Hi guys, I can hardly wait for this one! Okay, so 'low' Protestants will argue that the great LXX manuscripts of the 4th Century, and the later Vulgates as well, have even more additional books in their O.T.s. That is to say: 3-4 Ezra, 3-4 Maccabees and the 'Additions to Psalms' (more or less)- Ps. 151, the Prayer of Manasses- than Trent did/does. For the last 2+ years it appears to be Gary's contention that the Council of Trent received precisely the number of books that were accepted as 'doctrinal' by the Apostles themselves by the death of John (the Divine). His contemporary, and sub-apostle Clement (of Rome) e.g. seems to have seen Judith as a Biblical heroine. If the wild, conspiratorial, claims of the 'low' Protestants were really true and the 'Romans' only wanted the Septuagint's 'bonus' books in the Canon to 'buttress' their 'Popish' claims, then the Catholics would surely have included 1 Clement. 1 Clement would 'buttress' the primacy of the See of Rome. But as William intimated recently, 1 Clement was never used as a proof-text for primacy- best, HJ.
What is the Catholic Churches view on 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh? These three texts are in the Clementine Vulgate appendix, the original pre Challoner Douay Rheims appendix, and in the apocrypha of KJV, Geneva Bible alongside the "apocrypha" what Catholics call the deuterocanonical books. Does this mean Catholics and Protestants agree that 3 of the books in the standard Protestant Apocrypha is such? The Anglican Church lists these books all as being worthy to be read. Just curious why the Church accepts some but not all of the "apocrypha"? 1)1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2)2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) 3)Tobit 4)Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva) 5)Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 - 16:24) 6)Wisdom 7)Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) 8)Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch) 9Additions to Daniel Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90) 10)Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) 11)The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) 12)Prayer of Manasseh 13)1 Maccabees 14)2 Maccabees
The typical 7 that are part of the Catholic canon were cited as Scripture or to confirm doctrine by the early Church. Michuta's book on the Deuterocanon documents a ton of these citations (100+ pages worth). Just don't find that kind of usage and history with 3 & 4 Esdras, Enoch, Manasseh, etc.
The CoE still has the Apocrypha in their printed copies however they do not view them as canonical in the same sense of the other books. It seems they are simply there out of tradition and efficacy.
Not a Roman Churcher or Eastern Orthodox: Here's how I approached the canon. I investigated the historicity of the documents. Did they have evidence showing they were written at the appropriate time for their claim? Did they make factual errors? And were they written by prophets if they claim theological revelation. ieL: Maccabees states there are no prophets in the land of Israel 164BC. So, for this reason, I will not take theological statements as Scripture. But, I absolutely recommend people read it for understanding history and how the prophecies given through Daniel were fulfilled. I hope you all take a careful investigation into the texts and their historicity. God Bless you.
"Did they have evidence showing they were written at the appropriate time for their claim? Did they make factual errors?" Atheists and agnostics ask the same questions about the Protocanonicals. You are merely arguing like them. You really think God intended for His people to approach the canon like you do?? Leaning on your own "wisdom" and "understanding"?
@@MB-zn9vg I'm Catholic, but I can assure you there's nothing exclusively Catholic about praying for the dead. Jews do it and did so long before Christ.
What did Jesus say “I am the resurrection and the life.. whoever believes in me.. though he die.. shall live! Do you believe this?” You don’t believe this because you have been told differently.. and not by the Catholic book, called BIBLE. All saints and martyrs are alive in heaven. According to Jesus’ words. Do you not believe this either?? Ignorantly, Protestantism is stuck with subtly calling Jesus a liar… Not that your Protestant fathers were ignorant.. they were more deliberate revolutionaries with an agenda.. and DID NOT care. At all. Also.. if you believe the intertestamental/2nd Temple writings of the Jewish people.. then stop calling it Apocrypha… Apocrypha was/is used for the fake gnostic forgeries in the ancient world of church history….
Well, the Jews don't include the Apocrypha in their canon either - they are not found in the Masoretic Text of Scripture. So the view that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong to add these writings to the canon of Scripture is hardly an unreasonable one. Of course, one might ask why Presbyterians still go to Church on Sunday instead of Saturday, but no doubt they have their reasons.
