I reckon it's because these questions being asked are quite common.. It's the same thing people ask over and over. Dr. Turek has been doing this for a long time and is obviously diligent enough to be ready with a well prepared answer
@@Starblazer27correct. Atheists are like parrots, they all say the same things and go down the same logical fallacy rabbit holes in an effort to evade God. Whatever sound bites they hear from Matt Dillahunty (a failed atheist), Aron-Ra (laughably embarrassing) and the late Christopher Hitchens (an anti-theist who died bitter and angry), they regurgitate without actually trying to understand what they're saying.
@@TenTonNuke You would have to start out with an intellectually honest society. The only way you get to an intellectually honest society is by being brave enough to be intellectually honest. That takes faith in the first place: you cannot enter an intellectually honest society at all without being brave in the first place.
use to be a Catholic and finally sat down read the bible studied it with Christians and that was that I was in shock that I never knew anything about God. It was amazing how I let myself believe in the traditions man made idols it was a HUGE wake up for me I thank God in Jesus name Amen.
Frank takes a little truth to spin his yarns. You don't need a bible to know a god. Just don't treat a bible as an idol. Compare the contradictions in the anonymous Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I hope you can learn how to think, not what to think. Good luck.
can you provide actual contradictions without recurring to a google search "contradictions in the bible"? if so, how did you find them and who told you so? just curious, since we are learning how to think
I watched a video yesterday of a girl who was a catholic and listened to her reasoning why and she was giving all this information and everything. I have grown up a Christian, non-denominational. I believe in the Word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. As I’ve gotten older I really love learning different ppls beliefs and their reasonings why. When I heard why that young girl was catholic I was shocked. In a 20 minute video she mentioned Jesus’ name twice and neither time talked about what He did. She focused on the saints and praying to them and books that were added to the Bible. I was a little angry and sad when listening to her because I was like why pray to the saints when Christ came and died and tore the veil so that way we could speak directly to God. We didn’t have to go through others anymore. I prayed last night and I said God if I am getting this wrong please show me the right way. Then I came across this channel today and I just happened to see this video and it has helped me to confirm my beliefs even more so! So thank you for having this channel and teaching and letting God use you!! It helps so much!!
Btw. Protestants took away books from the Bible. Catholics didn't add them:) Even Dr Turek would lose the Sola Scriptura debate. It is not a debate Protestants can win. Sola Scriptura and Apocrypha are losing points.
@@mattybla6274 False statement. The Apocrypha is pure contradictory towards the New Testament itself, yet you claim that Protestants would lose the debate? Highly doubtful. Also, if the creator of the original comment sees this, I absolutely know how terrible it is. Catholics seems to worship Mary and the Saints far more than they do with Yeshua. Whenever I hear anything about Catholicism, watch videos, and etc, it’s always about Mary Mary Mary, saints saints saints. It’s just wild.
@@thomas7571 You’re lying. As a Catholic, I’m offended by how ignorant that statement is. The Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Christ. It’s so easy to show why Protestantism shouldn’t exist, and how WRONG it’s been since the 16th century, it’s still shocking to me that they still exist after 500 years.
@@dinopad10 No, the Catholic Church is not the “first and only church.” Started by Christ. You can not find one biblical scripture to support your claim which you base on the teachings of your Catholic doctrine. Fun fact, Christ wouldn’t have His first church Catholic because of many problems within the Catholic doctrine itself. One of them would be how Catholics teach Mary is sinless. As for someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox and did some study, I tried to find biblical scripture to support Mary being sinless, however, I only found scripture which teaches otherwise. The fundamental basis of her being sinless is taught from the ideology of man, not by biblical scripture itself. Another problem would be praying to Saints in heaven. Again, I’ve looked into Orthodox and tried to find biblical scripture to support this. I find scripture which goes against it, or in short, it’s just not taught anywhere throughout the Bible. All, and I mean literally all throughout the Bible we are told to make our prayers known to the Father. Not once will you ever find a verse in the New Testament which teaches to make your prayers known to the Father and Saints in heaven. We are taught to pray for each other, but as for someone who stays as biblical as he can, no scripture seems to support the ideology doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven (or asking them to pray for you, and so on.) Don’t assume I’m Protestant, because I’m not. Im not a follower of any denomination nor am I interested in being assumed into labels. The Bible itself teaches there are Christians (Christ followers) nothing else. Denominations are made to separate the Word of God. And within most denominations man’s thoughts, feelings, and/or ideas are thrown into scripture and twisted into man’s understanding, instead of biblical understanding. So in short, the Catholic doctrine itself was not started by Jesus. Not one place in the original Greek/Hebrew text will you even find such a church being supported. The first Catholic Church movement (doctrine) seemed to have gotten rebuked by Yeshua (Jesus) in Luke 11:27-28. And if you’re going to refer to “Peter being the first pope” and him having the keys and etc. This entire thing seems to be based on the confession of peter’s faith. Yes, I’m aware that Peter means rock, however scripture says “upon this rock I will build my church” I don’t think there’s a way of understanding what the “rock” is truly referring to. But in my opinion it’s most likely referring to Christ. In the Old Testament God was known as “the rock” in the New Testament Jesus is God Himself. He then says “upon this rock I will build my church.” Now one can put two and two together at this point and see how “the rock” could be referring towards Jesus. Having Peter at such a role makes no sense. Peter even got rebuked by Jesus in scripture I believe. And to even think Peter was a “pope” (which he was not) is just wild. John himself was the greatest disciple of them all. There’s just so much wrong and so much that could be said about this. Be biblically correct. Not denominationally correct. God bless.
@@thomas7571 You’re a liar and a heretic. Nothing you said is based on scripture, and absolutely not based on anything scholarly or intellectual. I’m not having yet another online debate that will go nowhere with a person who thinks they know more than me, based on bigotry and beliefs from ignorance. Know at least this: once you become aware of church history, you cease to be anything but CATHOLIC. (Paraphrased from Saint John Newman, former Protestant) And for the record, if you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. Even if you think you’re non-denominational, you’re still following non-Catholic heresy, and a “church” founded at least 1500 years AFTER Christ founded His Church. Your ignorance is extreme.
They for get to mention that the Holy spirit who inspired the scriptures also helps us decide what were the book to put together. Dont forget the Holy spirt was and is with us till the end of times
The Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the same canonical books that Florance later did in the 15th century and then Trent again in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not add the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. If the Deuterocanon was added at Trent then why would the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches also both include them when they broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior to Trent? No, Trent did not add them, Luther and the protestants removed them. As far as Protestants having the Jewish canon, that depends which Jewish sects we are talking about. Some Jews had a similar canon, but the Jewish canon was not set. The Essenes for example included most of the Deuterocanon, the Saducees only included the Torah, the Pharisees seemed to accept at least Wisdom of Solomon since they cite it while Jesus was on the cross. The Jews did not have a set canon. The current and most common Jewish Canon today is the same as the Protestants, but even to this day many Jews accept the Deuterocanons and some sects of Judaism have less books than the Protestants. But even if the Jews did and still entirely reject the Deuterocanon, which they neither entirely did nor do, that would still not disprove these books as scripture since the Jews are not the standard setters any longer, the Church is. The Jews also reject the New Testament and Jesus, so them rejecting the Deuterocanons is hardly a good argument against those books.
Historically Herot is right. Also early Christians did not entirely agree on the books of the New Testament but the Universal (Catholic) Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided. Christ established a Church not a book. That is why we can have confidence that the cannon used by the Christians around the 4th century is right. "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St. Augustine . Like it or not historically we would not have the Old and New Testament Canon we use today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. All you would have to do, to prove this right or wrong is to read history and historical facts are not opinions but are documented events in human history established by multiple references that is unchanging and can be objectively verified.
@@javierreyes623 I've seen Dr. Turek speak in person many times and have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with him two or three. Read most of his books too, more than once for some. He is a very reasonable person and has a lot of willingness and ability to have reasonable dialogue with Christians who disagree with him. The trouble is that the "mere Christian" apologists often have a mindset of wanting to focus more on converting non-Christians than entering into debates between Christian groups, so they rarely end up in settings where they can engage in these kind of discussions by nature of their focus. The nature of their focus also means they don't seem to spend a lot of time looking into this kind of thing outside of the random question they might get about it at their talks on other topics. I do hope one day both him and other great evangelists like him, such as Dr. William Lane Craig, take the time to look into the evidence for the Catholic faith and convert. They both have had a major impact on my life and I likely wouldn't be Christian, let alone Catholic, if it hadn't been for them. So I hope and pray they do take the time to look into it and give the evidence an honest evaluation one day, I could see them converting if they did. Very few reasonable and good willed people can look into these matters and remain protestant, hence why so many of the best protestants become Catholic.
Thanks Herot. I was aware of much of what you shared but you gave me a few more pieces of the puzzle I had not considered eg. what books the Essenes accepted and the Jewish quote while Jesus was on the cross. I'll save your post and look further into that. thanks again and God bless.
Came here to say this. The Deuterocanon being added in Trent is a common lie spread among protestants to slander the Catholic Church, and it's obvious Frank hasn't taken the time to verify that little "fact" that he was taught in Sunday School.
I have to give my respect and gratitude to the Catholics and Non Catholics in the comment section for clearing up the error made by Dr. Turek. God Bless you all.
@Artur False. Protestants adopted a later Jewish cannon (from about the turn of the 1st century) that was adapted, because certain books they rejected were too close for comfort for supporting the new Christian movement. The Jews never really had an official cannon, but just used “commonly accepted” books. The Catholic Church solidified the cannon, and included the deuterocanonical books, which simply mean “2nd cannon,” which means they included the ones that were rejected by anti-Christian Jews of the 1st century. “Once you study history, you cease to be anything but Catholic.” (Paraphrased from St. John Newman, former Protestant)
@Artur I’m sorry if that was unclear. I meant that the Jews up to that point had never adopted an official cannon, but when they ADAPTED their collection of accepted books, they took out the deuterocanonical books, which were later REestablished as cannon (hence the “secondary” part of it).
That kid is right. And that man is wrong. He mentioned the 4th century cannons that determined scripture. And he totally ignored it and lied that the council of Trent in 1,500’s added books. When I’m reality Martin Luther removed books. The council of Trent affirmed the already cannon in response to the removal of books. The Old Testament used by Jesus and the disciples were the Septuagint that has the deuterocanonical books. And the Jews never had a closed cannon by the time Jesus was born. Anyone can look this up.
Catholic Christian here. Dr Turek you are true inspiration and my role model as an apologist. I have couple of friends who are atheists and I'm preparing to bring them to the Lord by watching your videos. Thank you very much for your hard work. And I love how you ended here "it's the New Testament that all Christians agree upon" God bless
@@PInk77W1 I know that. It is also not as relevant to christians as New Testament, that's why Jews don't acknowledge it. So in the end the core teaching which is that of Jesus Christ is the same for Protestants and Catholics. Now the interpretation of said teachings is a whole different matter and source of schism between chrisrians.
Frank, if the Catholic church added books to her canon at Trent please explain to your audience which books she added that were not in her canon prior to Trent? Answer: there wasn't any because they didn’t add any!
As a Protestant, I also confirm this. The main reason why we removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament is because we wanted to be more in line with the initial Jewish canon. It’s actually a point of contention within both the Catholic and Protestant churches if whether the Apocrypha should be taught in the churches.
@@paulnash6944 Then you should also remove the entire NT for the same reason. The Jews did not accept either of them for the same “Christian” reasons. Using a reason to keep the Jewish canon and keep the Christian NT makes no sense when the church brought ALL of them, both the NT and the “Apocrypha” together at the same time at Carthage 397. If she was wrong on the “Apocrypha” she was wrong on the NT also.
@@srich7503 Indeed, also to add there were several Jewish sects besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, such as the Essenes who were likely the custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have a much larger library of books they considered authoritative. Also fun note - it is heavily implicated that the Essenes were the monastic order of Jews that John the Baptist was part of - worth looking into.
Quick correction the council did not add books, when the church has meeting they usually do them when there is a movement against a belief and they meet and discuss the issue, and at the end they affirm the teaching or not. What the council did during the reformation was affirm that those 7 books were scripture, they did not add them
The Catholic Bible had had those seven books from the Concil of Rome 382 and Hippo 395 and were RE-AFFIRMED at the Council of Trent 1563. They were NOT added at Trent.
