcasm
Actually, Protestantism is the worlds largest collection of popes. Guinness, you listening?
@@TrollHammer-g4q I gave up my papacy for a way more progressive pope than I could have ever been.
So glad I did that.
This is akin to the discussion as to whether we should count Pluto as a planet.
Well Uranus has spoken!
@@HAL9000-su1mz - 😆😆😆 YO MAMA! 😆😆😆
@@GizmoFromPizmo Hey, you left the door open.
I'm 100% down for your two videos a week model: a 30 minute one and a longer!
If you are able to release your second video on Tuesday, that would be especially good, because the upload order we would have is: Trent, Joe, Trent, Joe, and Jimmy and we would get a video every day of the week!
Why isn't this on Spotify?
Sir, catholic Bible is what kinds of words added??
Hello! I'm planning on buying a russian grammar book in order to learn Russian, but I found this book to download freely on a website. This website is an academic website where people can upload their paper, articles, researchings, etc; and people can download them, some for free, other ones buying. I don't know if this russiam grammar book is legally their or if it is piracy. What should I do? I think it is ligal because I have a certain confidence this website is ok, but, at the same time, I'm not a hundred percent sure if they uploaded it legally! Should I give up from using this pdf?
For me, it's the New Testament.
Its canon was Historically compiled through the *CATHOLIC CHURCH's authority.* Since the protestants use the same NT books as we do, they de facto admit that the Catholic Church was inspired by God to do so. Following the logic, it means the Catholic Church was (and remains) the One True Church founded by God, because God would certainly not use anything less than His own Church do establish and spread His words.
This is literally a checkmate... there is nothing they could say to deny this, except if they have no problem lying to themselves to preserve their heretical views.
Following the logic, it means the Orthodox Church was (and remains) the One True Church founded by God.
You need to understand that convergence onto same set of received writings from the apostolic era, doesn't give an organisation a monopoly on it.
See Timestamp 3:44 Vatican council explicitly says *not* by Church authority.
@@YajunYuanSDA The Orthodox Church is a true church. Of course the Protestants didn't come from the Orthodox Church, but from the Roman church.
what about paul's letter to laodicea?
I wish I could find the quote, but one of the Early Church Fathers said that the canon of the Christians was larger than the later Jewish canon. Also, we have Justin Martyr in his dialog with Tryphos saying that the Jews changed their scriptures from the accepted Septuagint to hide Jesus Christ in the scriptures. Pre-Christian Jewish writings said that Greek was the ONLY language that the scriptures could be translated into from the original Hebrew because it could be translated exactly. It wasn't until after the spread of Christianity that this changed and was forbidden.
Protestants will deny that there were other "canons" during the early Church and among Jewish sects at the time of Christ and also want to claim that it was a "closed canon". But, they will admit that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah (first 5 books) as their canon and rejected everything else. So, within the NT, we see evidence of different Jewish Canons. We also have Jewish writings from after the time of Jesus Christ STILL debating certain books of the OT if they were scripture or not.
Lastly, the Sadducees power was derived from the Temple. When it was destroyed, they lost all power and influence. Except for some remaining Pharisees, the other Jewish groups were either killed off or lost any influence. The Pharisees "redid" Judaism into the Rabbinical Judaism we have today as a response to Christianity. This understanding of history was not known at the time of the Protestant Movement, so Luther and the others believed that the Jewish Bible was what the scriptures were at the time of Jesus Christ. They didn't know that the canon passed on in the Catholic Church was the canon of the early Church and passed on.
"The Pharisees "redid" Judaism into the Rabbinical Judaism we have today as a response to Christianity"
Jesus says Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses.
"I wish I could find the quote, but one of the Early Church Fathers said that the canon of the Christians was larger than the later Jewish canon."
No such quote exists because no Church Father apart from Augustine wanted to add all 7 books.
@@YajunYuanSDA There was no "adding" the books, they were always a part of the Septuagint in the 2nd Temple Period. Most scholars agree with this, other than certain Protestant scholars who refuse to admit this because it goes against everything that they have to hold onto. Here is a quote from Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70, "But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders". (written about 155-160 AD).
Here he says that the Jews removed scriptures from the Septuagint, which was the "Bible" used by the early Christian Church. This included the 7 books that were later removed by Protestants.
@@YajunYuanSDA Not sure your point. Even Jewish scholars will admit that the Judaism today was in response to Christianity and things were changed because of that and the destruction of the temple.
My KJV Bible has the DeuterCanon. Everyone should look at the British and Foreign Bible Society "Apocrypha controversy"'
In the canon or as an appendage?
Bible Animations video spells the Council of Trent as "Cousel" - not very well put together.
Desperate men do desperate things.
The Pharisees are the original Protestants and the Sadducees are the original cults. Protestantism subjects you to the devil; look at what the Pharisees did to Jesus. “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God.” [John 16:2] ❤️🔥
Given the connection to “Catholic Answers” and its apologetic methods, one thing is clear: there’s defending an institution that has become increasingly fossilized and irrelevant as opposed to defending the Gospel - in which CA is very clever at defending the former and not the latter.
Your " fossilized and irrelevant" church was promised by Jesus to have the spirit of truth forever. And Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. So you obviously don't trust Jesus.