Masoretic Text was made in the 6-7th century, why do you trust the Masoretes over the Christians of the 4th century? Even worse, why do you trust any Jewish source after Pentecost regarding the canon of scripture? It is unreasonable because Protestants too often refer to the modern Jewish canon with the assumption that it is the one and only same as the one during/before Jesus’ ministry, which is demonstrably untrue.
The evidence shows that the surviving post-Temple Jews removed the Deuteros from their own canon in reaction to Christianity. So Protestants are merely following the anti-Christian prejudice of the Jews instead of the Apostles and their successors.
The early Church fathers/writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian explicitly mention how the Jews of their time rejected OT Scriptures accepted by Christians.
WHY DID WE SHOOT OUR SELVES IN THE FOOT , by rejecting MArtin Luther and giving the stamp of approval to James, esp Chapter Two- Which is THE basis for the RCC condemnation of Sola Fide. I KNOW!!! There are ways to reconcile with Paul... I say NO! James stumbles around for over three centuries and then !! "Come on in James" In the 1620's Westminster confirms.. Couldn't THEY READ!!
Hmmm… I wonder why the apocrypha is not referenced once in the New Testament? Better to be a born again Christian. 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Samuel 2:2 “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Mark 7:7. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Your argument is based on faulty premises. A reference (or lack of) to a book/text in the New Testament doesn’t make it canonical or not by itself. If it did, you would include the book of Enoch that Jude quotes from in his letter. You would also need to remove Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Ruth (although she is mentioned once by name), and a few others. If we define the term “reference” to be more loose, i.e a parallel (like when Jesus parallels Song of Songs in Matthew), an allusion, or strong correlation, I could give you quite a few references: ### Wisdom Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” is alluded in Wisdom 16:13. Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1. John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off. Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10. Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry has significant parallels to Wis. 13:1-10. Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1. Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7. 1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” strongly correlates to Wisdom 9:13. Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20. James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20. ### Tobit Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus has some similarities to Tobit 11:9. Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15. Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17. Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others. ### Sirach Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven comes after Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure. Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root is an expansion of Sirach 40:15. Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14. Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:15. James 5:3 - also describes silver which rusts and laying up treasure following Sirach 29:10-11. 1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds alludes to Sirach 16:12 (and other verses about partiality) - God judges man according to his deeds. **Baruch** Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37. (Baruch even goes so far as to qualify he is coming to **the Word**, who we know from the NT is Christ). John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven fulfills the prophecy revealed in Baruch 3:29. 1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God was first described to Baruch 4:7. ### Judith Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched is very similar to Judith 16:17. Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women parallels Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.
There is actually quite a few clear references to the Deuterocanon in the NT (including by Jesus Himself). This channel has many videos demonstrating that, if you are open-minded enough to watch them. How could you possibly know what those Scripture passages mean better than the historical successors of the Apostles who also left us their writings??? 1 Timothy 2:5. Jesus ascended to heaven. The apostles mediated His grace and forgiveness. "One" is not meant so absolutely. Luke 1:46-47 Catholicism does not deny that Jesus saved Mary. Romans 3:10 This is quoting the OT. It is not meant so absolutely. 1 Corinthians 10:4 Why do you disrespectfully pit Scripture against itself rather than reconcile passages harmoniously? Are you not aware that Jesus gave Peter the name Rock (which is what Peter means!)? Mark 7:7 How do we distinguish doctrines of men vs God? How about the apostles teaching? How about the writings of those disciples and approved by the Apostles? 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul isn't talking to you or saying anything about your ability/authority to rightly interpret Scripture. He is talking to Timothy, the leader of the Church at Ephesus, a "man of God."
Men have no right to decide what God has to say. If God wished it in His Holy Bible He would have put them there. Yet I must conclude they are not. Since the Holy Bible has been in circulation for thousands of years and we can see that it has not been changed at all it should go without saying that the Bible is yet still unchanged and that various minority versions that include or exclude books are a extreme minority because His power and word is supreme above all. If you think man can affect Gods holy word then you are sorely mistaken.