Man, I've been struggling whole night with this, it's 6 AM and just watched this few minutes long video and it all suddenly became very clear :D Thank you Frank for your work, God bless you!
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of the apocrypha I’ve ever heard. I had some excellent professors and seminary. But they weren’t this clear
@@sammisaylor2173 Apocrypha means writings or reports not considered genuine. Basically, the apocrypha are the books the Roman Catholic Church added to the Old Testament in 1545 AD. Protestants only include what Judaism considers canon in the TaNaK. In the video starting at 5:08 Dr. Turek talks about this. The apocryphal books have things worth reading, but are not authoritative. For example, Bel and the Dragon is a work of fiction not an actual account, which is why it is not included in the TaNaK. But it is the earliest known mystery story. Like many non-scriptural books today, it has some good things to teach like don’t just believe the explanation you’re given but look for the real causes and explanations. But that doesn’t make it scripture.
Protestants removed 7 books. Not the other way around. Anyone can look this up. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
@@CPATuttle Close, but not exactly. The Muratorian Canon, AD 170, is the earliest canon of the New Testament and included 24 books. Hebrews, James, and 3rd John were not included. However, a discussion of the NT canon is irrelevant to this subject. What is relevant is the OT, which you only mention in passing. The fact is that the Apocrypha were never included in the TaNaK in Judaism. These books and chapters were additions to the OT. Protestants did not remove them so much as return the OT to it's original canon.
@@cmdrdatayt I was copying and pasting historical facts. To say Catholics added books is straight up wrong. Let’s go with facts. There’s no way to spin it. There’s not one early Christian Bible that matches the Protestant bible today. The Jews 200 years before Jesus was born added the second cannon which means the deuterocanonical scrolls. The Jews added them in the translated Hebrew Bible to Greek called the Septuagint. They added those books. Not the Catholic Church. The eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. From conquering former land by Alexander the Great who spread the language there. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint. Many prophecies of Jesus are in the deuterocanonical scrolls. Jesus nor his disciples not one time ever said those books were “not scripture” or “apocrypha”, after Jesus was born, no other Jew that did not follow Jesus have any authority whatsoever on what the closed Old Testament should be. The Pope choose the books for the Old Testament because they were in the Septuagint used by Jesus. The Pope is the office established by Jesus to have this authority. That’s how we get a closed cannon. There’s no agreement with all Christians that make cannons. That’s impossible to all agree on it.
Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
That just proves that the popes were fallible all men are fallible The reason we do not believe in the apocryphal books is because they are contradictory to scripture
Frank Turek, I just recently discovered you on UA-cam and have been enjoying your videos. Saying that the Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent has a negative impact on your credibility. It was a reaffirmation of the original canon in response to the deformation that removed 7 books.
@@l.t.1305 "ROMAN" Catholic church. Hmm. Wasn't Roman Empire the one leading the persecution of the disciples and first and second generations of Christians? Roman Empire absorbed Christianity when the movement became too big to contain, but brought their Roman paganism into it as well. That's why you see elements of the goddess worship (Mary), sun god worship (just google for the mountain of evidence), and blatant blasphemy of calling man-appointed men "holy father," vicar of Christ (acting in place of real Jesus Christ), etc. By 16th century, Roman Catholic Church so perverted and abused the Word of God that they were afraid of laymen reading the Scripture themselves, that they prohibited it and maintained exclusivity by restricting translation from Greek/Latin. Reformes protestant movement began when some people began to read the Scripture. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christus (Christ alone), Soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).
@@l.t.1305 Satan can be traced back much further and was actually with God at one time... I am sure, despite that, he isn't approved of by Christ either.
Actually, Frank Turek is wrong about the Old Testament. Jesus used the Septuagint, which is basically the Old Testament as the Catholic Church holds it to be. The Council of Trent has nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Ah no, the Septuagent was rejected and still is rejected by Torah Observant Jews due to where it was written and who the translators were. . The Septuagent was the Hebrew text translated into the Greek language , this took place in Egypt , that is the first violation , the location where that translation was made - Egypt . and the second violation was with the translatoors not being experienced Jewish scribes to supervise that the texts not contain any errors . Because of that , the Septuagent text is never read or quoted from in a synagogue or Messanic congregation is it is considered corrupt . the organial Hebrew text is. Reason(s): 1) the Septuagent was copied in Egypt around 360 BC . This is in violation of the requirements that the Tanaakh is to be only copied in Israel. 2) the copyists for the Septuagent, were not strictly supervised by noted and experienced Jewish scribes, nor their manuscripts checked for errors in the spelling of words , or text .
No, He did not. Neither Jesus nor any Jew with any measure of intelligence would ever use a corrupt mess like the Septuagint. Well into the New Testament era, while the Temple still existed, the Jews were still using the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apostle Paul addressed the Jews in Hebrew: "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence" (Acts 22:2, KJV).
The apocryphal books were not added in the council of Trent. Luther removed these books during the reformation. The catholic canon was set at the council of rome in ad 382.
The Bible written by about 40 most unrelated people, lived 1600 years, and still has a Common Thread, carries common message. Most authors martyred. Willing to die for what they witnessed.
The problem with the concept of "canon" is that there is not one instruction from God in any of the scriptures to create one thus, the act of creating a canon was entirely a man-made endeavor. Dr. Turek is right that the canon doesn't have to be accurate for the gospel to be. And when it comes to the Old testament canon, there wasn't one during the time of Christ and He didn't command or prophesy that man develop one. Yet, one was developed but by the PHARISEES at the Council of Jamnia. That begs the question, though, of how could a group of scholars that Christ always disputed recognize what writings were "inspired by God" when they couldn't recognize the living God in front of them? I think it idiotic that Christians use the findings of the Pharisees as an authoritative one. Another issue is the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts. Shouldn't a council be called to see if any of those were inspired? An obvious problem to call such a council is who has the authority to call such a council? Another is whom would they select to sit on the council. And still another is why would any of us accept their findings and on what authority? Basically, one has to believe that the council members wqere as led by the spirit as the writers themselves. Otherwise, everyone is really just putting their faith in intellectualism.
Excellent arguement. So many bible versions.. so many christian denominations. Its difficult to arrive at the absolute truth about God's revelation from moses through Jesus's time. So many traditions and interpretations. The young man is genuine in his concern for knowing which bible is the right one. Should i be a catholic or protestant? Pray to mary or not? Papal authority or not? Its a real concern
Andrew Cyrus - As a Catholic, I’m happy to direct you to resources to help inform you on the Catholic perspective on these issues when I was struggling with these exact same questions. No worries if you’re not interested. Regardless, I find Dr. Turek’s videos very interesting, especially the ones regarding atheism.
Love you on atheist apologetics Frank, but you're off on the P vs C stuff. So the Church added the Deuterocanonical books after Luther rejected them? How does that make sense? The Church *reaffirmed* what had been there for 15 centuries only after the Protestants started throwing them out 30 years before Trent. Note that Luther tried mightily to toss James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as well. He was tossing books that disagreed with his novel theology. You won't find a Bible before 1517 that doesn't have the 'apocrypha," a derogatory term by the way. And by the way, the councils this young man mentions (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) also affirmed the canon of the Septuagint OT along with the canon of the NT. This should go without saying but these councils were Councils of the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Damasus. I mean one was in Rome after all. If you accept the NT canon then you accept the infallible decision of a Pope.
the apocryphal books have some weird things in them that are more paganistic in rituals, spirit beings somehow managing to have sex with humans and producing children (how does a spirit being created by God produce sperm or impart DNA and start the cell division process?) when Christ said that the children of the resurrection are to be as the angels are, spirit-composed, and not marrying nor given into marriage, etc
@@bobbrockway453 Where does the Gospel of Jesus teach that all men sin? Romans 3:23 for one. Maybe you don't know the meaning of Infallible? All men FALL. Able to Fall. Make Mistakes, Sin. That is why God is God, and Men are men.
Sorry but the septuigent included the books that you claimed were added. Whereas Luther was caught trying to change translation and was refuted by his supporters and cohort at the time when those books were removed to support his new theology. Even to the point where he wanted to remove part of James.
Luther called James the "apostle of straw' because he didn't understand the correlation between James & Paul's testimony. Turns out he didn't understand James was talking ab what genuine Christians do & should do & Paul taught how we're actually saved & become a child of God. James deals with how genuine Christian's act, Paul deals with the way in which we are genuinely saved. Luther had his own struggles, he's human. Noone cares ab that aspect in debate because of bias & lack of actual knowledge.
I really like Frank's videos, but this is wrong. The Catholics didn't add books, and the clear to anyone who has studied this. I'm not even Catholic and I know this. Luther also tried to remove books from the NT as well.
@@aibelzoe No. The Bible was completed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 95 A.D. Roman Catholicism was begun by the heretic Constantine around 325 A.D. Roman Catholics are not real Christians.
@@davidlafleche1142, sorry for contradicted your version friend, but when Constantine allow the freedom of religion, the Church it was in the 32 Pope already. The incredible part it's that you have internet and you not used to find the truth, it's so easy, just google ; " The first 10 the Popes of the Catholic Church and what year." Then finally you are going to see the truth.
@@aibelzoe So what? There is no "pope" in the Bible. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@Peter Cho Jesus never said that, and He has no "vicar." The 9th Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@ManSon Rising Figures. My Dad (who is now burning in Hell, but probably thinks he's in "purgatory") followed a lady liar named Dr. Mary Jane Even. She called herself "The secretary of Jesus Christ," but she was a servant of Satan, and I told her so. That's what happens when you have female pastors: heresy is inevitable!
Love all in the name of our god. Jesus Christ, holyspirit. The trinity. Made hard yet easy. I also love our mother Mary. She also gives me great comfort. Love you all.
Don't worry about God's word. That is God's problem and He has always kept His word safe and secure and it will endure when this old earth has passed away.
This! So many people arguing over what was put in, what was taken out, this copy is correct and this copy is not... Do they not have true faith in Him, that He keeps His word secure?
The question was how can we be sure that the books in the bible belong... it’s actually not exactly Gods problem but for us to figure out. That’s why we had the church fathers for example
Anglican here (I hope the gentleman who asked the question in the video reads this). The fact is that Anglicanism does accept the Deuterocanon, just not as on the same level as the rest of Scripture. The 39 Articles talk about this.
He's wrong to say that the Catholic Church added books to the Old Testament at Trent. We always had those books in our Bibles, and the Jews had them in the Septuagint, which is what Jesus would have read from during his life in the synagogue. This a a typical Protestant attack that has no historical basis
RedCreeperMC You can see that those 7 OT books Protestants don't have were in fact finally approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 by merely by looking it up in google. It's a matter of historical fact, not a debate. Rome in 382 and Hippo in 393 also did built towards Carthage, and if anything only aids is proving that it was not Trent when this was done. Without the Catholic councils to infallibly declare what the canon is, Protestants wouldn't be able to say "the Bible is without error" or "no other books belong in the Bible." Protestantism takes Catholic authority on this vital matter, but most don't even think in this way. The Bible is a Catholic book (or anthology) of inspired texts.
@RedCreeperMC Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (#14), May 5, 1824: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members... by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism... This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church." Pope Pius IX: "Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial." [Qui Pluribus #15, Nov. 9, 1846] Please watch the video on youtube called: Satan's Ministers Are Condemned By James 2 uploader is vaticancatholic
Frank was raised Catholic and I don't believe he means any sort of malice towards Catholics. I don't know enough about his argument to say whether or not it is true, but I wouldn't call it an attack on Catholicism.
jerrythemustache Yes, I understand Frank may not have any malice, but this is a typical attack used by many people. I pray that Frank and all others would see the fullness of truth that is the Catholic Church, with all it's truth centered on the Eucharist
Great explanation by Frank, it seems he is also protestant, by the way he responded to the question. I understand he does not deal with differences between Christian denominations however it is important to clarify catholics did not add anything, Protestants dropped the books catholic teaching had always regarded as cannon and scripture due to those books including things which could imply to go against certain protestant beliefs by Luther. They realized including them would cause an issue.
There are other books..Macabees, jasher,Enoch, Jubilees etc. 1. Does it agree with Torah? 2. Does it build on other books 3. Was book used by the early church.?