@@bridgefin I trust Christ. I don’t trust the Papacy whatsoever. Plus, this parroting of “the gates of hell shall not prevail” narrative fails to expound upon Christ himself as opposed to a relic of a religious institution that is bloated and corrupt.
Big, big difference.
@@716Expat
You: Plus, this parroting of “the gates of hell shall not prevail” narrative
Me: That promise was made about the church which Jesus was establishing. Protestants believe that Jesus was wrong. Therefore he is not God. Therefore they are all Jehovah Witnesses. Therefore they have no salvation.
@@bridgefin not true. We non-papists have never said that Christ was wrong. You took my words and twisted them. Plus, I am not and will never be a Jehovah’s Witness. Furthermore, if you are going to “condemn me to hell” for not paying homage to the Pope, then I will gladly go there. But I know I’m not, because I have already been redeemed by Christ through imputation and expiation.
And, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, all popes are in hell.
@@716Expat
You: We non-papists have never said that Christ was wrong.
Me: Not to his face at least. But you do prefer a church made by a sinner in opposition to the only one which Christ set up. The Protestant excuse is that the Catholic Church failed and needed to be reformed with something different. That calls out the promise of Jesus that his church would not fail as inadequate and not true. Then you spend your time attacking his church thinking maybe that it wasn't attacking him. Anyway you look at it, you don't win that argument.
You: Furthermore, if you are going to “condemn me to hell”
Me: Not my job to judge others.
You: And, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, all popes are in hell.
Me: How pathetic! As you judge so will you be judged. Unbridled ignorance will be your best defense. Your presumed salvation is merely that.
The Bible says God entrusted the "oracles of God" to the Jews. Jesus quoted from the "Old Testament" so we know the Roman Church didn't decide the books in the Old Testament canon. We know the apocryphal books were written before the Roman church was founded because the Jews debated among themselves whether they were inspired. We know that all of the books included in the New Testament were written by the Jews and that those scriptures included in it were originally passed along to the various churches long before the Roman church began around 325 AD.
Luke was not Jewish. And we have no idea who wrote Hebrews.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw No one knows for sure, but, most likely he was Jewish. He definitely wasn't a Roman Catholic.
Much, indeed, in every way!
In the first place, God trusted His message to the Jews.
- Romans 3:2
Yessir! The Bible used by the early Christians (and by Catholics today) contains books which the Christians inherited from their Jewish forefathers. Or do you think that St. Paul in Romans 3 was trying to say, "centuries from now, Jews who have rejected Jesus will have the authority to remove books from the Christian Bible"? Because that is some pretty wild eisegesis.
@@shamelesspopery "The Bible used by the early Christians (and by Catholics today) contains books which the Christians inherited from their Jewish forefathers."
You have in the two hundreds Origen talking explicitly about how books like Tobit and Judith not by Jews in their scriptures, *not* even in their Hebrew apocrypha.
There is no connection to rejecting Jesus and rejecting Aramaic folktales.
The original church was Jewish, not Roman Catholic. When Christ returns it wiĺl be to Jerusalem and not Rome.
The first Christians were Jewish & the Holy Mass has its roots in Judaism. Ignatius first called His One True Church, Universal or Catholic in 107AD
No Christian remained Jewish and still was awaiting the Messiah as he worshiped in the Temple following hundreds of Jewish purity and dietary laws. The dream that Peter had makes that obvious.
@@geoffjsUntil the year 132 AD the Church celebrated Passover, not the Roman Catholic mass. The original church was corrupted by the gentiles after the Apostolic fathers died.
I’m Orthodox. I reject a “canon” of scripture. No matter what anachronistic definition the Latins want to use.
I have the same “canon” as St Paul and St Peter, AND we have different books we consider to be scripture.
Latins have redefined canon to mean a book.
There is only 1 source of canon and that is God and it’s not limited to books.
God decided! as the books were decided way before the catholic church by the OC jews origanal NC apostle's who first preached it then wrote it down. Only hubris man thinks he assembled gods word because they do not know the voice of the sheepard
Obviously you have never studied Esther along with Ruth, the only two books named after women and theirs a reason for it!
Esther depicts the pagan Persian (one of the 7 heads of the beast after Babylon ) culture in which Esther must fight for her survival and eventually that of her people.
Esther hid her idenity as a jew and ended up saving her people,
Problem is, Catholics do not understand Gods ways or his will or the Gospel they are to obey!
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
First thing that dropped when I was Protestant. I was so furious and disturbed by the historical truth that it propelled me into researching almost every doctrine throughout Christendom. Now I’m no longer Protestant.
Welcome home
Welcome home. I reverted 24 years ago for similar reasons.
Yes! Same for me! Plus the explaining away of scriptures that ARE in their Bible that contradict their doctrine. Protestantism leads seamlessly into progressive Christianity for this reason.
Welcome home all-y'all! I converted many decades ago and never regretted it! I think everyone should return tothe Church!
Yeah similar story here. Based
This subject is a major argument for the need for a magisterium and sacred tradition. We are 2,000 years into this religion and still having arguments among adherents on the sacred texts of the faith. While this is not a big deal with orthodox, Copts and Catholics because we don’t subscribe to sola scriptura, it’s a huge deal for Protestants, because their position is the clear historical interloper and severely weakens the reliability of the canon.