You clearly don’t know how the canon of Scripture came about. The Catholic Church discerned that list of books in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. 360 years after Jesus went back to heaven. So these were my thoughts when I learned this as a Protestant. How did the Faith spread through the entire known world without a Bible? Bible Alone can’t be true because the Bible doesn’t tell us which books belong in it. The same Church that decided the New Testament that Protestants agree on also decided the 46 books of the Old Testament. If the Church was infallible in deciding the New Testament why wasn’t it infallible in discerning the Old Testament? Yes God inspired the books of Scripture but He used His Catholic Church to share those books with the world. There is absolutely no way the Church would be correct on the New Testament but wrong on the Old Testament. So when are you obeying Jesus and entering the Catholic Church?
You appeal to history for mere milliseconds by saying that if God wanted the deuterocanon in his Bibles he would've put it there. This is the same as a Catholic saying "If he wanted Protestant theology during the conception of the church and the 1400 years following, he would've made it so." And yet you wouldn't hesitate to throw out history at such an objection. I'm sure you haven't familiarized yourself with the doctrines of people closest to Jesus' culture or you wouldn't be writing this comment. Furthermore, you argue that a majority of history has had the same Bible. I agree. But the 'same' Bible is the Bible that contains the 7 books that were removed in the Puritan era. So my question to you is: You believe history backs up your perspective on biblical canon. Can you cite any major strand of Christianity or theological sect that decided to remove Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and Wisdom? I'd love to know since I'm still making my mind up on Catholic theology and this would be your golden opportunity to set me back on the curvy and wide Protestant path by enlightening me with knowledge I have not heard before. Small tidbit. You make it seem like it's an impossibility to remove books from the Bible that God intends to be there. Have you ever interacted with a Bible? Is the book binding completely indestructible? Are the pages atomically tensile? Try ripping James 2 (Martin Luther's first choice) out of your Bible and offering it to your fellow friend so you can safely say "saved by faith alone". You might be surprised that Jesus will not metastocize and stop you from circulating an incomplete text. Beware, because you may be accursed if you do so, but this is not an impossibility.
@@mrjeffjob what the heck are you even on about? The Catholic Church worship men, they pray to humans and believe that a fallible man is able to be their intercession between them and God. Jesus is the only intercession been us and God. Catholic Church worship images and pray to Mary. I don’t even understand why you would follow such an organization at all? These were things that the Jewish community did to which Jesus came and denounced. The Jewish priesthood would legalize the words of God while Jesus focused on the actual heart.
@@judicator9837 your logic fails at its inception. Just because you can rip a page out of one book doesn’t mean there aren’t other bibles out there or other sources. There are many historical texts that used to be kept by the Jews before the second destruction of the temple that are no longer available or recorded because all record was lost. Does that mean that Gods words were in fact lost to time? No that would be absurd to think. You forget that despite all the extra books being in the Bible there was still all the books that are currently in the Bible. There was no extra books added to it by the Protestants. Furthermore there was thousands of years prior to Jesus that people lived. Are you to say not one of these people could be saved because they lacked your version of the Bible? You seem also to forget that scripture itself attests against your views as the knowledge of God is written as truth in all of us and all of creation attests to God so that all men are without excuse, thus you don’t even need a Bible at all to be condemned or saved. But in all this I’ll simple point out your hearts. Is seems clear to me that you and others who watch this channel believe so fully in their own correctness that they lack the humility to consider their own blindness. Instead you are off the belief that you can only be saved if a man obeys you and your views instead of Gods. Such hubris i will never capitulate to as it’s a warning sign. See I’ve seen preachers, worshippers, devoted followers all who are Protestant and believe with all their hearts who all follow the Bible that is Preached around the world. This same Bible compels men to go out and proclaim Jesus to even their own end all for His glory. This is something i see not within the Catholic Church. There is only strict adherence to insane rituals and levitical style laws and tenants. These same actions are what Jesus and His disciples taught against. You forget it’s not by the law you are saved but by grace alone. The Jewish law was only established to prove we all fall short of Gods perfection. For us to then be claimed as sons of God and no longer be under such law yet reinvent them is insane. By far my biggest issue with Catholic teachings is their adherence to such things as religious days, sabbath, and their worship of idols. I’m sorry but a rosary is a idol. A stained glass window with images and images of people are idols. God is the unseen God . We don’t worship idols or have to make vain repetitive prayers to gain Gods grace. It’s Grace through faith. Finally Matthew 7:3-5
@@mrjeffjobbetter to be a born again Christian. 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Samuel 2:2 “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Mark 7:7. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Sorry dude, i can’t get past your mispronunciation of patreon, I could be wrong but it alerts me that you probably don’t know what patronage is; therefore I can’t accept you as knowledgeable re: Biblical content or history!