As always, the issue regarding the canon of scripture is the Achilles' heel of the Protestants when it comes in determining which books should belong in the Bible. They believe in Sola Scriptura but nowhere in using scripture alone can we determine what are the inspired books. There is no inspired "table of contents." There's no way around it; Protestants have to go outside of scripture to determine what constitutes scripture. Whether Protestants realize it or not, they are ultimately agreeing to the decisions of the Catholic councils of Carthage and Hippo in finally codifying the canon of scripture. Tragically, Luther came along and removed the deuterocanonical books even though Christians have been using the Catholic canon for over 1,500 years. His decision to remove the deuterocanonical books is because they are missing from the Hebrew Old Testament canon and there are teaching in these books that contradicts his theology. What Luther failed to realize is that Jesus and his apostles quoted from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and it includes the deuterocanonical books! If Jesus uses the Septuagint and it includes the deuterocanonical, then it's quite obvious that Christians should be using this Old Testament version too. I highly recommend Gary Michuta's book "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" for a comprehensive explanation on this issue.
I disagree (which is not surprising since I'm a Protestant). You are correct in that we must go outside the Bible to determine exactly which books belong in the Bible. But so what? God didn't promise to give us an inerrant canon, much as we wish He had. We must do the best we can, trusting in the Holy Spirit to aid us, and ascertain which books qualify as canon. It really isn't as difficult a job as all that, if we are allowed to assume the testimony of the early church as a guide. And what do we find? That nearly all the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were accepted by every early Christian leader/scholar/writer. The "extra" books (including the Apocrypha) did not enjoy that sort of unanimity. The councils of Carthage and Hippo, I posit, were only local councils, so their opinions are not conclusive. Slowly, over the Medieval Period, the Apocrypha grew in favor, but it never gained the level of support granted the rest of the Bible until Protestants drew a line in the sand and the RCC retaliated by codifying (for the first time) all of the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture. Yes, Protestants favor the list of OT books accepted by Jerusalem Jews (and by MANY early church fathers) in the first century, while disregarding any extra books that appear in Septuagint versions (there are differing versions of the Septuagint with different Apocryphal books, after all). In doing so we return the canon to a more pristine state and are avoid the danger of putting trust in the writings of mere men. The Septuagint is a wonderful resource, and the fact that Jesus quoted from it is a big point in its favor, but not a conclusive one. At least that's my assessment.
That is demonstrably false. Luther took the 7 books out because they mentioned purgatory and he was about to take out James, Jude and Revelation when fellow protestants stopped him. Those books had been in the bible since the 4th century.
@@aaronsahipakka3224 Martin Luther hated Jews, and he did not believe the book of James belonged in the Bible. Worst of all, his cult (Lutherans) practices the heresy of infant baptism, because it did not make a clean break from the Roman Catholic "ho" of Babylon.
@@davidlafleche1142 what would you say to someone who claims to be Christian but says the bible is corrupt? thankyou and God bless. Im dealing with a family member who believes in Martin Luther and such. Thankyou again
@@nanazbound "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9, KJV). Those liars claim, "The Bible is corrupt," simply because the Bible doesn't tell them what they want to hear. And how do they know "the Bible is corrupt"? Because some unsaved person told them! They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, but they'll take the word of an unrepentant heretic? How typical. If you have any questions, feel free to ask anytime.
21:10 Cannonization Questions: "Was it written by a prophet of God?" "was the writer confirmed by acts of God or someone who was confirmed as an eyewitness (ie. Paul confirmed Luke)?" "Was it accepted by the people of God?"
So what if an extra canonical book (Enoch) IS quoted in the new testament, by Jude and Peter directly, and by Christ himself through several comments he made directly relating to passages in Enoch. How is this book not included in our version of the Bible today? For me this opens questions of what may we be missing? For me Enoch opens several possibilities to end times deceptions mentioned by New Testament authors.
Ive learned from a video some time ago on youtube, that the book of Enoch, although very insightful and intriguing, has some contradictions from the Bible. So maybe its not the same Book of Enoch that Jesus was referring to and it is apocryphal. I believe the book of Enoch is a mixture of truth and fiction. And its difficult to separate the two. Its not inspired or edifying for salvation. So be cautious in your quest for truth. But this is just my humble opinion. Godspeed
Yes, scholar Michael Heiser covers this subject extensively. Google him and be prepared to be amazed at his scholarship. The author of the Book of Enoch had no Apostolic connection and so it was not considered to not have the authority of scripture. Just as modern writers may refer to present day popular readings in their works (that everyone of our culture would be very familiar with), so too the ancient writers. We have to remember that the writings of the Bible were written for us but not to us.
Paul makes many Greco-Roman references. In one of his epistles, he has a poetic portion that mimics the famous epic poem of Pericles. These were real people who lived in a cultural setting that affected how they wrote and what they referred to.
I am a 72 year-old Anglican priest. Whatever one may believe about the canon, one thing is certain: the Catholic Church did NOT ADD the deuterocanonical books at The Council of Trent. They confirmed their inclusion because they were being excluded by the Protestants. Jerome did not initially want to include them in the Vulgate in around 405 AD, but Augustine’s belief that they should be included carried the day, and Jerome humbly submitted to the Church. Later, we hear Jerome citing passages in the Deuterocanonicals and referring to them as Scripture. I suggest 2 things: 1) Google Catholic Answers and other Catholic groups and listen to what they have to say. 2) Be kind and respectful to one another - “quick to hear, slow to speak.” Blessings to all, as we seek the truth together.
Not true about the Catholic Church adding books in the council of Trent. The 73 books in a Catholic Bible have been there is 382 AD at the Council of Rome, ratified at the following Councils Hippo, in 397 AD Carthage in 419 AD Florence in 1442 AD The Bible that Gutenberg printed was the Catholic Bible that St Jerome translated into Latin (commonly known as the Vulgate) with 73 books in 1455 Council of Trent ratified the 73 books in the Bible. God bless you🙏🏻
Those 7 books have no bearing whatsoever on Christianity or Christianity doctrine. No where they ever considered Canon in OT times or in the time of Jesus.
@@azdairy2009 I have read them, it absolutely is true. If you disagree then point out the important Christian doctrine on salvation that are changed by them. Include chapter and verse.
Frank has wisdom and and a lot of knowledge about many things. Is a pitty that he ignores de history of the Holy Bible. Here it goes: 382 AD Pope Saint Damasus I compiles all the books of the Bible (the same ones that today are in all Catholic bibles) 392 AD Saint Jerome translate the Bible from the greek to latin and gets confirmation by the catholic bishops 397 AD The Bible of San Jerome is once again ratified by the catholic bishops at the council of Cartage 1226 AD The Bible is divided in the current chapters by the Catholic Bishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton 1527 AD A Catholic priest, Santos Pagnino divides de Bible in numbered versicles 1552 AD a catholic printer, Robert Estienne again divides de Bible in versicles 1560 AD A catholic printer (Gutemberg) prints de Bible with the chapters of Bishop Langton and vesicles of R. Estienne 1592 AD Pope Clement VIII prints a new version of the Bible with the same chapters and verscicles currently used by Christians 1534 AD Martin Luther sends 7 books of the Bible to an appendix, but remain in the Bible 1534 AD Martin Luther adds the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to justify his own dogma of "faith alone". 1534-1546 AD Luther tries to get reed of James letter because it contradics his dogma, but fails in the effort 1825 AD The protestant British Biblical society TAKES OUT 7 books of the Bible (This is why current protestan Bibles are missing 7 books that were in the Bible for 1,443 years
Loved when you said "Eucharist" and then quickly said Last Supper. We all know the last supper is the exact same thing as the Holy Eucharist. Found in the Holy Catholic Church. Love you videos though! God bless
In The last Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" ony a remembrance not a critical part of Salvation but only remembering it whereas the Eucharist believes it is the act of receiving Jesus literally and physically (but John 6:63 says otherwise). It is the difference between a vicrory and remembering the victory.
@@jehielmutia1744 The Eucharist is a remembrance but It is also the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Why can't It be both? Only in Protestantism does "do this in memory of me" mean "don't do this".
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh Do this in remembrance of me is funnily not the same as not doing it. Not believing it is literal is not the same as not believing as it is really is it (the bread described in John). It is like Celebrating victory compared to the victory itself.
Catholics refer to those apocryphal books as Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom + passages of Esther and Daniel excluded from Protestant Bibles). These books were part of the 1st C. Septuagint OT. Around 90% of the OT quoted by Jesus and the Apostles came from it with the other 10% quoted from the Hebrew OT the speaker mentioned. That's the reason the Catholic church chose the Septuagint OT canon that included those 7 OT books not found in modern Protestant Bibles. The church determined the OT Septuagint books in the late 4th C. and not at the Council of Trent in the 16th C. as the speaker claims. Read on for further evidence. There was no closed Jewish OT canon at the time of Christ. For example, the Pharisees used the Torah, Prophets and Law books while the Sadducees only used the Torah. The Septuagint was accepted as authoritative by the Jews in the Greek speaking countries and the Jews in Alexandria. The first known Christian canon was compiled by Marcion (an anti-semetic) in 140 AD. It included 10 Pauline epistles and 2/3 of Luke's Gospel and no OT. This prompted the Catholic Church to rule that the unofficial core canon included the 4 gospels and all Pauline epistles plus the Septuagint OT. The Muratorian Canon was compiled in 200AD in Rome. It included the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, 1&2 John, Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter plus OT. Each city-church had its own canon, which was the list of books approved for reading at Mass (Liturgy). The first complete list that remains the same today for the Catholic Church was compiled by Bishop Athanasus of Alexandria in 367AD. Under Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome in 382AD listed the NT books in the present modern day order. In 393AD, Pope Damasus sent Athanasus' list to the Council of Hippo, North Africa for debate. Interesting side note: Pope Damasus chose Hippo because the Eastern churches were responsible for the Arian heresy that taught Jesus was a creature. The Council of Carthage in 397AD refined the canon and sent it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. in 405AD, Innocent send a requested reply to Bishop Exsuperius in Toulouse listing all the current Catholic canon books. In 787AD the Council of Nicaea II adopted the 397AD canon of Carthage. In 1442, the Council of Florence confirmed the Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I published in 393AD. In 1536 the German Monk Martin Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them in the back of his Bible stating they were less than canonical. In 1546, the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 NT and all the OT Deuterocanonical books selecte4d in the 4th C. and this time dogmatizing the canon officially closing the canon for good. God's blessings to all.
Rebirth according to John 3 is necessary for Kingdom understanding! Read it, put it into practice, pray about it, believe it, and The Lord will prove and show anyone that His recorded Word IS reliable and truth! Praise Him for The sword and Word that defeats the works of the enemy!
KingJames BibleBeliever the septuagint is older than the masoretic text. I read the KJV. Its my favorite bible. However the septuagint came before the masoretic. Even the kjv translators spoke of this in their introduction. Look it up. The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint for the most part. We need to use both the septuagint, and masoretic. I think the problem is we forget sometimes that each of the books of the bible were written on scrolls. They didn’t have books. So we get stuck on this idea that there has to be a perfect compilation of scripture. I believe it is achievable. However we haven’t gotten there yet. We need to be honest as use all the text families and use whichever is more reliable. We can’t accept a manuscript just because it’s much earlier. We also can’t deny a manuscript, because it’s much later. We need to compare scripture with scripture to come to a final conclusion.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Anybody who believes the same Catholic Church who was burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English, torturing people in dungeons who didn't agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and hacking entire villages to death because they didn't attend the churches they built in their towns is just being willfully ignorant if they believe the Catholic Church wasn't making edits to the Bible THEY decided on.
Failed to mention that the church father's who recognized the books of the bible were catholic bishops at catholic councils. And where it says the bible was publicly proclaimed and expounded....That would be in the sacred liturgy, also known as the mass. Also st Jerome had those 7 books in his translation of the bible into Latin known as the vulgate. His analysis is dripping with bias here.