What it does is threatens the catholic mind control of their members, therefore they dont like it.
The more people leave the catholic church, the less money comes in and its been ALL about the money for centuries.
Seriously..would Jesus have built the Vatican, much less lived in it?
How can the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses but not know which books make up the Hebrew scriptures?
@@YajunYuanSDAthey couldn’t even understand the prophecies that were fulfilled when Jesus came.
Depending which pope you lived under, the books were considered part of the canon or they weren’t part of the canon. Gregory the great for example didn’t consider them part oof the canon. Also, Jerome didn’t consider them part of the canon. The 1st century Jews didn’t have them as part of the canon. Even at the council of Trent there were plenty of votes against these books. These were disputed books and should never have been added.
Prots would always cite a Catholic figure who once disagreed on or had different views on certain things. But ignored what is finally settled by the church where everyone submits. Well, that is one thing that does not exist in Prots - a single authority that decides via council when there is a dispute. Everyone in Prots is authority hence 40K+ denominations. Even during the apostles they had these scenarios, where they settled issues when disputed arose. As for the Jews, even after the time of apostles there was no single canonized list of books. But it was clear that Jesus and the apostles used LXX which includes deuterocanonical. Dead Sea Scrolls also has them.
This topic is what brought me to Catholicism. I’m no longer Protestant.
And you have no idea if you are saved and going straight to Heaven, do you. That's because you have to be born again.
As a former Baptist, I stick to the Canon of the Catholic Church
Yup, former Baptist and I do the same, a Bible without wisdom is a Bible without wisdom
Joe Heschmeyer, you are quickly becoming my favorite apologist. I always learn a ton of facts with every podcast.
I'm so happy to hear that!
@@shamelesspopery Timestamp 17:27 if the Jewish had no practically settled canon at the Christ, then what is your explanation for Jews *universally* not including Tobit and Judith in there canon less than 200 years later?
Why unlike Esther, is there lack of any disputes recorded for these books?
Note these books contain nothing Messianic for them not to include these books for Christian reason.
@@shamelesspopery I made a poll on my channel regarding a statement you made in one of your Catholic Answer articles, if you would like to vote on it. It relates to whether there is a difference between adoration/worship.
@@YajunYuanSDAdid you watch Jimmy Akin's mysyerious world episode on Ellen G White?
@@shlamallama6433 Yes both episodes
I did a Sunday school class in my Protestant church on textual criticism and briefly touched canonicity- although I gave arguments from Kruger and James White I was nervous and thought the arguments were shaky and cut that section short. An honest look at the canon is wont to dispel Sola Scriptura.
Kruger's arguments are so horrendous I couldn't believe anyone actually thinks they're acceptable. I read his book, Revisiting the Canon, and was appalled that it was supposed to be the best.
@@truthnotlies yup that’s “the guy” for Protestants I read his arguments and i thought “really?? This is it??”
The 4 criteria that bible.animations present have so many holes.
1) Came from an Apostle? Scholars debate endlessly on the historicity of the traditional authorship, so you need to rely on Church tradition as witness to who wrote these books.
2) Accepted by Christians? Who are these? and how many? You won't get unanimous consensus unless you appeal to a council.
3) Consistent doctrine? Protestants can't even agree on consistent doctrines when they are all working from the same text. This is completely subjective.
4) Values of the Holy Spirit? How do you determine these values absent a canonical list? You would need already have scripture to get any sort of understanding of the values of the Holy Spirit, at which point you've introduced circular reasoning. That is on top of this point being just as subjective as the others.
1) Yes, need tradition (history) of Jews to tell you who the Prophets are and Christians to tell you who the Apostles are. Cannot use Gentiles to tell you what the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Covenant.
2) Local councils of hippo/carthage do *not* get you unanimous consensus.
@@YajunYuanSDA the SDA legend himself (herself?)
Catholics don't need unanimous consensus because we accept the authority of the councils decision. My point for (2) was that an appeal to "Christians" in general is not helpful for the Protestant perspective because WHICH ancient Christians were correct and why? You can either take all of the tradition or none of the tradition. Cherry picking tradition is a broken methodology.
@@sentjojo My point is a local council whether Catholic or SDA has no authority other than local.
Only an Ecumenical council has authority, there was *no* ecumenical council in the first millennium of the Church that gave a canon list.
So basically all you can say is that Augustine's diocese accepted the Apocrypha in ~400AD.
That has nothing to do with Tradition, because every other Church Father canon list excluded all the apocrypha in there explicitly numbered 22 book OT canon, the only dispute between them was whether Baruch was part of the one book of Jeremiah.
@@YajunYuanSDA didn't he specifically say in the video that Origin of Alexandria talked about people using Tobit as scripture? I think the only one explicitly excluding them is Jerome.
@@YajunYuanSDA well you're leaving some massive historical facts out there. The primary one being Pope Damasus making the Vulgate the canon of the West. Whether or not you think the Pope had universal jurisdiction, he definitely did have jurisdiction at that time over the Latin church.
The East also accepted the Deuterocanon because they used (and still use) the Septuagint.
That Catholic canon predates Augustine, as evidenced by Origen using it.
So exactly which Church Fathers are you referring to? If you say Jerome then just lmao he was a Papist and did what Pope Damasus told him to do.