His pronunciation of Patreon is a common one. That’s a very shallow reason to dismiss someone’s knowledge and evidence. If it were applied to people you agree with (perhaps Protestant figures) would you do the same?
I can't accept even how British people speak - they speak as though they have a stick in their mouth! For real though, whether you agree with pronunciations is irrelevant.... the problem is that he has absolutely zero scriptural reference to his beliefs. All he's saying is "this was rejected for such and such reasons" but nowhere does he point to the current 66 books as elevating any importance to now non-canonical books are crucial to SALVATION. The whole purpose of the Bible is to be in place for God to speak to us and share the Good News. Nothing about deutero nor apocrypha is Good News / Gospel. Also, I see many people attempting to credit Paul to writing some or all of Second Macabees when we all know Paul had nothing to do with that.
Hi guys, I can hardly wait for this one! Okay, so 'low' Protestants will argue that the great LXX manuscripts of the 4th Century, and the later Vulgates as well, have even more additional books in their O.T.s. That is to say: 3-4 Ezra, 3-4 Maccabees and the 'Additions to Psalms' (more or less)- Ps. 151, the Prayer of Manasses- than Trent did/does. For the last 2+ years it appears to be Gary's contention that the Council of Trent received precisely the number of books that were accepted as 'doctrinal' by the Apostles themselves by the death of John (the Divine). His contemporary, and sub-apostle Clement (of Rome) e.g. seems to have seen Judith as a Biblical heroine. If the wild, conspiratorial, claims of the 'low' Protestants were really true and the 'Romans' only wanted the Septuagint's 'bonus' books in the Canon to 'buttress' their 'Popish' claims, then the Catholics would surely have included 1 Clement. 1 Clement would 'buttress' the primacy of the See of Rome. But as William intimated recently, 1 Clement was never used as a proof-text for primacy- best, HJ.
Interesting find, thank you Gary!
Peace.
What is the Catholic Churches view on 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh? These three texts are in the Clementine Vulgate appendix, the original pre Challoner Douay Rheims appendix, and in the apocrypha of KJV, Geneva Bible alongside the "apocrypha" what Catholics call the deuterocanonical books. Does this mean Catholics and Protestants agree that 3 of the books in the standard Protestant Apocrypha is such? The Anglican Church lists these books all as being worthy to be read. Just curious why the Church accepts some but not all of the "apocrypha"?
1)1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2)2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
3)Tobit
4)Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
5)Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 - 16:24)
6)Wisdom
7)Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
8)Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
9Additions to Daniel
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
10)Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
11)The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
12)Prayer of Manasseh
13)1 Maccabees
14)2 Maccabees
The typical 7 that are part of the Catholic canon were cited as Scripture or to confirm doctrine by the early Church. Michuta's book on the Deuterocanon documents a ton of these citations (100+ pages worth). Just don't find that kind of usage and history with 3 & 4 Esdras, Enoch, Manasseh, etc.
Our Bible (With Apocrypha) is the New revised standard version (Anglicised Edition) so Church of England is quite happy with the Apocrypha.
The CoE still has the Apocrypha in their printed copies however they do not view them as canonical in the same sense of the other books. It seems they are simply there out of tradition and efficacy.
Great post. And you are looking good, Gary, with the weight lost. What program are you on? (Please don't tell me you're sick.)
And protestants now forgot the books and the reformation,they really are the ancestors of the kgb and nkvd
✝️🇻🇦✝️
✝️
Did you reply to yourself twice with the same emoji?