Precisely! And Turek also fails to mention that this same Jewish Authorities who crucified and murdered Jesus and after the death of Jesus the sudden rise of Christianity ...made the Hebrew Canon the official canon to further alienate the Christians who were using the Septuagint canon! The Protestants in adopting the Hebrew Canon are also perpetrating the intent of the Jewish Authorities in further discrediting the credibility and actual authority given by Christ himself to St. Peter and the Church .... The Catholic Church! Genesis 1:1
The books Dr. Turek mentioned were not added at Trent. Florence affirmed them 100 years earlier, as did the council of Rome in the 4th century and other early Church fathers and synods. They are also cited as canonical in arguments made against the Arians at Nicea I. Not to mention that the earliest biblical list wenhave from Christians cited Wisdom as a book, but is a fragment so is missing the rest of the of the old and some of the NT. The Jews who also rejected the New Testament did later largely reject portions of the Catholic old testament, but not all. Ethiopian Jews for example and Jews of that Region as well as I believe Assyrians Jews largely accept the books from the Catholic canon. Prior to Rabbi Akiba, Jews had largely accepted the Deuterocanonical books and we see them used by the Essenes, Pharisees, and Josephus even pretty explicitly refers to some of them as Scripture. It is not so simple as the Jews having accepted or rejected them, their canon varied drastically by sect and some only had 5 books, some had 6, some had the protestant canon, some had the Catholic canon, some had books that protestants and Catholics alike reject like Enoch. Its just not mearly as black and white like Dr. Turek claims and I that is why we can't simply rely on what the Jews had, especially since they rejected the new testament. The Jews were indeed given the prophets and oracles ofnthe old testament, but they didn't always accept or believe them amd so we cant pick and choose what sect to believe, we have to look at what the Church founded by God accepted and rejected since they got their complete canon from God Himself and it includes the books protestants reject.
Dr. Turek seems to affirm a sort of semi Marcionism at the end there. While it's largely true what he said, like that that many of the OT laws are not binding on Christians today, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what books we have. These books tell us a lot about who God is and how He works. They also do a lot to setup the NT and what the New Covenant means. There are prophecies of Christ for example that Protestants are missing which are quotes in the NT. There are also things like prayer for souls of the dead affirmed, which was a Jewish practice back then and into the Christian era along with asking for prayer from the righteous which have gone with God. These practices were commonplace in the OT period, affirmed to one degree or another in the Catholic OT, and never condemned in the NT. And if Catholics really did add those books into the OT at Trent then why do Eastern Orthodox who broke off 500 years earlier have them in their Bible as far back as they can trace? And why to the Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox who broke off about a millennium before Trent have them in their Bible? And why do many Jews and even some Protestants accept them? Them simply being added in Trent does not account for how these other groups had and have always had them as far back as they can trace.
I can see why Frank is not Catholic. He's not very educated on this topic. However, I listen to him daily and love his weekly podcasts on the Cross Examined app, and he will always be my favorite apologist for his impact on my faith life.
You are right. The two OT canons actually existed during the time of our Lord and the apostles. The septuagint (Catholic canon) was actually popular with Hellenist Jews while the more traditional canon of the Hebrew Bible was popular in Palestine. It is noteworthy that our Lord and His apostles quoted extensively from the Catholic (Septuagint) version in the new testament, so I wonder why Martin Luther rejected scriptures which Christ Himself and His apostles used and quoted from?!
@@DougWarner25 Yup, and i didnt do that. If you dont understand what I am referring to then you dont even know your own churches history. the catholic church is one of the most evil entities to ever exist.
The Septuagint has all 17 of these books. This is what the Orthodox Churches accept. Anglicans accept 14 of the books and Catholics accept 7. Protestants accept none. Catholics didn't add books, Protestants threw out books.
Reverend? Mr. J Roger Allen sir, are you not aware that wearing religious titles is expressly condemned? Jesus forbids the practice when He said, Matthew 23:8-10 ("But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your Master, even Christ.") This practice of elevating one brother above another is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that "ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." In the old testament Job new that exalting man displeased God, when he said, Job 32:21-22("Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, neither let me give FLATTERING TITLES unto man. For I know not to give FLATTERING TITLES; in so doing my maker would soon TAKE ME AWAY.") Gods Word does not teach we are to form a clergy- laity in doing so we violate Matthew 23:8-10 Gods Word teaches that All christians are priests. 1Peter 2:5 ("you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy PRIESTHOOD...") And 1Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD,...") 1 Corinthians 4:6 ("....Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be PUFFED UP in being a follower of one of us OVER AGAINST THE OTHER.")
@Dd S James 1:21 "if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is USELESS." You mentioned 1 Corinthians 4:15 ..."I became your Father..." Now show me just one verse in the Inspired Word of God where the Apostle Paul is referred to as Father by a fellow brother in Christ. This is what Paul really thought of being exalted above his brother's and sisters in Christ, 1Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have FIGURATIVELY transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you be PUFFED UP on behalf of one AGAINST the OTHER."
@@Eisho.G As a Catholic I sadly agree with the Orthodox Church about the Papacy. Because in reality the Papacy is what CAUSED the Protestant Reformation.
5:40 sorry but wrong. In 382 the council of Rome defined the canon. The council of Trent in 1545 just raised an anathema against those who denied this canon defined 1150 years ago.
I really appreciate this video! As someone who has a catholic friends and grandmother i wanted to know where the difference was in our bibles. I do believe that in some catholic versions they put a book of saints in the new testament which was also not something I'm familiar with. Much appreciated :)
Hi. I'm Catholic and I've run across a number of Catholic Bible versions accepted by the Church but I have never heard of a 'book of saints' being added to any of the Catholic versions. Even if that were true for a particular edition, Church Tradition has not added to the official canon since it was first selected in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. I use one of the most popular which is the RSVCE 2nd Ed. The Ignatius Study Bible with Commentary is an exceptional Bible if you are interested in learning more about how the early Christians interpreted the Bible. God bless.
All 73 books in the Bible were decided on by the Catholic Church around 800 years ago, the Catholic Church didn't add any Books the Protestants removed 7 Books making their Bible 66 Books. So essentially the canon of the Bible you are reading was still determined by the Catholic Church they just have kept all 73 Books they initially decided on.
About 1700 years ago, the church only confirmed after the Protestant reform that they will be still using the old version because Luther claims weren’t valid
For fundamentalist forms of christianity, scripture does need to be innerent. They are not allowed to question the truth of scripture. He is representing his understanding of christianity.
i find it amazing that catholics love to argue over the OT . Dr. Turek being the gentleman he is . brought the discussion to a conclusion that the NT is the most important section ...that being Christs death and resurrection ...period . Which Jews totally deny
Not all Christians agree on the NT canon either, though. Ask Syrian Orthodox Chrisitians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, etc. And yes, they also disagree on the Old Testament.
The Latin Vulgate Bible, completed in the 400s by Jerome, has 46 books in the OT. Jerome used the Septuagint (Greek) for the OT. The Council of Trent merely decreed the Vulgate was the exclusive Latin Bible. It didn’t add books to the OT as Turek said.
Yes but in what language the apocrypha were ? And why were they in this language while the other books ( that are in the protestant canon) found in hebrew ?
The First king James Bible had the same books the Catholic Bible had. 73, it was till the 1800s that Bible societies removed 7 books. The Lutheran Bible also has 73.
The Hebrew Roots movement has really confused a lot of believers. Videos like these can help refute the whole “Don’t trust the KJV other versions, because they have been corrupted” movement…
Great lecture with the exception of one point! The deuterocanonical books in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were NOT added in 16th century in response to Reformation but were based on the Septuagint (Greek edition of Old Testament). The reason these 2 groups use Septuagint is Bc this is what early Christians and disciples of Jesus used. Research it yourself.
The oldest septuigent is from the 4th century and the new testament never cites any apocrapha. There's no reason to believe that Jesus's Bible had the apocrapha.
"The Bible is a Catholic book" A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was a debate about which scriptural writings were are inspired by God. The Canon of scripture was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. The decision was held at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today's Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God. Approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing 7 books.
If Roman Catholics added the Deuterocanonical books to the Old Testament at the Council of Trent, why does the Orthodox Catholic Church also have the same books in our canon? Roman Catholics dogmatized at Trent what was already considered true for centuries, hence why the Orthodox Catholic Church had essentially the same canon even though we had been separated from Rome for four hundred years at that point.
Watching these videos can get addictive lol
le carlsom I’ve been watching for two hours 🗿
le carlsom I’ve been up until 4 am.
Addictive naw more like edifying
As long as we learn and study it for ourselves to find salvation in the end ✌🏾
I’d rather be a fool for God than a fool for the things of the world.
One common thread in Dr. Turek's Q and A Sessions is how respectful and patient he is with everyone.
He his very patient
Does he get paid?
Urrcreavesh not from doing these seminars, he gets paid from his books and his podcasts
Jack Jones and how much he lies.
@@louiscyfer6944 he is lying to people that care for the truth, so why do u care?
He’s got a power point ready for anything! 😆
😂
I reckon it's because these questions being asked are quite common.. It's the same thing people ask over and over. Dr. Turek has been doing this for a long time and is obviously diligent enough to be ready with a well prepared answer
I'm sure he's dealt with these questions many times prior
@@Starblazer27correct. Atheists are like parrots, they all say the same things and go down the same logical fallacy rabbit holes in an effort to evade God. Whatever sound bites they hear from Matt Dillahunty (a failed atheist), Aron-Ra (laughably embarrassing) and the late Christopher Hitchens (an anti-theist who died bitter and angry), they regurgitate without actually trying to understand what they're saying.
What a brave young man, asking such a deeply troubling question in public like that for all to benefit.
I mean... it's just a question. At no point in an intellectually honest society should an individual feel hesitant or fearful to ask a question.
Brave young man?the guy who's teaching is much brave
@@encore4962 both of them are brave tbf
@@TenTonNuke You would have to start out with an intellectually honest society. The only way you get to an intellectually honest society is by being brave enough to be intellectually honest. That takes faith in the first place: you cannot enter an intellectually honest society at all without being brave in the first place.
What a genuine and transparent young man. Great question.
That is a great young man, who genuinely wants to seek God. Love to see it
Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.
Yes Jesus never lied!
Thank God for these videos. This has been on my mind since yesterday and it pops into my feed. He really does guide us if we ask.
use to be a Catholic and finally sat down read the bible studied it with Christians and that was that I was in shock that I never knew anything about God. It was amazing how I let myself believe in the traditions man made idols it was a HUGE wake up for me I thank God in Jesus name Amen.
Sister just 1 question - why have Protestants or anti-Catholics conveniently omitted 7 precious Books from the Bible?
Frank takes a little truth to spin his yarns. You don't need a bible to know a god.
Just don't treat a bible as an idol. Compare the contradictions in the anonymous Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I hope you can learn how to think, not what to think. Good luck.
can you provide actual contradictions without recurring to a google search "contradictions in the bible"? if so, how did you find them and who told you so? just curious, since we are learning how to think
The new testament gospels. Bart Ehrman. Read them yourself. 'Read them horizontally,' or just write down what happens when in each.
That's a start...
How is he a false teacher? Who might be a 'true' teacher?
I watched a video yesterday of a girl who was a catholic and listened to her reasoning why and she was giving all this information and everything. I have grown up a Christian, non-denominational. I believe in the Word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. As I’ve gotten older I really love learning different ppls beliefs and their reasonings why. When I heard why that young girl was catholic I was shocked. In a 20 minute video she mentioned Jesus’ name twice and neither time talked about what He did. She focused on the saints and praying to them and books that were added to the Bible. I was a little angry and sad when listening to her because I was like why pray to the saints when Christ came and died and tore the veil so that way we could speak directly to God. We didn’t have to go through others anymore. I prayed last night and I said God if I am getting this wrong please show me the right way. Then I came across this channel today and I just happened to see this video and it has helped me to confirm my beliefs even more so! So thank you for having this channel and teaching and letting God use you!! It helps so much!!
Btw. Protestants took away books from the Bible. Catholics didn't add them:) Even Dr Turek would lose the Sola Scriptura debate. It is not a debate Protestants can win. Sola Scriptura and Apocrypha are losing points.
@@mattybla6274
False statement. The Apocrypha is pure contradictory towards the New Testament itself, yet you claim that Protestants would lose the debate? Highly doubtful.
Also, if the creator of the original comment sees this, I absolutely know how terrible it is. Catholics seems to worship Mary and the Saints far more than they do with Yeshua. Whenever I hear anything about Catholicism, watch videos, and etc, it’s always about Mary Mary Mary, saints saints saints. It’s just wild.
@@thomas7571
You’re lying. As a Catholic, I’m offended by how ignorant that statement is.
The Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Christ. It’s so easy to show why Protestantism shouldn’t exist, and how WRONG it’s been since the 16th century, it’s still shocking to me that they still exist after 500 years.