Who are these people that are only watching Shameless Popery videos for half an hour? That was really shocking and disappointing to find out. During Lent I gave up online streaming, with two exceptions. The first was Fr Mike Schmitz’s homilies, and the last, but certainly not least, Shameless Popery. And for the same reason did I permit them, for being edifying. If you manage to do two a week at 30 minutes each, then I guess that’ll hold me over. But man I’m really going to miss the hour long episodes. They’re TOO GOOD. Seriously, those of you who give up halfway, shame! Lol
I feel exactly the same
I watched all his videos, all of them in their entirety lol
I only did it once 😅don't judge me, I was weak. 🤣
I watch them at night and usually fall asleep at some point 😁
Sometimes I remember to go back and finish but often by then there's a new video out so I start that one.
Days are only 24 hours long, people have lives (pray, work eat...) and there are literally thousands of books worth reading and studying (among which, surprise... the Bible). Those are some of the very rational reasons why even the best videos are not watched till the end.
For protestants … it was decided by an excommunicated priest (not even a bishop).
Luther: Proto-Jehova's Witness. JWs: Post apocalyptic Lutherans.
I'm not sure if that is sufficiently authoritative. Was the question decided by a monk who married a nun?
@@PadraigTomas After he broke his vows, convinced her to break hers, SMUGGLED her out of the convent in a fish barrel in order to marry her.
Thank God for Luther.
Does the other video give any sources for their claims? Joe/CatholicAnswers go above and beyond with their context and sources. Maybe it’s a leap of faith, but I just trust what they are telling us is accurate, and if it’s not then they’ll correct themselves and tell us.. I feel bad for those who are only getting the kind of info in the other video.
When I converted almost 3 years ago now, I felt as though why did no one ever tell me about any of this treasure chest of knowledge there is to be known and learned within the Catholic Church. I’d never heard of these other books in the Bible, along with so many other things. I thank God he lead me into his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 🙏🏻
This was a huge one for me. Growing up protestant I had no idea what the Septuagint was. Once I found out that the early church used it and most of Christianity did as well, I refused to say "The early church got these books wrong and we didn't catch it till Luther but got complex doctrines like the Trinity correct". I couldn't reconcile that
There is no single Septuagint, it just means a translation of scriptures into Greek from Hebrew. It originally was only the Torah. Septuagint is a translation not a collection.
A Septuagint canon is like saying RSV canon. I can buy RSV bibles with and without the apocrypha. I can also buy KJV with and without the apocrypha.
Wisdom of Solomon was written *originally* in Greek, it cannot possibly be a translated by the seventy translators.
@@YajunYuanSDA but still used by the apostles (The Septuagint)
@@danielustarezI'd rather use the old testament scriptures used by the early church and it just so happens to be the Septuagint.
@@josh39684So you read the OT in Greek?
@@EveryHappeningno but parts of it
Your channel makes me feel like I’m earning my doctorate, God bless my man keep up the incredible work!
It's weird that they trust a random guy like Luther over all the earlier Christians.
This whole topic is ridiculous. Without the rise of literacy and translating of the Bible into the local vernacular none of us would be having this conversation. Which translation
Greek Vetus Latina Syriac Peshitta. Latin Vulgate.,
first English translation of Scripture from Protestantism, and the first early modern English translation, came from William Tyndale, who completed his translation of the New Testament in 1525. Tyndale was eventually arrested and killed by Holy Roman Empire
Noooo, this can't be... GOD IS GOOD! I was struggling with protestant objections on the canon and the apocryphta. I literally have been watching videos for 4 hours. Now I got recommended this video.
If one is a Protestant, then one must accept that the Holy Spirit acted through people and nailed the New Testament, but at the same time had a brain fart and completely screwed up the Old Testament, and let this result stand for 1,500 years.
A thinking man cannot accept that.
I had a similar experience. I know it can be overwhelming but I will say a prayer for you. Not everything has to be discovered today. Just give yourself grace and patience and allow yourself to explore with an open mind.
@@TJBowman-vr1coTalk of flatulence is scandalous vulgarity and is not to be tolerated, even in the abstract. watch your language; there are children reading. ❤️🔥
@ochem123 pardon me, I meant a complete mental breakdown.
Either way my point stands.
❤ God working through the Algorithm.
If the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) originated in the 2nd century BC, wouldn’t that contradict the so called 400 yrs of “divine silence”?
Indeed it would!
The scholarly consensus is that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century also. You can make a conservative argument that it wasn’t. But the only reason you would make that argument is because you are presupposing the canon.
@@shamelesspopery How so? Hanukkah is like Purim, it an ethnic custom rather than a Holy day given by God such as Yom Kippur. Hanukkah might display God's continued providence but it has no connection to Divine Revelation.
Luis Dizon and William Albrecht have an interesting argument from linguistics about daniel, saying the language of chapter 7(i think) is archaic pre hasmonean, close to Persian period aramaic, demonstrating that most of the prophecies are older than the maccabean language used by an editor
@@bman5257 see comment underneath about that
Joe, if your videos were 4 hrs long I'd watch the whole thing. Best apologetics out there
The foundation doctrine of the reformation was Luther's sola fide. It is not surprising that he wanted to delete the book of James particularly because it had the verse that said salvation by works at not by faith alone.
in the 16th century, Martin Luther argued that several of the NT books lacked the authority of the Gospels, and therefore proposed removing a number including Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. His theology was grounded in a part vs you won't find "saved by Faith alone apart from works".