Not a Roman Churcher or Eastern Orthodox:
Here's how I approached the canon. I investigated the historicity of the documents. Did they have evidence showing they were written at the appropriate time for their claim? Did they make factual errors? And were they written by prophets if they claim theological revelation.
ieL: Maccabees states there are no prophets in the land of Israel 164BC. So, for this reason, I will not take theological statements as Scripture. But, I absolutely recommend people read it for understanding history and how the prophecies given through Daniel were fulfilled.
I hope you all take a careful investigation into the texts and their historicity.
God Bless you.
You need to check out the video series on the so called cessation of prophecy. You are mistaken about what the book of Maccabees claim.
"Did they have evidence showing they were written at the appropriate time for their claim? Did they make factual errors?"
Atheists and agnostics ask the same questions about the Protocanonicals. You are merely arguing like them.
You really think God intended for His people to approach the canon like you do?? Leaning on your own "wisdom" and "understanding"?
Lamentations also states that prophecy/prophets had ceased during the time of its writing. Are you now going to remove that book from the canon?
There are also subtle factual “errors” (based on our non-biblical understanding of history) in the typical Protestant Canon.
I am Baptist/charismatic and I accept the Apocrypha. I do not see anything unique to Catholicism in it.
Praying for the dead? Have you even read them? I think you haven't
@@MB-zn9vg I'm Catholic, but I can assure you there's nothing exclusively Catholic about praying for the dead. Jews do it and did so long before Christ.
What did Jesus say
“I am the resurrection and the life.. whoever believes in me.. though he die.. shall live! Do you believe this?”
You don’t believe this because you have been told differently.. and not by the Catholic book, called BIBLE.
All saints and martyrs are alive in heaven. According to Jesus’ words.
Do you not believe this either??
Ignorantly, Protestantism is stuck with subtly calling Jesus a liar… Not that your Protestant fathers were ignorant.. they were more deliberate revolutionaries with an agenda.. and DID NOT care. At all.
Also.. if you believe the intertestamental/2nd Temple writings of the Jewish people.. then stop calling it Apocrypha…
Apocrypha was/is used for the fake gnostic forgeries in the ancient world of church history….
Purgatory is in 2 Maccabees
@@Ancient_Man_In_Modern_World Paul writes about what happened in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 In Hebrews 11:35
🇻🇦✝️🇻🇦
✝️
Well, the Jews don't include the Apocrypha in their canon either - they are not found in the Masoretic Text of Scripture. So the view that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong to add these writings to the canon of Scripture is hardly an unreasonable one. Of course, one might ask why Presbyterians still go to Church on Sunday instead of Saturday, but no doubt they have their reasons.
Masoretic Text was made in the 6-7th century, why do you trust the Masoretes over the Christians of the 4th century? Even worse, why do you trust any Jewish source after Pentecost regarding the canon of scripture? It is unreasonable because Protestants too often refer to the modern Jewish canon with the assumption that it is the one and only same as the one during/before Jesus’ ministry, which is demonstrably untrue.
The evidence shows that the surviving post-Temple Jews removed the Deuteros from their own canon in reaction to Christianity. So Protestants are merely following the anti-Christian prejudice of the Jews instead of the Apostles and their successors.
Probably because the christian bible is older than the masoretic, which came around about 100 years after Christ
We don’t decide the canon based off of Jews who never converted!
The early Church fathers/writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian explicitly mention how the Jews of their time rejected OT Scriptures accepted by Christians.
WHY DID WE SHOOT OUR SELVES IN THE FOOT , by rejecting MArtin Luther and giving the stamp of approval to James, esp Chapter Two- Which is THE basis for the RCC condemnation of Sola Fide. I KNOW!!! There are ways to reconcile with Paul... I say NO! James stumbles around for over three centuries and then !! "Come on in James" In the 1620's Westminster confirms.. Couldn't THEY READ!!
Hmmm… I wonder why the apocrypha is not referenced once in the New Testament?
Better to be a born again Christian.
1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
1 Samuel 2:2 “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Mark 7:7. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Most of the Old Testament cannon is not referenced in the New Testament.