@@dinopad10
No, the Catholic Church is not the “first and only church.” Started by Christ. You can not find one biblical scripture to support your claim which you base on the teachings of your Catholic doctrine. Fun fact, Christ wouldn’t have His first church Catholic because of many problems within the Catholic doctrine itself.
One of them would be how Catholics teach Mary is sinless. As for someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox and did some study, I tried to find biblical scripture to support Mary being sinless, however, I only found scripture which teaches otherwise. The fundamental basis of her being sinless is taught from the ideology of man, not by biblical scripture itself.
Another problem would be praying to Saints in heaven. Again, I’ve looked into Orthodox and tried to find biblical scripture to support this. I find scripture which goes against it, or in short, it’s just not taught anywhere throughout the Bible. All, and I mean literally all throughout the Bible we are told to make our prayers known to the Father. Not once will you ever find a verse in the New Testament which teaches to make your prayers known to the Father and Saints in heaven. We are taught to pray for each other, but as for someone who stays as biblical as he can, no scripture seems to support the ideology doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven (or asking them to pray for you, and so on.)
Don’t assume I’m Protestant, because I’m not. Im not a follower of any denomination nor am I interested in being assumed into labels. The Bible itself teaches there are Christians (Christ followers) nothing else. Denominations are made to separate the Word of God. And within most denominations man’s thoughts, feelings, and/or ideas are thrown into scripture and twisted into man’s understanding, instead of biblical understanding.
So in short, the Catholic doctrine itself was not started by Jesus. Not one place in the original Greek/Hebrew text will you even find such a church being supported. The first Catholic Church movement (doctrine) seemed to have gotten rebuked by Yeshua (Jesus) in Luke 11:27-28. And if you’re going to refer to “Peter being the first pope” and him having the keys and etc. This entire thing seems to be based on the confession of peter’s faith. Yes, I’m aware that Peter means rock, however scripture says “upon this rock I will build my church” I don’t think there’s a way of understanding what the “rock” is truly referring to. But in my opinion it’s most likely referring to Christ. In the Old Testament God was known as “the rock” in the New Testament Jesus is God Himself. He then says “upon this rock I will build my church.” Now one can put two and two together at this point and see how “the rock” could be referring towards Jesus.
Having Peter at such a role makes no sense. Peter even got rebuked by Jesus in scripture I believe. And to even think Peter was a “pope” (which he was not) is just wild. John himself was the greatest disciple of them all. There’s just so much wrong and so much that could be said about this.
Be biblically correct. Not denominationally correct. God bless.
@@thomas7571
You’re a liar and a heretic. Nothing you said is based on scripture, and absolutely not based on anything scholarly or intellectual.
I’m not having yet another online debate that will go nowhere with a person who thinks they know more than me, based on bigotry and beliefs from ignorance.
Know at least this: once you become aware of church history, you cease to be anything but CATHOLIC. (Paraphrased from Saint John Newman, former Protestant)
And for the record, if you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. Even if you think you’re non-denominational, you’re still following non-Catholic heresy, and a “church” founded at least 1500 years AFTER Christ founded His Church.
Your ignorance is extreme.
They for get to mention that the Holy spirit who inspired the scriptures also helps us decide what were the book to put together. Dont forget the Holy spirt was and is with us till the end of times
This is an important point. I believe the Holy Spirit guides certain individuals by giving them divine revelation.
@@jeanmichel8368 amen. He still does to this day.
Then why do some denominations include certain books when others omit certain books? The HS wouldn’t give conflicting information
The Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the same canonical books that Florance later did in the 15th century and then Trent again in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not add the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. If the Deuterocanon was added at Trent then why would the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches also both include them when they broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior to Trent? No, Trent did not add them, Luther and the protestants removed them.
As far as Protestants having the Jewish canon, that depends which Jewish sects we are talking about. Some Jews had a similar canon, but the Jewish canon was not set. The Essenes for example included most of the Deuterocanon, the Saducees only included the Torah, the Pharisees seemed to accept at least Wisdom of Solomon since they cite it while Jesus was on the cross. The Jews did not have a set canon. The current and most common Jewish Canon today is the same as the Protestants, but even to this day many Jews accept the Deuterocanons and some sects of Judaism have less books than the Protestants. But even if the Jews did and still entirely reject the Deuterocanon, which they neither entirely did nor do, that would still not disprove these books as scripture since the Jews are not the standard setters any longer, the Church is. The Jews also reject the New Testament and Jesus, so them rejecting the Deuterocanons is hardly a good argument against those books.
Historically Herot is right. Also early Christians did not entirely agree on the books of the New Testament but the Universal (Catholic) Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided. Christ established a Church not a book. That is why we can have confidence that the cannon used by the Christians around the 4th century is right. "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St. Augustine . Like it or not historically we would not have the Old and New Testament Canon we use today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. All you would have to do, to prove this right or wrong is to read history and historical facts are not opinions but are documented events in human history established by multiple references that is unchanging and can be objectively verified.
And of course guys like Frank Turek will never take into account everything you just said here even though it's true.
@@javierreyes623 I've seen Dr. Turek speak in person many times and have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with him two or three. Read most of his books too, more than once for some. He is a very reasonable person and has a lot of willingness and ability to have reasonable dialogue with Christians who disagree with him. The trouble is that the "mere Christian" apologists often have a mindset of wanting to focus more on converting non-Christians than entering into debates between Christian groups, so they rarely end up in settings where they can engage in these kind of discussions by nature of their focus. The nature of their focus also means they don't seem to spend a lot of time looking into this kind of thing outside of the random question they might get about it at their talks on other topics. I do hope one day both him and other great evangelists like him, such as Dr. William Lane Craig, take the time to look into the evidence for the Catholic faith and convert. They both have had a major impact on my life and I likely wouldn't be Christian, let alone Catholic, if it hadn't been for them. So I hope and pray they do take the time to look into it and give the evidence an honest evaluation one day, I could see them converting if they did. Very few reasonable and good willed people can look into these matters and remain protestant, hence why so many of the best protestants become Catholic.
Thanks Herot. I was aware of much of what you shared but you gave me a few more pieces of the puzzle I had not considered eg. what books the Essenes accepted and the Jewish quote while Jesus was on the cross. I'll save your post and look further into that. thanks again and God bless.
Came here to say this. The Deuterocanon being added in Trent is a common lie spread among protestants to slander the Catholic Church, and it's obvious Frank hasn't taken the time to verify that little "fact" that he was taught in Sunday School.
I have to give my respect and gratitude to the Catholics and Non Catholics in the comment section for clearing up the error made by Dr. Turek.
God Bless you all.
What error??
@Artur
False. Protestants adopted a later Jewish cannon (from about the turn of the 1st century) that was adapted, because certain books they rejected were too close for comfort for supporting the new Christian movement. The Jews never really had an official cannon, but just used “commonly accepted” books. The Catholic Church solidified the cannon, and included the deuterocanonical books, which simply mean “2nd cannon,” which means they included the ones that were rejected by anti-Christian Jews of the 1st century.
“Once you study history, you cease to be anything but Catholic.” (Paraphrased from St. John Newman, former Protestant)
@Artur
I’m sorry if that was unclear. I meant that the Jews up to that point had never adopted an official cannon, but when they ADAPTED their collection of accepted books, they took out the deuterocanonical books, which were later REestablished as cannon (hence the “secondary” part of it).
What errow
@@jeffbogue4748
Read this stream, as well as other comments. Lots of people have pointed it out.
Great question. Love the brothers heart.
That's my cousin Francisco from gmu!! Cool
.
A very respectful cousin you have therw
That kid is right. And that man is wrong. He mentioned the 4th century cannons that determined scripture. And he totally ignored it and lied that the council of Trent in 1,500’s added books. When I’m reality Martin Luther removed books. The council of Trent affirmed the already cannon in response to the removal of books. The Old Testament used by Jesus and the disciples were the Septuagint that has the deuterocanonical books. And the Jews never had a closed cannon by the time Jesus was born. Anyone can look this up.
Catholic Christian here. Dr Turek you are true inspiration and my role model as an apologist. I have couple of friends who are atheists and I'm preparing to bring them to the Lord by watching your videos. Thank you very much for your hard work. And I love how you ended here "it's the New Testament that all Christians agree upon" God bless
He doesn’t believe the
Roman Catholic bible
@@PInk77W1 the Bible is one and the New testament is identical for protestant AND catholic christians.
@@caracal82 the Old Testament is different for Protestants
@@PInk77W1 I know that. It is also not as relevant to christians as New Testament, that's why Jews don't acknowledge it. So in the end the core teaching which is that of Jesus Christ is the same for Protestants and Catholics. Now the interpretation of said teachings is a whole different matter and source of schism between chrisrians.
@@caracal82 “not as relevant” ?
Where did u make that up from ?
Scary
That man asked an important question. For the rest of us who had the same question.
If you love the Father He will put into your hands what you need. He will also take away what you don't need.
Frank, if the Catholic church added books to her canon at Trent please explain to your audience which books she added that were not in her canon prior to Trent? Answer: there wasn't any because they didn’t add any!
As a Protestant, I also confirm this. The main reason why we removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament is because we wanted to be more in line with the initial Jewish canon. It’s actually a point of contention within both the Catholic and Protestant churches if whether the Apocrypha should be taught in the churches.
@@paulnash6944 Then you should also remove the entire NT for the same reason. The Jews did not accept either of them for the same “Christian” reasons. Using a reason to keep the Jewish canon and keep the Christian NT makes no sense when the church brought ALL of them, both the NT and the “Apocrypha” together at the same time at Carthage 397. If she was wrong on the “Apocrypha” she was wrong on the NT also.
@@srich7503 Indeed, also to add there were several Jewish sects besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, such as the Essenes who were likely the custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have a much larger library of books they considered authoritative. Also fun note - it is heavily implicated that the Essenes were the monastic order of Jews that John the Baptist was part of - worth looking into.
Quick correction the council did not add books, when the church has meeting they usually do them when there is a movement against a belief and they meet and discuss the issue, and at the end they affirm the teaching or not. What the council did during the reformation was affirm that those 7 books were scripture, they did not add them
Im glad all that matters is the eyewitness accounts of Jesus ressurection and that He tell us how to be saved
The Catholic Bible had had those seven books from the Concil of Rome 382 and Hippo 395 and were RE-AFFIRMED at the Council of Trent 1563. They were NOT added at Trent.
Man, I've been struggling whole night with this, it's 6 AM and just watched this few minutes long video and it all suddenly became very clear :D Thank you Frank for your work, God bless you!
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of the apocrypha I’ve ever heard. I had some excellent professors and seminary. But they weren’t this clear
What’s apocrypha? And why are ppl saying he is wrong in this video, I guess he said books were added but really they were just kept
@@sammisaylor2173 Apocrypha means writings or reports not considered genuine. Basically, the apocrypha are the books the Roman Catholic Church added to the Old Testament in 1545 AD. Protestants only include what Judaism considers canon in the TaNaK. In the video starting at 5:08 Dr. Turek talks about this. The apocryphal books have things worth reading, but are not authoritative. For example, Bel and the Dragon is a work of fiction not an actual account, which is why it is not included in the TaNaK. But it is the earliest known mystery story. Like many non-scriptural books today, it has some good things to teach like don’t just believe the explanation you’re given but look for the real causes and explanations. But that doesn’t make it scripture.
Protestants removed 7 books. Not the other way around. Anyone can look this up. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
@@CPATuttle Close, but not exactly. The Muratorian Canon, AD 170, is the earliest canon of the New Testament and included 24 books. Hebrews, James, and 3rd John were not included. However, a discussion of the NT canon is irrelevant to this subject. What is relevant is the OT, which you only mention in passing. The fact is that the Apocrypha were never included in the TaNaK in Judaism. These books and chapters were additions to the OT. Protestants did not remove them so much as return the OT to it's original canon.
@@cmdrdatayt I was copying and pasting historical facts. To say Catholics added books is straight up wrong. Let’s go with facts. There’s no way to spin it. There’s not one early Christian Bible that matches the Protestant bible today. The Jews 200 years before Jesus was born added the second cannon which means the deuterocanonical scrolls. The Jews added them in the translated Hebrew Bible to Greek called the Septuagint. They added those books. Not the Catholic Church. The eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. From conquering former land by Alexander the Great who spread the language there. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint. Many prophecies of Jesus are in the deuterocanonical scrolls. Jesus nor his disciples not one time ever said those books were “not scripture” or “apocrypha”, after Jesus was born, no other Jew that did not follow Jesus have any authority whatsoever on what the closed Old Testament should be. The Pope choose the books for the Old Testament because they were in the Septuagint used by Jesus. The Pope is the office established by Jesus to have this authority. That’s how we get a closed cannon. There’s no agreement with all Christians that make cannons. That’s impossible to all agree on it.