@truthsayer6414 he wanted to get rid of revelation as well because it supported intercession of the saints. Again the revolutionaries had no authority from god to do this. If they did they would have showned miracles which they didn’t.
I always say, if Luther isn’t in hell right now. He’s going to be burning in purgatory until judgment day. He single handily lead so many souls astray even centuries and generations later. He’s done so much damage it infuriates me.
@@levrai944 I mean there was talk of reform in the church. It’s a human institution. A lot of corruption. Sometimes god works in mysterious ways. Luther was a herectic along with the others. Idk why it was called a reformation. It was a revolution against the church. We saw the true reformers of the church later on. Luther had his chance to be one of the great saints of the church but was a heretic in the end when he basically preached a different gospel from Christ.
It is a shame that Philipp Melanchthon convinced Luther not to shred the NT. Protestantism would have collapsed much more quickly.
Hey if White, Winger or Washer want to claim that the Bible supports sola fide, the foundation document of the reformation, then consider the following analogy: for those who say "we can't add to what Christ did on the cross," my father worked very hard to save enough money to support ALL his children not just a favoured one or two. Without his unconditional love and support, I would never have made it to University. There was nothing we could do growing up to add to what our father achieved for his children, except for us to love, honor and obey him.
I certainly needed faith in my own beliefs but necessarily had to work extremely hard for the privilege of my father's love and support, persevering in my studies for some four years. In the very end, I had to stand before the judgment seat of my university professors and give an account of all I achieved, both the good and not so good results, to justify my degree.
Were all victories our family based on the faith I had in myself or my father alone? What does Paul say in 2 Cor 5:10, or Rom 2 6, and Matt 16 27, Revelation 20 12? Now be honest!
The total reliance on the Hebrew Torah that wasn't even completed until the 9th century has always been in the "bold move" category for.
But a great reason I'm confident the Church got it right is the book of Tobit. There is no book that appears more in the Dead Sea Scrolls collections than Tobit. So it seems that the "Jews never even bothered with the Apocrypha (Deuterocannonical) books!" claim is wrong.
I like reading Tobit so much, that I think it’s too bad that Protestants refuse to read it.
I looked that up myself and was shocked to see how Tobit, Judith, Wisdom... All in the Dead Sea Scrolls and so many of them. I felt like I have been totally ripped off!!!
EVERYONE! Read TOBIT! Amazing book with the most advanced "Angelology" in the entire OT. It is a wonderfully warm, human, hope-inspiring book that contains vietually every human experience and emotion. A mini-Job, but with an angel and a dog wagging its tail. The versions based on Saint Jerome's Vulgate are far better, IMO.
@@HAL9000-su1mz It’s also the only book outside the book of Revelation that mentions “the seven” that stand before the Lord.
Tob 12:15 For I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord.
Rev 8:2 And I saw seven angels standing in the presence of God: and there were given to them seven trumpets.
@@christopherponsford8385Well said! It explains why Jesus produced such a huge amount of wine at Cana: wedding feasts lasted two solid weeks. It demonstrates the linguistic use of "brother" and "sister" in ancient Israel, which indicates that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were relatives or others from Galilee. It explains the reason for our suffering. Utterly amazing book.
Don’t ever stop clearing out the lies in Christendom. Former Protestant here, gonna do confession soon and have been attending mass because of Catholic Answers work
The biblical canon is the Achilles heel of sola Scriptura and Protestantism. Really gets to heart of authority, history, etc. Tradition and Magisterium are the only way we can really know the true canon.
Best comment.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Thanks!
And that was my first question after being in a Protestant church. It was so badly addressed, that here I am with wayyyy more questions and definitely no longer a Protestant.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Thank you!
@@truthnotlies Praise God, esp if it was an escape from JWs. I recommend Gary Michuta's books and YT content on this particular question/topic: Apocrypha Apocalypse.
I love the deep-dive long format episodes that you usually make
This is why when I started my serious Faith Journey I decided to get a Catholic bible to read alongside with my Protestant Bible. It's important to know the translation differences and get a deeper context.
Thanks Joe so much for the last 2 videos!!! I’m the one who suggested this and I really appreciate it!
Thank you for suggesting it!
I learnt alot from this video, thanks for your thoughts!
Luther was doing what Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for - changing the Bible to fit his theology 😮
three 7's is the number of God (73), 66 just lacks one more (6).
The Church constructed the bible. One mentally ill European man de-constructed it.
So, let me get this right. Protestants say the Bible proclaims its own sufficient authority. So I guess about 500 years ago they did not believe in the sufficient authority of the Bible as it was handed to the Reformers, therefore they had to come up with a new canon of the Bible based on Jewish traditions established many years after they rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and now they can say that the Bible can proclaim its own sufficient authority???? If we follow that reasoning, Protestants should reject the New Testament as well as Jesus as the Messiah.
Refrain from reading the Protestant Bible, as you will encounter many modifications.