Your argument is based on faulty premises. A reference (or lack of) to a book/text in the New Testament doesn’t make it canonical or not by itself. If it did, you would include the book of Enoch that Jude quotes from in his letter. You would also need to remove Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Ruth (although she is mentioned once by name), and a few others.
If we define the term “reference” to be more loose, i.e a parallel (like when Jesus parallels Song of Songs in Matthew), an allusion, or strong correlation, I could give you quite a few references:
### Wisdom
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” is alluded in Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry has significant parallels to Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” strongly correlates to Wisdom 9:13.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
### Tobit
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus has some similarities to Tobit 11:9.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
### Sirach
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven comes after Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root is an expansion of Sirach 40:15.
Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:15.
James 5:3 - also describes silver which rusts and laying up treasure following Sirach 29:10-11.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds alludes to Sirach 16:12 (and other verses about partiality) - God judges man according to his deeds.
**Baruch**
Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37. (Baruch even goes so far as to qualify he is coming to **the Word**, who we know from the NT is Christ).
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven fulfills the prophecy revealed in Baruch 3:29.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God was first described to Baruch 4:7.
### Judith
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched is very similar to Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women parallels Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.
There is actually quite a few clear references to the Deuterocanon in the NT (including by Jesus Himself). This channel has many videos demonstrating that, if you are open-minded enough to watch them.
How could you possibly know what those Scripture passages mean better than the historical successors of the Apostles who also left us their writings???
1 Timothy 2:5. Jesus ascended to heaven. The apostles mediated His grace and forgiveness. "One" is not meant so absolutely.
Luke 1:46-47 Catholicism does not deny that Jesus saved Mary.
Romans 3:10 This is quoting the OT. It is not meant so absolutely.
1 Corinthians 10:4 Why do you disrespectfully pit Scripture against itself rather than reconcile passages harmoniously? Are you not aware that Jesus gave Peter the name Rock (which is what Peter means!)?
Mark 7:7 How do we distinguish doctrines of men vs God? How about the apostles teaching? How about the writings of those disciples and approved by the Apostles?
2 Timothy 2:15 Paul isn't talking to you or saying anything about your ability/authority to rightly interpret Scripture. He is talking to Timothy, the leader of the Church at Ephesus, a "man of God."
Men have no right to decide what God has to say. If God wished it in His Holy Bible He would have put them there. Yet I must conclude they are not. Since the Holy Bible has been in circulation for thousands of years and we can see that it has not been changed at all it should go without saying that the Bible is yet still unchanged and that various minority versions that include or exclude books are a extreme minority because His power and word is supreme above all. If you think man can affect Gods holy word then you are sorely mistaken.
You clearly don’t know how the canon of Scripture came about.
The Catholic Church discerned that list of books in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. 360 years after Jesus went back to heaven.
So these were my thoughts when I learned this as a Protestant.
How did the Faith spread through the entire known world without a Bible? Bible Alone can’t be true because the Bible doesn’t tell us which books belong in it.
The same Church that decided the New Testament that Protestants agree on also decided the 46 books of the Old Testament.
If the Church was infallible in deciding the New Testament why wasn’t it infallible in discerning the Old Testament?
Yes God inspired the books of Scripture but He used His Catholic Church to share those books with the world.
There is absolutely no way the Church would be correct on the New Testament but wrong on the Old Testament.
So when are you obeying Jesus and entering the Catholic Church?
You appeal to history for mere milliseconds by saying that if God wanted the deuterocanon in his Bibles he would've put it there. This is the same as a Catholic saying "If he wanted Protestant theology during the conception of the church and the 1400 years following, he would've made it so." And yet you wouldn't hesitate to throw out history at such an objection. I'm sure you haven't familiarized yourself with the doctrines of people closest to Jesus' culture or you wouldn't be writing this comment. Furthermore, you argue that a majority of history has had the same Bible. I agree. But the 'same' Bible is the Bible that contains the 7 books that were removed in the Puritan era. So my question to you is: You believe history backs up your perspective on biblical canon. Can you cite any major strand of Christianity or theological sect that decided to remove Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and Wisdom? I'd love to know since I'm still making my mind up on Catholic theology and this would be your golden opportunity to set me back on the curvy and wide Protestant path by enlightening me with knowledge I have not heard before.