It has to be made VERY VERY VERY CLEAR to everyone that the NT for Christians is the same for all denominations.
Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
That just proves that the popes were fallible all men are fallible
The reason we do not believe in the apocryphal books is because they are contradictory to scripture
@@pauljohnson2191 Amen
According to their view.
Tell me, was the rapture the original view of the last judgement?
@Ελληνας Γραικος he didnt have all the books sorry
@@pauljohnson2191 how do they contradict
This was very educational
Thank you 🙏
God bless ✨
Trust in God who created the heavens and earth, can surely sway any man to make sure his word shall never change.
Maybe I misunderstood him but I think Jesus said the law would never pass away. I think he meant that it's just fulfilled, not destroyed by Jesus.
Frank Turek, I just recently discovered you on UA-cam and have been enjoying your videos. Saying that the Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent has a negative impact on your credibility. It was a reaffirmation of the original canon in response to the deformation that removed 7 books.
@Daniel Spaniel Wrong, the Catholic church is the only church that can traced back to Christ and his disciples.
@@l.t.1305 "ROMAN" Catholic church. Hmm. Wasn't Roman Empire the one leading the persecution of the disciples and first and second generations of Christians? Roman Empire absorbed Christianity when the movement became too big to contain, but brought their Roman paganism into it as well. That's why you see elements of the goddess worship (Mary), sun god worship (just google for the mountain of evidence), and blatant blasphemy of calling man-appointed men "holy father," vicar of Christ (acting in place of real Jesus Christ), etc. By 16th century, Roman Catholic Church so perverted and abused the Word of God that they were afraid of laymen reading the Scripture themselves, that they prohibited it and maintained exclusivity by restricting translation from Greek/Latin. Reformes protestant movement began when some people began to read the Scripture. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christus (Christ alone), Soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).
The Catholic Church idolizes Mary, they pray to her. Which is a sin. It’s idolatry.
@@l.t.1305 Satan can be traced back much further and was actually with God at one time... I am sure, despite that, he isn't approved of by Christ either.
But he was STILL allowed to reach Earth?
Fab question, remarkable answer
Actually, Frank Turek is wrong about the Old Testament. Jesus used the Septuagint, which is basically the Old Testament as the Catholic Church holds it to be. The Council of Trent has nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Ah no, the Septuagent was rejected and still is rejected by Torah Observant Jews due to where it was written and who the translators were. .
The Septuagent was the Hebrew text translated into the Greek language , this took place in Egypt , that is the first violation , the location where that translation was made - Egypt . and the second violation was with the translatoors not being experienced Jewish scribes to supervise that the texts not contain any errors .
Because of that , the
Septuagent text is never read or quoted from in a synagogue or Messanic congregation is it is considered corrupt .
the organial Hebrew text is.
Reason(s):
1) the Septuagent was copied in Egypt around 360 BC . This is in violation of the requirements that the Tanaakh is to be only copied in Israel.
2) the copyists for the Septuagent, were not strictly supervised by noted and experienced Jewish scribes, nor their manuscripts checked for errors in the spelling of words , or text .
For the above reasons , Jesus would have never used the Septuagent.
No, He did not. Neither Jesus nor any Jew with any measure of intelligence would ever use a corrupt mess like the Septuagint. Well into the New Testament era, while the Temple still existed, the Jews were still using the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apostle Paul addressed the Jews in Hebrew: "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence" (Acts 22:2, KJV).
@@berenc7619 it is easily proved from NT quotes of OT that they did in fact use it🤦♂️
@@berenc7619 Are you a Jew or a Christian lol 😆
The apocryphal books were not added in the council of Trent. Luther removed these books during the reformation. The catholic canon was set at the council of rome in ad 382.
The Bible written by about 40 most unrelated people, lived 1600 years, and still has a Common Thread, carries common message.
Most authors martyred. Willing to die for what they witnessed.
I learned allot from this video
The problem with the concept of "canon" is that there is not one instruction from God in any of the scriptures to create one thus, the act of creating a canon was entirely a man-made endeavor. Dr. Turek is right that the canon doesn't have to be accurate for the gospel to be. And when it comes to the Old testament canon, there wasn't one during the time of Christ and He didn't command or prophesy that man develop one. Yet, one was developed but by the PHARISEES at the Council of Jamnia. That begs the question, though, of how could a group of scholars that Christ always disputed recognize what writings were "inspired by God" when they couldn't recognize the living God in front of them? I think it idiotic that Christians use the findings of the Pharisees as an authoritative one.
Another issue is the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts. Shouldn't a council be called to see if any of those were inspired? An obvious problem to call such a council is who has the authority to call such a council? Another is whom would they select to sit on the council. And still another is why would any of us accept their findings and on what authority? Basically, one has to believe that the council members wqere as led by the spirit as the writers themselves. Otherwise, everyone is really just putting their faith in intellectualism.
Excellent arguement. So many bible versions.. so many christian denominations. Its difficult to arrive at the absolute truth about God's revelation from moses through Jesus's time. So many traditions and interpretations. The young man is genuine in his concern for knowing which bible is the right one. Should i be a catholic or protestant? Pray to mary or not? Papal authority or not? Its a real concern
Andrew Cyrus - As a Catholic, I’m happy to direct you to resources to help inform you on the Catholic perspective on these issues when I was struggling with these exact same questions. No worries if you’re not interested. Regardless, I find Dr. Turek’s videos very interesting, especially the ones regarding atheism.
@@theticoboy show me what you got
God bless you brother , you are really a man of God ,
All you need is faith .
Love you on atheist apologetics Frank, but you're off on the P vs C stuff.
So the Church added the Deuterocanonical books after Luther rejected them? How does that make sense?
The Church *reaffirmed* what had been there for 15 centuries only after the Protestants started throwing them out 30 years before Trent. Note that Luther tried mightily to toss James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as well. He was tossing books that disagreed with his novel theology.
You won't find a Bible before 1517 that doesn't have the 'apocrypha," a derogatory term by the way.
And by the way, the councils this young man mentions (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) also affirmed the canon of the Septuagint OT along with the canon of the NT. This should go without saying but these councils were Councils of the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Damasus. I mean one was in Rome after all. If you accept the NT canon then you accept the infallible decision of a Pope.
Wrong Timothy not reason able enough to have a deeper answer.
Except the New Testament rejects the idea of an Infalable pope.
If the pope afirms what rejects him, he is not Infalable. Logic
the apocryphal books have some weird things in them that are more paganistic in rituals, spirit beings somehow managing to have sex with humans and producing children (how does a spirit being created by God produce sperm or impart DNA and start the cell division process?) when Christ said that the children of the resurrection are to be as the angels are, spirit-composed, and not marrying nor given into marriage, etc
Travid D Where is that in the New Testament?
@@bobbrockway453 Where does the Gospel of Jesus teach that all men sin?
Romans 3:23 for one.
Maybe you don't know the meaning of Infallible?
All men FALL. Able to Fall. Make Mistakes, Sin.
That is why God is God, and Men are men.
Jesus love you all
It’s awesome this guy has a utility belt of PowerPoints to QuickDraw from! I have to keep notes like this
Sorry but the septuigent included the books that you claimed were added. Whereas Luther was caught trying to change translation and was refuted by his supporters and cohort at the time when those books were removed to support his new theology. Even to the point where he wanted to remove part of James.
He also said he hated Esther so much he wished it didn't exist. It's incredible for someone who hated Jews so much to be a professor of Hebrew.
Luther also wanted Hebrews and Revelation removed as well!
Luther called James the "apostle of straw' because he didn't understand the correlation between James & Paul's testimony. Turns out he didn't understand James was talking ab what genuine Christians do & should do & Paul taught how we're actually saved & become a child of God. James deals with how genuine Christian's act, Paul deals with the way in which we are genuinely saved. Luther had his own struggles, he's human. Noone cares ab that aspect in debate because of bias & lack of actual knowledge.
Which one though says WHY rebel angels were allowed any access to Earth?
Have they? And were Adam and Eve given MORE free will, but less knowledge of being able to alter or redefine free will, of their descendants?
Wow Frank really has a slide for every question!
I really like Frank's videos, but this is wrong. The Catholics didn't add books, and the clear to anyone who has studied this. I'm not even Catholic and I know this. Luther also tried to remove books from the NT as well.
@@aibelzoe No. The Bible was completed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 95 A.D. Roman Catholicism was begun by the heretic Constantine around 325 A.D. Roman Catholics are not real Christians.
@@davidlafleche1142, sorry for contradicted your version friend, but when Constantine allow the freedom of religion, the Church it was in the 32 Pope already. The incredible part it's that you have internet and you not used to find the truth, it's so easy, just google ; " The first 10 the Popes of the Catholic Church and what year." Then finally you are going to see the truth.
@@aibelzoe So what? There is no "pope" in the Bible. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@Peter Cho Jesus never said that, and He has no "vicar." The 9th Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@ManSon Rising Figures. My Dad (who is now burning in Hell, but probably thinks he's in "purgatory") followed a lady liar named Dr. Mary Jane Even. She called herself "The secretary of Jesus Christ," but she was a servant of Satan, and I told her so. That's what happens when you have female pastors: heresy is inevitable!
Love all in the name of our god. Jesus Christ, holyspirit. The trinity. Made hard yet easy. I also love our mother Mary. She also gives me great comfort. Love you all.
Don't worry about God's word. That is God's problem and He has always kept His word safe and secure and it will endure when this old earth has passed away.
This!
So many people arguing over what was put in, what was taken out, this copy is correct and this copy is not... Do they not have true faith in Him, that He keeps His word secure?
The question was how can we be sure that the books in the bible belong... it’s actually not exactly Gods problem but for us to figure out. That’s why we had the church fathers for example
we have to worry about whats in our bibles some religions change words
Love you Mr. Frank keep preachings.
Anglican here (I hope the gentleman who asked the question in the video reads this). The fact is that Anglicanism does accept the Deuterocanon, just not as on the same level as the rest of Scripture. The 39 Articles talk about this.
Yeah, still just means it's not your Bible.
@@ljss6805 k
Great points
He's wrong to say that the Catholic Church added books to the Old Testament at Trent. We always had those books in our Bibles, and the Jews had them in the Septuagint, which is what Jesus would have read from during his life in the synagogue. This a a typical Protestant attack that has no historical basis
RedCreeperMC You can see that those 7 OT books Protestants don't have were in fact finally approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 by merely by looking it up in google. It's a matter of historical fact, not a debate. Rome in 382 and Hippo in 393 also did built towards Carthage, and if anything only aids is proving that it was not Trent when this was done. Without the Catholic councils to infallibly declare what the canon is, Protestants wouldn't be able to say "the Bible is without error" or "no other books belong in the Bible." Protestantism takes Catholic authority on this vital matter, but most don't even think in this way. The Bible is a Catholic book (or anthology) of inspired texts.
@Ryan Martin
we all know Protestants start researching Church history at 1517
@RedCreeperMC
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (#14), May 5, 1824: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members... by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism... This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church."
Pope Pius IX: "Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial." [Qui Pluribus #15, Nov. 9, 1846]
Please watch the video on youtube called:
Satan's Ministers Are Condemned By James 2
uploader is vaticancatholic
Frank was raised Catholic and I don't believe he means any sort of malice towards Catholics. I don't know enough about his argument to say whether or not it is true, but I wouldn't call it an attack on Catholicism.
jerrythemustache Yes, I understand Frank may not have any malice, but this is a typical attack used by many people. I pray that Frank and all others would see the fullness of truth that is the Catholic Church, with all it's truth centered on the Eucharist
Great explanation by Frank, it seems he is also protestant, by the way he responded to the question. I understand he does not deal with differences between Christian denominations however it is important to clarify catholics did not add anything, Protestants dropped the books catholic teaching had always regarded as cannon and scripture due to those books including things which could imply to go against certain protestant beliefs by Luther. They realized including them would cause an issue.