Will blow your mind like it did mine. Douey Rheims reads "after the days of Pentecost.". protestant Bible reads "on the DAY of Pentecost". Which 2 me are two TOTALLY different readings. They also take out our Father's and put ancestors
And relegate ‘Tradition’ to a footnote and substitute ‘teaching’ for the same Greek word in the three cases it doesn’t fit their narrative (NIV)
@marlam8625 because that Greek word, PARADOSEIS, can also mean teaching, instruction, or doctrine.
Koine Greek did not have as many words as English has, but a word could have several meanings, depending on the context.
Paradosis Definition
"a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. of the body of precepts, esp."
I actually do not have a big problem with the KJV but my KJV is the original 1611 edition that weighs over 10 pounds and includes the deuterocanonicals!I read it every morning and I am in 1st Kings.
@@markmulfinger in my opinion the douey-rheims is an earlier better English translation . Thoughts?
Just on the shorter / longer forms of Daniel and Esther. An often over looked piece, I've noticed Protestant bibles have changed the prophecy of Simeon too. In Protestant bibles, it concludes with "and you a sword shall pierce your soul" whereas in the Catholic bible this comes a bit early and is tied to "so the thoughts of many will be revealed". I am paraphrasing the verses here as UA-cam automatically deletes comments with any copy / pasting. involved.
Which verses are you talking about? I would like to read them, so I can see what was really changed.
UA-cam doesn’t deletes comments with copy/paste unless you are spamming.
In my country we don’t have any Catholic approved translations, and I can’t say I’ve ever seen any difference in Luke 2:34.
I have to confirm YT deletes copy/paste comments. Experienced that myself many times. @@ModernLady
Some put the “so the thoughts of many will be revealed” before the “a sword will pierce your soul”. It varies within both Catholic and Protestant translations, so I don’t think we can conclude it to be anything other than the discretion of the translatorsZ
@@darklight1611 the prophecy is in Luke 2: 29-35.
First comment!!!!!!
Sometimes i tap out because I'm a busy mom but i always come finish the video and then usually watch the whole thing with my husband later. But often still in fragments because we're always busy with the kids. And when i can listen to an hour long one all in one go - that's a great time for me ⭐
Same ❤
They are getting desperate. How to explain the Orthodox, who have ALWAYS used the 73 books. They have a few extra, but have ALWAYS used the 73.
Really going to miss these nice hour long episodes honestly.
Protestants forget that the Apostles were Jewish and that these Apostles passed down the canon of the Old Testament.
JESUS! Is He involved? 91% of His OT quotes are from the Septuagint.
Jews had no agreement on the canon. There was no canon to pass down, only a range of opinions.
Meanwhile the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church: "Ya'll have a closed canon?"
I was theologically trained in a Protestant seminary. I have yet to hear even a half way convincing argument from a Protestant for a closed canon.
@@VaughndaleoulawI agree.
It seems to be a question that is a bit unanswerable..
@Vaughndaleoulaw wouldn't they quote the epistle to Timothy that scripture shall not be added to? I never understood that line given Paul's time and how undecided the scripture was for other jews and the lack of so much of the new testament being written.
Technically, I don't think we do. Unless you mean "all the books that can ever be canonical have been written."
I'll give it a watch, but the idea I had in mind from all the content I've consumed is that NO one man decides.
Luther certainly did, though.
Luther didn’t take books out of the Bible. The deuterocanon was literally in his translation 😂
@@ryandelaune139 That is a misleading statement. If the Bible is Christian scriptures then yes, Luther did remove seven books from the Bible in his translation. By labeling them as not scripture and still physically including them in the book doesn't mean they weren't taken out of the Bible. If the Bible is just a collection of books and it doesn't matter if they are scripture, then all he did was rearrange them.
@@thundersmite2162 the canon of scripture was not infallibly defined by Rome until Trent, in which the deuterocanon was given an equal standing with the rest of scripture.
@@ryandelaune139 Did the deuterocanon not have equal standing with the rest of scripture before Trent? Are you trying to say something about Trent or the deuterocanon? Or perhaps still trying to defend Luther removing books from the Bible?
@@ryandelaune139 That is entirely correct--the canon was not infallibly defined until Trent. That is because there was no need to define it, as everybody already accepted what the canon was. That is, until the Reformers challenged the canon. Then the canon had to be decided infallibly in response.
Great video. Jimmy Aiken has a very detailed list of those 7 books being quoted in the New Testament.
Thanks for making a video on this. I also made my own response in their comments section a while ago.
Thank you brother Joe H. for yet another great content.
God bless you and your ministry (Shameless Popery Podcast).
Amen.
It's funny seeing Dr. Mark Mangano get a citation here, he was my brother's professor at a small bible college in Illinois. Small world
Ive been curious about the deuterocanonical books recently, you make a good case for engaging with them, thank you again.
Lutheran scholar and pastor Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan examined them and came to embrace them. He subsequently left Protestantism for the Eastern Orthodox.
Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora.
The Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint.
Therefore, when Paul says "all Scripture" he means the Septuagint.
I don't know about that... seems like a bit of a stretch.
@@StoaoftheSouth Both the premises are historically true. What part of the conclusion is a stretch?
Makes sense to me.
@michaelogrady232 The, conclusion doesn't follow. There were several different biblical traditions around at the time, the Septuagint is one (the later Masoretic, the Essenes at Qumran, the Aramaic Targums, etc.) Also, I am pretty sure that there are times when the NT quotes the OT, and the citation is not to the Septuagint.