Small tidbit. You make it seem like it's an impossibility to remove books from the Bible that God intends to be there. Have you ever interacted with a Bible? Is the book binding completely indestructible? Are the pages atomically tensile? Try ripping James 2 (Martin Luther's first choice) out of your Bible and offering it to your fellow friend so you can safely say "saved by faith alone". You might be surprised that Jesus will not metastocize and stop you from circulating an incomplete text. Beware, because you may be accursed if you do so, but this is not an impossibility.
@@mrjeffjob what the heck are you even on about?
The Catholic Church worship men, they pray to humans and believe that a fallible man is able to be their intercession between them and God. Jesus is the only intercession been us and God. Catholic Church worship images and pray to Mary.
I don’t even understand why you would follow such an organization at all?
These were things that the Jewish community did to which Jesus came and denounced. The Jewish priesthood would legalize the words of God while Jesus focused on the actual heart.
@@judicator9837 your logic fails at its inception. Just because you can rip a page out of one book doesn’t mean there aren’t other bibles out there or other sources.
There are many historical texts that used to be kept by the Jews before the second destruction of the temple that are no longer available or recorded because all record was lost. Does that mean that Gods words were in fact lost to time? No that would be absurd to think.
You forget that despite all the extra books being in the Bible there was still all the books that are currently in the Bible. There was no extra books added to it by the Protestants.
Furthermore there was thousands of years prior to Jesus that people lived. Are you to say not one of these people could be saved because they lacked your version of the Bible?
You seem also to forget that scripture itself attests against your views as the knowledge of God is written as truth in all of us and all of creation attests to God so that all men are without excuse, thus you don’t even need a Bible at all to be condemned or saved.
But in all this I’ll simple point out your hearts. Is seems clear to me that you and others who watch this channel believe so fully in their own correctness that they lack the humility to consider their own blindness. Instead you are off the belief that you can only be saved if a man obeys you and your views instead of Gods. Such hubris i will never capitulate to as it’s a warning sign.
See I’ve seen preachers, worshippers, devoted followers all who are Protestant and believe with all their hearts who all follow the Bible that is Preached around the world.
This same Bible compels men to go out and proclaim Jesus to even their own end all for His glory.
This is something i see not within the Catholic Church. There is only strict adherence to insane rituals and levitical style laws and tenants. These same actions are what Jesus and His disciples taught against. You forget it’s not by the law you are saved but by grace alone. The Jewish law was only established to prove we all fall short of Gods perfection. For us to then be claimed as sons of God and no longer be under such law yet reinvent them is insane.
By far my biggest issue with Catholic teachings is their adherence to such things as religious days, sabbath, and their worship of idols.
I’m sorry but a rosary is a idol.
A stained glass window with images and images of people are idols.
God is the unseen God . We don’t worship idols or have to make vain repetitive prayers to gain Gods grace. It’s Grace through faith.
Finally Matthew 7:3-5
@@mrjeffjobbetter to be a born again Christian.
1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
1 Samuel 2:2 “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Mark 7:7. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Sorry dude, i can’t get past your mispronunciation of patreon, I could be wrong but it alerts me that you probably don’t know what patronage is; therefore I can’t accept you as knowledgeable re: Biblical content or history!
His pronunciation of Patreon is a common one. That’s a very shallow reason to dismiss someone’s knowledge and evidence. If it were applied to people you agree with (perhaps Protestant figures) would you do the same?
I can't accept even how British people speak - they speak as though they have a stick in their mouth! For real though, whether you agree with pronunciations is irrelevant.... the problem is that he has absolutely zero scriptural reference to his beliefs. All he's saying is "this was rejected for such and such reasons" but nowhere does he point to the current 66 books as elevating any importance to now non-canonical books are crucial to SALVATION. The whole purpose of the Bible is to be in place for God to speak to us and share the Good News. Nothing about deutero nor apocrypha is Good News / Gospel. Also, I see many people attempting to credit Paul to writing some or all of Second Macabees when we all know Paul had nothing to do with that.
macc*