There are other books..Macabees, jasher,Enoch, Jubilees etc. 1. Does it agree with Torah? 2. Does it build on other books 3. Was book used by the early church.?
Basically, yes.
Excellent teacher.
As always, the issue regarding the canon of scripture is the Achilles' heel of the Protestants when it comes in determining which books should belong in the Bible. They believe in Sola Scriptura but nowhere in using scripture alone can we determine what are the inspired books. There is no inspired "table of contents." There's no way around it; Protestants have to go outside of scripture to determine what constitutes scripture. Whether Protestants realize it or not, they are ultimately agreeing to the decisions of the Catholic councils of Carthage and Hippo in finally codifying the canon of scripture. Tragically, Luther came along and removed the deuterocanonical books even though Christians have been using the Catholic canon for over 1,500 years. His decision to remove the deuterocanonical books is because they are missing from the Hebrew Old Testament canon and there are teaching in these books that contradicts his theology. What Luther failed to realize is that Jesus and his apostles quoted from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and it includes the deuterocanonical books! If Jesus uses the Septuagint and it includes the deuterocanonical, then it's quite obvious that Christians should be using this Old Testament version too. I highly recommend Gary Michuta's book "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" for a comprehensive explanation on this issue.
I disagree (which is not surprising since I'm a Protestant).
You are correct in that we must go outside the Bible to determine exactly which books belong in the Bible. But so what? God didn't promise to give us an inerrant canon, much as we wish He had. We must do the best we can, trusting in the Holy Spirit to aid us, and ascertain which books qualify as canon. It really isn't as difficult a job as all that, if we are allowed to assume the testimony of the early church as a guide.
And what do we find? That nearly all the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were accepted by every early Christian leader/scholar/writer. The "extra" books (including the Apocrypha) did not enjoy that sort of unanimity. The councils of Carthage and Hippo, I posit, were only local councils, so their opinions are not conclusive. Slowly, over the Medieval Period, the Apocrypha grew in favor, but it never gained the level of support granted the rest of the Bible until Protestants drew a line in the sand and the RCC retaliated by codifying (for the first time) all of the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture.
Yes, Protestants favor the list of OT books accepted by Jerusalem Jews (and by MANY early church fathers) in the first century, while disregarding any extra books that appear in Septuagint versions (there are differing versions of the Septuagint with different Apocryphal books, after all). In doing so we return the canon to a more pristine state and are avoid the danger of putting trust in the writings of mere men. The Septuagint is a wonderful resource, and the fact that Jesus quoted from it is a big point in its favor, but not a conclusive one.
At least that's my assessment.
Thanks CE
That is demonstrably false. Luther took the 7 books out because they mentioned purgatory and he was about to take out James, Jude and Revelation when fellow protestants stopped him. Those books had been in the bible since the 4th century.
Martin Luther wasn't saved.
@@davidlafleche1142 If you think protestants aren't saved, you are truly delusional and in need of true salvation.
@@aaronsahipakka3224 Martin Luther hated Jews, and he did not believe the book of James belonged in the Bible. Worst of all, his cult (Lutherans) practices the heresy of infant baptism, because it did not make a clean break from the Roman Catholic "ho" of Babylon.
@@davidlafleche1142 what would you say to someone who claims to be Christian but says the bible is corrupt? thankyou and God bless. Im dealing with a family member who believes in Martin Luther and such. Thankyou again
@@nanazbound "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9, KJV). Those liars claim, "The Bible is corrupt," simply because the Bible doesn't tell them what they want to hear. And how do they know "the Bible is corrupt"? Because some unsaved person told them! They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, but they'll take the word of an unrepentant heretic? How typical. If you have any questions, feel free to ask anytime.
21:10 Cannonization Questions:
"Was it written by a prophet of God?"
"was the writer confirmed by acts of God or someone who was confirmed as an eyewitness (ie. Paul confirmed Luke)?"
"Was it accepted by the people of God?"
only the las question is actually falsable.
So what if an extra canonical book (Enoch) IS quoted in the new testament, by Jude and Peter directly, and by Christ himself through several comments he made directly relating to passages in Enoch. How is this book not included in our version of the Bible today? For me this opens questions of what may we be missing? For me Enoch opens several possibilities to end times deceptions mentioned by New Testament authors.
Ive learned from a video some time ago on youtube, that the book of Enoch, although very insightful and intriguing, has some contradictions from the Bible. So maybe its not the same Book of Enoch that Jesus was referring to and it is apocryphal. I believe the book of Enoch is a mixture of truth and fiction. And its difficult to separate the two. Its not inspired or edifying for salvation. So be cautious in your quest for truth. But this is just my humble opinion. Godspeed
Yes, scholar Michael Heiser covers this subject extensively. Google him and be prepared to be amazed at his scholarship. The author of the Book of Enoch had no Apostolic connection and so it was not considered to not have the authority of scripture. Just as modern writers may refer to present day popular readings in their works (that everyone of our culture would be very familiar with), so too the ancient writers. We have to remember that the writings of the Bible were written for us but not to us.
Jewish oral tradition is also quoted in the Bible, but we do not consider the Talmud to be scripture.
Paul also quotes Epeminides a pagan philosopher
Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'” 1 corinthians 15:33
Paul makes many Greco-Roman references. In one of his epistles, he has a poetic portion that mimics the famous epic poem of Pericles. These were real people who lived in a cultural setting that affected how they wrote and what they referred to.
That was good.That gives me security in believing the books of the old and new testament are the ones to believe and follow.
The reformation altered the Bible. This is specifically forbidden with the promise of damnation for doing so.
You mean the protestant deformation and abomination.
I am a 72 year-old Anglican priest. Whatever one may believe about the canon, one thing is certain: the Catholic Church did NOT ADD the deuterocanonical books at The Council of Trent. They confirmed their inclusion because they were being excluded by the Protestants. Jerome did not initially want to include them in the Vulgate in around 405 AD, but Augustine’s belief that they should be included carried the day, and Jerome humbly submitted to the Church. Later, we hear Jerome citing passages in the Deuterocanonicals and referring to them as Scripture. I suggest 2 things: 1) Google Catholic Answers and other Catholic groups and listen to what they have to say. 2) Be kind and respectful to one another - “quick to hear, slow to speak.” Blessings to all, as we seek the truth together.
Not true about the Catholic Church adding books in the council of Trent. The 73 books in a Catholic Bible have been there is 382 AD at the Council of Rome, ratified at the following Councils Hippo, in 397 AD
Carthage in 419 AD
Florence in 1442 AD
The Bible that Gutenberg printed was the Catholic Bible that St Jerome translated into Latin (commonly known as the Vulgate) with 73 books in 1455
Council of Trent ratified the 73 books in the Bible.
God bless you🙏🏻
Those 7 books have no bearing whatsoever on Christianity or Christianity doctrine. No where they ever considered Canon in OT times or in the time of Jesus.
The Lion and his lamb Not true.
@@azdairy2009 I have read them, it absolutely is true. If you disagree then point out the important Christian doctrine on salvation that are changed by them. Include chapter and verse.
Which church, complied all the books into one and named it 'Bible'?
The Bible was finished by 95 AD.
@@berenc7619 the books were written but not universally recognized . Not compiled until the 4th century
Frank has wisdom and and a lot of knowledge about many things. Is a pitty that he ignores de history of the Holy Bible. Here it goes:
382 AD Pope Saint Damasus I compiles all the books of the Bible (the same ones that today are in all Catholic bibles)
392 AD Saint Jerome translate the Bible from the greek to latin and gets confirmation by the catholic bishops
397 AD The Bible of San Jerome is once again ratified by the catholic bishops at the council of Cartage
1226 AD The Bible is divided in the current chapters by the Catholic Bishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton
1527 AD A Catholic priest, Santos Pagnino divides de Bible in numbered versicles
1552 AD a catholic printer, Robert Estienne again divides de Bible in versicles
1560 AD A catholic printer (Gutemberg) prints de Bible with the chapters of Bishop Langton and vesicles of R. Estienne
1592 AD Pope Clement VIII prints a new version of the Bible with the same chapters and verscicles currently used by Christians
1534 AD Martin Luther sends 7 books of the Bible to an appendix, but remain in the Bible
1534 AD Martin Luther adds the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to justify his own dogma of "faith alone".
1534-1546 AD Luther tries to get reed of James letter because it contradics his dogma, but fails in the effort
1825 AD The protestant British Biblical society TAKES OUT 7 books of the Bible (This is why current protestan Bibles are missing 7 books that were in the Bible for 1,443 years
The Catholic Church, that's an easy one.
@@gonzalopde6916 do you know the name of the catholic priest/bishop who gave the name 'Biblia'?
I like to have the bible by Jesus himself not according to Paul or anyone else. Do you have any?
Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, so his bible was the Hebrew Bible(Torah/Tanach) which is what the Jews believe in to this day.
No the original gospel has been lost.. they were written way after jesus had died.
Awesome!
Loved when you said "Eucharist" and then quickly said Last Supper. We all know the last supper is the exact same thing as the Holy Eucharist. Found in the Holy Catholic Church. Love you videos though! God bless
The Catholic church traditions are constantly changing and go against the bible.
In The last Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" ony a remembrance not a critical part of Salvation but only remembering it whereas the Eucharist believes it is the act of receiving Jesus literally and physically (but John 6:63 says otherwise). It is the difference between a vicrory and remembering the victory.
@@joshportie Liturgical traditions may change but core Catholic doctrines remain the same, century after century.
@@jehielmutia1744 The Eucharist is a remembrance but It is also the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Why can't It be both? Only in Protestantism does "do this in memory of me" mean "don't do this".
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh
Do this in remembrance of me is funnily not the same as not doing it. Not believing it is literal is not the same as not believing as it is really is it (the bread described in John). It is like Celebrating victory compared to the victory itself.
Catholics refer to those apocryphal books as Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom + passages of Esther and Daniel excluded from Protestant Bibles). These books were part of the 1st C. Septuagint OT. Around 90% of the OT quoted by Jesus and the Apostles came from it with the other 10% quoted from the Hebrew OT the speaker mentioned. That's the reason the Catholic church chose the Septuagint OT canon that included those 7 OT books not found in modern Protestant Bibles. The church determined the OT Septuagint books in the late 4th C. and not at the Council of Trent in the 16th C. as the speaker claims. Read on for further evidence.
There was no closed Jewish OT canon at the time of Christ. For example, the Pharisees used the Torah, Prophets and Law books while the Sadducees only used the Torah. The Septuagint was accepted as authoritative by the Jews in the Greek speaking countries and the Jews in Alexandria.
The first known Christian canon was compiled by Marcion (an anti-semetic) in 140 AD. It included 10 Pauline epistles and 2/3 of Luke's Gospel and no OT. This prompted the Catholic Church to rule that the unofficial core canon included the 4 gospels and all Pauline epistles plus the Septuagint OT.
The Muratorian Canon was compiled in 200AD in Rome. It included the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, 1&2 John, Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter plus OT. Each city-church had its own canon, which was the list of books approved for reading at Mass (Liturgy).
The first complete list that remains the same today for the Catholic Church was compiled by Bishop Athanasus of Alexandria in 367AD.
Under Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome in 382AD listed the NT books in the present modern day order.
In 393AD, Pope Damasus sent Athanasus' list to the Council of Hippo, North Africa for debate. Interesting side note: Pope Damasus chose Hippo because the Eastern churches were responsible for the Arian heresy that taught Jesus was a creature.
The Council of Carthage in 397AD refined the canon and sent it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. in 405AD, Innocent send a requested reply to Bishop Exsuperius in Toulouse listing all the current Catholic canon books.
In 787AD the Council of Nicaea II adopted the 397AD canon of Carthage. In 1442, the Council of Florence confirmed the Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I published in 393AD. In 1536 the German Monk Martin Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them in the back of his Bible stating they were less than canonical. In 1546, the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 NT and all the OT Deuterocanonical books selecte4d in the 4th C. and this time dogmatizing the canon officially closing the canon for good. God's blessings to all.
One could say that Frank's slides are on point.
Rebirth according to John 3 is necessary for Kingdom understanding! Read it, put it into practice, pray about it, believe it, and The Lord will prove and show anyone that His recorded Word IS reliable and truth! Praise Him for The sword and Word that defeats the works of the enemy!
The books weren't "added." The Septuagint and Latin Vulgate are older than the Mesoretic text.