It doesn't seem to follow that when Paul says "all Scripture," we should interpret that as "the Septuagint."
The Septuagint is fine. I just don't think the argument accounts for all the data
@StoaoftheSouth Please read what I wrote. It is known to historians the Jews of the Diaspora in the first century used the Septuagint. Some even say exclusively. The other writings you cite are used by specific groups. There was no widespread use. Timothy was also a Jew of the Diaspora with a Greek father. He wasn't even circumcised when Paul met him, so it is doubtful, nearing impossible, the Scriptures he knew from his youth were the Hebrew Scriptures as an uncircumcised man was not allowed to touch either the Scriptures or the Rabbi instructing him. When Paul says to Timothy "all Scripture," he is no doubt making a statement easily understood by Timothy that needs no further explanation. The only Scripture that Timothy has known from his youth is the Septuagint. I think that is a convincing argument.
as an aside, Brant Pitre has debunked the existence of a "Council of Jamnia".
Don;t get jammed up on Jamnia.
The Bible was put together in the year 397 AD way before the so-called reformation. So there for the Holy Bible is a Catholic book.
Awesome idea doing two 30 min episodes! I think protestants really dont have any answers when it comes to the issue of the canon. Which bible you accept must be an infallible tradition outside of scripture. Someone hands you a protestant bible, you accept it. Anyone of them that does a little research into what the other side says, its over. Truly i think it’s one of the easiest ways to prove the Catholic Church
Yup, scripture and it’s interpretation comes down to authority.
Totally. I asked this question in a Protestant church and was given Revisiting the Canon by Michael Kruger. It was appallingly terrible in its argumentation. That triggered a whole slew of further questions. I can no longer consider myself Protestant.
@@truthnotlies I love that. For me, i raised methodist, my grandfather had a really old bible that contained the dueterocanon but they were pushed in the back after revelation. They really confused me and was the first thing i asked my grand dad about. He said those books were in all the bibles but didnt contain anything too important. Eventually they fell out of popularity and were removed entirely. It was the catalyst for me leaving the faith entirely, how silly the idea of a religion using a set of books as a rule for the faith but having the ability to ignore or remove things they deem unpopular or unimportant centuries later. I left the church that year.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Yes. Jesus said you will know the Truth. Catholics can know the Truth, but all Protestants can know is their own opinions!
True Christians know exactly how the Books of the Bible were decided, they were all inspired by God and decided by God. But who decided the Eucharist, Mass, Rosary, the Catholic Idolds, the Catholic Mary, the Catholic Ten Commandments, etc etc.??
I remember talking to a Protestant who claimed Jesus dictated the Bible word-for-word in King James English to the Apostles who were killed by the Catholics in order to suppress the scriptures until Martin Luther rediscovered them. This was a funny fringe belief.
Crazy people like that exist?
@@efosaokoro3343 This guy was also a first class Qanon nutcase. Yes, they exist.
That is quite… interesting to say the least. Sometimes I genuinely wonder if mass literacy and internet is actually a mistake and we should go back to upping the education requirements for the population 😅
My go to question is: can you prove to me what the Written Word of God is without appealing to a logical fallacy like circular reasoning? Never heared a good answer.
Protestant response. Excellent point! The most fundamental concern is whether the Roman Catholic model, in some sense, makes the Scripture subordinate to the church. The answer to that question is revealed when we ask another question: How does the Roman Catholic Church establish its own infallible authority? If the Roman Catholic church believes that infallible authorities (like the Scriptures) require external authentication, then to what authority does the church turn to establish the grounds for its own infallible authority? Here is where the Roman Catholic model runs into some difficulties. There are three options for how to answer this question.”
“(1) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by (and derived from) the Scriptures. But this proves to be rather vicious circular reasoning. If the Scriptures cannot be known and authenticated without the authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, on an exegetical level, one would be hard-pressed to find much scriptural support for an infallible church….”
“(2) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by external evidence from the history of the church: the origins of the church, the character of the church, the progress of the church, and so forth. However, these are not infallible grounds by which the church’s infallibility could be established. In addition, the history of the Roman Church is not a pure one - the abuses, corruption, documented papal errors, and the like do not naturally lead one to conclude that the church is infallible regarding ‘faith and morals.’”
“(3) It seems that the only option left to the Catholic model is to declare that the church’s authority is self-authenticating and needs no external authority to validate it. Or, more bluntly put, we ought to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church because it says so.”
“The Roman Catholic Church, then, finds itself in the awkward place of having chided the Reformers for having a self-authenticating authority (sola scriptura), while all the while it has engaged in that very same activity by setting itself up as a self-authenticating authority (sola ecclesia). On the Catholic model, the Scripture’s own claims should be received on their own authority. The Roman Catholic Church, functionally speaking, is committed to sola ecclesia.”
Here’s Kruger’s helpful critique of Rome’s view of the church over the Word.
“…This presents challenges for the Catholic model. Most pertinent is the question of how there can be a canon at all - at least one that can genuinely challenge, correct, and transform the church - if the validation structure for the canon, in effect, already presupposes that the church bears an authority that is even higher? On the Catholic system, then, the canon’s authority is substantially diminished. What authority it does have must be construed as purely derivative - less a rule over the church and more of an arm of the church, not something that determines the church’s identity but something that merely expresses it.”
This sheds some new light on the Reformation phrase, “always reforming according to the Word.” Rome can’t logically say this phrase because it does not believe that the Scriptures alone are the highest authority for faith and life; Rome believes in sola ecclesia, not sola scriptura. One cannot have it both ways.
@@paulsmallwood1484 Ok so you decide to begin your response with a blatant "tu quoque...". That's not a good choice. I'm not interested in answering your critique, I'm asking you a simple question. Can you prove that the Bible is the Word of God without appealing to a logical fallacy?
forget catholicism or anything else, pretend I'm an atheist. Come on, answer the question.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription If you my friend are not interested in answering my critique then I am certainly not interested in answering your question. Move along now my Sola Ecclesia friend. We will get nowhere on this. Let’s not waste each other’s time. Blessings
@@paulsmallwood1484 Thanks for proving my point. Your false man made beliefs cannot answer this single question. Your perversion of the true religion stands on illogical reasoning. This is something many many converts from protestantism into christianity adamantly propose, it's not a matter of misunderstanding the protestant position.
I asked the question first, it's typically expected you do not answer a question with another question. If you change your mind and attempt to answer my challenge, I'll be glad to answer you.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I am not interesting in conversing with someone treating me in such an accusatorial fashion. My false man made beliefs? Sorry but that is over the line. Have a great day.
Where is the Protestant canon
Who developed it
When was this done.
Where was this done
Protestants will point to the Council of Trent for the Catholic Canon. What do we point at for their canon?
Excellent point! They obsess over their Catholic codified bibles with anti Catholic hypocritical zealotry!
Protestant Canon equals Catholic Canon minus books which don't agree with our novel theology.
Lol. The bible we used today are traditions from the early church fathers. Rcc impostor...
The church that compiled the scriptures wouldn't decide books are canonical if they contradicted their teaching.
The didache doesn’t contradict any church teachings of the early church
@St.AdalbertOfPrague they know because of apostolic tradtion. I'm not saying that I don't believe in the inspiration of the holy spirit. What I am saying is that the church wouldn't choose a gnostic book because that would contradict the teachings given to the apostles by christ.
@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER Right, because the didache came out of the church. It was like an insiclacule.
I recently discovered that the Tanakh, the Jewish _canon_ only has 24 books in it.
Protestants who claim to be using the Jewish canon have 39 books. Like the Ten commandments there is not extra books, just how they number them.
So, how did the protestants grow these extra book divisions if it is so important to be using the Jewish canon?
"Fewer" is definitely more proper than "Less"
Thanks for your work Joe. You're point by point analysis of these topics is very enlightening.
Jesus celebrated the feast of dedication, it says so in the gospel....with out the book of macabees, the would be no feast of dedication.....good enough for Jesus good enough for me.
The Bible Canon started in the Catholic Church with "The Council of Rome" and his "Decree of Damasus" of 382AD.
Said Canon was reiterated at all future Catholic councils dealing with The Bible.
Joe. I would love to see you address the notion of Darwinism. It would be off the beaten path for you but I think you could address it like you did Mormonism. Much love and appreciation
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, during his time in the wilderness,.At one point, God told Moses to meet him on Mt Sinai. Then God wrote the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone, and handed the Ten Commandments over to Moses". Then Moses recorded the Ten Commandments of God in one of his five books of the OT called Exodus. "Exodus chapter 20", after Moses died, Joshua replaced Moses, and Joshua wrote the book of Joshua, "again while still in the wilderness".
Soon after the Israelites reached the promised land after their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and Joshua died, God spoke to his prophets which make up the OT.
{God rejected 7 books, the same 7 books that were added by the pagans}. The 7 books were not written by any of God's prophets". They were written by evil men to mislead just like the rest of the Catholic books".
How many catholic books were written by Moses, and by God's prophets? If my memory serves me right, the answer is... None whatsoever.
It makes more sense to assert that God dropped a Bible out of the sky than to assert that man voluntarily and by their own power and wisdom, elected the canon of Scripture. This exactly implies man seized control of all Scripture, which precedes the catholic church entirely, and elected the content of Gods Word instead of God.
It is much more reasonable to believe that God never lost control of His Word, that He had established the canon before He created the universe, had the manuscripts written, and then compiled under the commission of pope damascus and finally, when the time was right, orchestrated The Reformation in order for the compilation of Scripture to undergo its refinement into the perfect and harmonious 66 book Bible. And finally, Protestantism was born; truly Catholic and united under the sovereign authority of God by His eternal and authoritative Word. This is why we can comprehend and define faith, works, grace, justification, being Born Again, the sovereign works of The Holy Spirit and The Gospel. The Catholic church is stuck in the past of its apostate traditions and church fathers.
Catholics wont be saved until they leave behind the church and return to Christ; just as Mary did.
I just watched a video that gave these three questions from T. Gordon:
Were the bible books written by a single author?
Is there a divinely inspired table of contents?
Can scriptural inerrancy be known without a promulgation?
Can promulgation be done without an infallible promulgater?
14:52 the 22 are the 24 just ordered different. Ruth was attached to Judges and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah. See Saint Jerome's preface to the Vulgate book of kings.