Wrong
KingJames BibleBeliever the septuagint is older than the masoretic text. I read the KJV. Its my favorite bible. However the septuagint came before the masoretic. Even the kjv translators spoke of this in their introduction. Look it up. The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint for the most part. We need to use both the septuagint, and masoretic. I think the problem is we forget sometimes that each of the books of the bible were written on scrolls. They didn’t have books. So we get stuck on this idea that there has to be a perfect compilation of scripture. I believe it is achievable. However we haven’t gotten there yet. We need to be honest as use all the text families and use whichever is more reliable. We can’t accept a manuscript just because it’s much earlier. We also can’t deny a manuscript, because it’s much later. We need to compare scripture with scripture to come to a final conclusion.
@@livepoetic390 wrong there are other bibles are older than the kjv and yes I think them books shouldn't be remove
@William Toy well it's not the language it's all about accurate or not
Open your heart young man
Great. But the Old Testament law part isn't that simple.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
t bishop Exactly.
*_God Bless_*
I have a Catholic bible from the 1700s, I would like to see if it matches a new one word for word.
Anybody who believes the same Catholic Church who was burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English, torturing people in dungeons who didn't agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and hacking entire villages to death because they didn't attend the churches they built in their towns is just being willfully ignorant if they believe the Catholic Church wasn't making edits to the Bible THEY decided on.
That was a very wise answer at the end
Failed to mention that the church father's who recognized the books of the bible were catholic bishops at catholic councils. And where it says the bible was publicly proclaimed and expounded....That would be in the sacred liturgy, also known as the mass.
Also st Jerome had those 7 books in his translation of the bible into Latin known as the vulgate. His analysis is dripping with bias here.
I believe Jerome added them to the Vulgate bible because of pressure from St. Augustine
Hes not biased enough. And not studied in this area. The septuagent didnt exist in Jesus time.
@@joshportie Yes it was. Dead Sea Scrolls confirm. The Septuagint is thought to date to 300bc, iirc.
@@dr.heinzdoofenshmirtz3507 Jerome regarded the 7 books as secondary under the influence of the rabbis.
Precisely! And Turek also fails to mention that this same Jewish Authorities who crucified and murdered Jesus and after the death of Jesus the sudden rise of Christianity ...made the Hebrew Canon the official canon to further alienate the Christians who were using the Septuagint canon!
The Protestants in adopting the Hebrew Canon are also perpetrating the intent of the Jewish Authorities in further discrediting the credibility and actual authority given by Christ himself to St. Peter and the Church ....
The Catholic Church!
Genesis 1:1
The books Dr. Turek mentioned were not added at Trent. Florence affirmed them 100 years earlier, as did the council of Rome in the 4th century and other early Church fathers and synods. They are also cited as canonical in arguments made against the Arians at Nicea I. Not to mention that the earliest biblical list wenhave from Christians cited Wisdom as a book, but is a fragment so is missing the rest of the of the old and some of the NT.
The Jews who also rejected the New Testament did later largely reject portions of the Catholic old testament, but not all. Ethiopian Jews for example and Jews of that Region as well as I believe Assyrians Jews largely accept the books from the Catholic canon. Prior to Rabbi Akiba, Jews had largely accepted the Deuterocanonical books and we see them used by the Essenes, Pharisees, and Josephus even pretty explicitly refers to some of them as Scripture. It is not so simple as the Jews having accepted or rejected them, their canon varied drastically by sect and some only had 5 books, some had 6, some had the protestant canon, some had the Catholic canon, some had books that protestants and Catholics alike reject like Enoch. Its just not mearly as black and white like Dr. Turek claims and I that is why we can't simply rely on what the Jews had, especially since they rejected the new testament. The Jews were indeed given the prophets and oracles ofnthe old testament, but they didn't always accept or believe them amd so we cant pick and choose what sect to believe, we have to look at what the Church founded by God accepted and rejected since they got their complete canon from God Himself and it includes the books protestants reject.
Dr. Turek seems to affirm a sort of semi Marcionism at the end there. While it's largely true what he said, like that that many of the OT laws are not binding on Christians today, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what books we have. These books tell us a lot about who God is and how He works. They also do a lot to setup the NT and what the New Covenant means. There are prophecies of Christ for example that Protestants are missing which are quotes in the NT. There are also things like prayer for souls of the dead affirmed, which was a Jewish practice back then and into the Christian era along with asking for prayer from the righteous which have gone with God. These practices were commonplace in the OT period, affirmed to one degree or another in the Catholic OT, and never condemned in the NT.
And if Catholics really did add those books into the OT at Trent then why do Eastern Orthodox who broke off 500 years earlier have them in their Bible as far back as they can trace? And why to the Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox who broke off about a millennium before Trent have them in their Bible? And why do many Jews and even some Protestants accept them? Them simply being added in Trent does not account for how these other groups had and have always had them as far back as they can trace.
I can see why Frank is not Catholic. He's not very educated on this topic. However, I listen to him daily and love his weekly podcasts on the Cross Examined app, and he will always be my favorite apologist for his impact on my faith life.
You are right. The two OT canons actually existed during the time of our Lord and the apostles. The septuagint (Catholic canon) was actually popular with Hellenist Jews while the more traditional canon of the Hebrew Bible was popular in Palestine. It is noteworthy that our Lord and His apostles quoted extensively from the Catholic (Septuagint) version in the new testament, so I wonder why Martin Luther rejected scriptures which Christ Himself and His apostles used and quoted from?!
hes not catholic bc he doesnt condone, genocide, murder, r@pe, ped0phiIa etc etc
@@xintimidate it’s a sin to misrepresent your opponent
@@DougWarner25 Yup, and i didnt do that. If you dont understand what I am referring to then you dont even know your own churches history. the catholic church is one of the most evil entities to ever exist.
@@xintimidate repent
Frank explains god and jesus and answered questions that make sense helps my faith
@@tonarutayisire2465 u talking to me
@@tonarutayisire2465 im sorry i upset u
The Septuagint has all 17 of these books. This is what the Orthodox Churches accept. Anglicans accept 14 of the books and Catholics accept 7. Protestants accept none. Catholics didn't add books, Protestants threw out books.
Hi Rev, I got the Orthodox study Bible and I love it.
God bless you mate
@Dd S Exactly. If God's message is important, he'd have told us himself. Either he doesn't care, he wants us not to know, or he doesn't exist.
Reverend? Mr. J Roger Allen sir, are you not aware that wearing religious titles is expressly condemned? Jesus forbids the practice when He said, Matthew 23:8-10 ("But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your Master, even Christ.") This practice of elevating one brother above another is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that "ALL YE ARE BRETHREN."
In the old testament Job new that exalting man displeased God, when he said, Job 32:21-22("Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, neither let me give FLATTERING TITLES unto man. For I know not to give FLATTERING TITLES; in so doing my maker would soon TAKE ME AWAY.") Gods Word does not teach we are to form a clergy- laity in doing so we violate Matthew 23:8-10
Gods Word teaches that All christians are priests. 1Peter 2:5 ("you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy PRIESTHOOD...") And 1Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD,...")
1 Corinthians 4:6 ("....Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be PUFFED UP in being a follower of one of us OVER AGAINST THE OTHER.")
@Dd S James 1:21 "if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is USELESS."
You mentioned 1 Corinthians 4:15 ..."I became your Father..." Now show me just one verse in the Inspired Word of God where the Apostle Paul is referred to as Father by a fellow brother in Christ. This is what Paul really thought of being exalted above his brother's and sisters in Christ, 1Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have FIGURATIVELY transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you be PUFFED UP on behalf of one AGAINST the OTHER."
@@Eisho.G As a Catholic I sadly agree with the Orthodox Church about the Papacy. Because in reality the Papacy is what CAUSED the Protestant Reformation.
5:40 sorry but wrong. In 382 the council of Rome defined the canon. The council of Trent in 1545 just raised an anathema against those who denied this canon defined 1150 years ago.
The original KJV Bible had all the Catholic books in the Bible.
Well put.
I really appreciate this video! As someone who has a catholic friends and grandmother i wanted to know where the difference was in our bibles. I do believe that in some catholic versions they put a book of saints in the new testament which was also not something I'm familiar with. Much appreciated :)
Hello friend! No, Catholics and Protestants have the same New Testament. Catholics don't have a "book of saints" we add to it. God bless!
Hi. I'm Catholic and I've run across a number of Catholic Bible versions accepted by the Church but I have never heard of a 'book of saints' being added to any of the Catholic versions. Even if that were true for a particular edition, Church Tradition has not added to the official canon since it was first selected in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. I use one of the most popular which is the RSVCE 2nd Ed. The Ignatius Study Bible with Commentary is an exceptional Bible if you are interested in learning more about how the early Christians interpreted the Bible. God bless.
All 73 books in the Bible were decided on by the Catholic Church around 800 years ago, the Catholic Church didn't add any Books the Protestants removed 7 Books making their Bible 66 Books. So essentially the canon of the Bible you are reading was still determined by the Catholic Church they just have kept all 73 Books they initially decided on.
About 1700 years ago, the church only confirmed after the Protestant reform that they will be still using the old version because Luther claims weren’t valid
For fundamentalist forms of christianity, scripture does need to be innerent. They are not allowed to question the truth of scripture. He is representing his understanding of christianity.
i find it amazing that catholics love to argue over the OT . Dr. Turek being the gentleman he is . brought the discussion to a conclusion that the NT is the most important section ...that being Christs death and resurrection ...period . Which Jews totally deny
Not all Christians agree on the NT canon either, though. Ask Syrian Orthodox Chrisitians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, etc. And yes, they also disagree on the Old Testament.
The Latin Vulgate Bible, completed in the 400s by Jerome, has 46 books in the OT. Jerome used the Septuagint (Greek) for the OT. The Council of Trent merely decreed the Vulgate was the exclusive Latin Bible. It didn’t add books to the OT as Turek said.
Yes but in what language the apocrypha were ? And why were they in this language while the other books ( that are in the protestant canon) found in hebrew ?
The First king James Bible had the same books the Catholic Bible had. 73, it was till the 1800s that Bible societies removed 7 books. The Lutheran Bible also has 73.
Those 7 books have no bearing whatsoever on Christianity or Christianity doctrine.
And what of key backstory details?
Actually no they were removed in the 1700s and were never considered cannon by Christian's. They contradict the true bible.
The Hebrew Roots movement has really confused a lot of believers. Videos like these can help refute the whole “Don’t trust the KJV other versions, because they have been corrupted” movement…
I want to have lunch with this man, strong minded man of God.
Amazing response, Frank! I love it.
Great lecture with the exception of one point! The deuterocanonical books in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were NOT added in 16th century in response to Reformation but were based on the Septuagint (Greek edition of Old Testament). The reason these 2 groups use Septuagint is Bc this is what early Christians and disciples of Jesus used. Research it yourself.
The oldest septuigent is from the 4th century and the new testament never cites any apocrapha. There's no reason to believe that Jesus's Bible had the apocrapha.
And the septuagent is another Catholic forgery.
They also claim Jesus read from the septuagent when of course he wouldnt read Greek to hebrews whether they spoke Hebrew or aramaic.
@@joshportie it was used by the apostles , six of its books are found in fragments of the dead sea scrolls
@@bradspitt3896you really need to get your history sorted. The Septuagint was written in the 3rd century BC
"The Bible is a Catholic book"
A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was a debate about which scriptural writings were are inspired by God. The Canon of scripture was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. The decision was held at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today's Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God.
Approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing 7 books.
The Holy Spirit tells you what you're supposed to know.
That music at the end reminds me of a Bizzle song.
Umm...the "apocryphal" books have been part of the cannon since 382. They were re-affirmed at the council of Trent, not added.
Not added due to it's questionable origin.
If Roman Catholics added the Deuterocanonical books to the Old Testament at the Council of Trent, why does the Orthodox Catholic Church also have the same books in our canon?
Roman Catholics dogmatized at Trent what was already considered true for centuries, hence why the Orthodox Catholic Church had essentially the same canon even though we had been separated from Rome for four hundred years at that point.
Thanks Frank I needed this answer for my faith to grow but what about the account of Mark was he a eye witness or was he affirm by one of the apostle?
The gospel of Mark is basically the testimony of Peter.
Apparently, Mark was the young man who ran naked when Jesus was getting arrested.
Amen 💯💯💯