@@malleusdei1520 it was mainly quoted because that was the version of the Hebrew Bible that was most common at the time because apart from the Levites and some really old guys no one spoke Hebrew anymore. While Jesus and the apostles did speak Hebrew, they wanted to write the Scriptures in a language that people can understand
I noticed that too, the topic seems to be shied away out, calling the Catholic Council out among "other communities" or "different communities." I'm not the hugest fan of that approach either, but it is what it is
Because they didn’t. Not everyone agrees with the Council of Rome 382 canon. Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxies have different Old Testaments today. The New Testament 27 books were considered canon to some church fathers as early as 250 AD with Origen.
Inaccurate. Not one mention of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Masoretic, or anything specific. Just broad generalizing, with some major bias. Disappointing.
In 367 AD, bishop Athanasius of Alexandria sent an Easter letter specifying the date of Easter that year and also listing the 27 books of the New Testament. By that time there was widespread agreement on the 27 books of the New Testament being inspired and accurate. So, yes, it was peaceful as there is no record of opposition. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter
Could you please show proof that it was otherwise? In the case of Quran , there was burning of non- standard texts and the Hadiths record a few instances of violent enforcement of the standardised text.
@@IsraeliteDefense It is noteworthy that when Athanasius published the list of the 27 books in the New Testament, there is no record of any Christian disagreeing. In other words, the books recognized as authoritative and apostolic was settled before that time.
This is a great video, but the content is shared too quickly. It needs to be done at a slower pace and the background music should be minimized or deleted so that the viewer can concentrate on what is being taught.
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
I agree that the music is a tad louder than it should be.... I have an issue with that one the radio as well, I can't hear speakers well because of the 'background' music.... and I'm not an older person, it's just that the music volume is too loud....
@@asintonic No, my friend, not exactly. The Jews' Tenak is equivalent to the Christian Old Testament as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. And have you read the New Testament regarding salvation? No religion or good deed can save you...nothing but the blood of Jesus Christ. Read Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 14:6, JOhn 3:16 and Acts 4:12. I was raised Catholic. And while I recognize the Catholic church as a Christian church, it indeed embraces some heretical doctrine. When I began to learn about the Bible, I likewise began to realize this unfortunate fact and it was then that I left the Catholic church and became a non-denominational, born again Christian. Do some digging...if it is the truth you truly desire, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Take good care...God bless you!
Not at all. Historic facts: The bible was written (Selected, transcribed & cannoned) in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, under Pope Damasus I, and Pope Innocent in the Catholic Church. The #1 criteria used to authenticate cannon was it's use in the Liturgy of the Mass. The 2nd criteria was it's universal (Catholic) usage. The 3rd was it's apostolic link. This is why so many books (The Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians, etc) were excluded. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint old testament, not the Hebrew. 300 of 350 referenced in the Gospel refer to the Septuagint.
Not bad. The Greek Orthodox do not consider the canon to be closed...although they have not added anything to it in a very, very long time. I'm just saying. Also, I was a little surprised that you did not mention the fact that the extra books accepted by the Catholics and Greek Orthodox appear in Greek translations of the Old Testament but not in Hebrew versions. I figured that that's what you meant by "timing" but I wasn't sure exactly what you meant.
The Dead Sea scrolls have Hebrew versions of the Septuagint's Deuterocanonical books, The Tanakh appears to have been established as a reaction against the Christian Gospel - to remove Scripture supporting the Christian Messiah
@@davidblyth5495 That's not exactly conclusive. There are many scholarly sources that suggest Tanakh canon closed as far back as 300 BC if this is the case, it creates a problem for the books of the Apocrypha among others since they were circulating around 150 BC.
@@jordanpease3329over 60% of the Scriptural quotations by Jesus and the apostles come from the Deuterocanonical books. What do you consider to be "apocryphal" books"? You do know that "apocryphal" means "hidden"! The Deuterocanonical books certainly weren't hidden but part of the Septuagint. I doubt the veracity of your " many scholarly sources" as they are probably contrived to lend credibility to the Tanakh as an earlier Jewish canon.
@@davidblyth5495 60% is a pretty specific number without any context so I'm inclined to be fairly skeptical. Either way, your arguments here are either dismissive or distractions. You're not actually addressing my point which makes this a red herring. Let me reiterate my point. When the canon closed is ultimately not conclusive and therefore your initial point cannot be made with certainty. My argument is an even that your point of view is incorrect. My argument is that you are stating it like the case is closed and that is categorically false.
@@jordanpease3329please read before commenting: 1. Your claim "60% is a pretty specific number" -in response to my post which referred to "over 60%" - not specific. You may do your own research. 2. There have been many canons of Hebrew Scriptures eg Sadducees limited theirs to the Torah. The Septuagint is simply one of them. In AD 90 the post 2nd Temple rabbis settled on a canon which we refer to as the Tanakh.
a misguided conclusion to make of how the Almighty works, who has no need of man made religion hence the reason and warning of apostate religion like the pharisees who wins over a proselyte resulting as a person twice as much a son of hell, and the following warning given in Revelation 22:18 for those that add and take away and so your summary of history of the cannon bibles is just that spiritual warfare the battle and survival of the authenticity of the word written and preserved by true and authentic elect of the Most High which is detrimental to the next generation to read the word in purest form
@@thejusticeavengers1 I wanted to be able to respond to my family members and friends who are Catholic, and I began to read the Catechism in order to find out what the Church taught (not just what others say the Catholic Church teaches). That led to other resources, and as I learned more about the Catholic faith I found more and more evidence in the Bible for the truth of Catholicism. I began to speak at length with a cousin of mine who was in Anglican seminary at the time, and he lent me a resource from a Protestant publisher that had quotes from early Church sources on different issues, and I saw Catholic faith in the Church just after the time of the Apostles. Then I began attending RCIA (catechism classes) at a local Catholic parish, still just trying to learn more, and I asked the priests at the parish a lot of questions. I read Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn and The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis de Montfort, and began praying the Rosary. That was a major turning point, and I have often said since that if I had only the graces that came into my life from praying the Rosary, that would be enough to make me a Catholic many times over. I never felt that I abandoned my Protestant faith. Everything I ever believed as a Protestant Christian was clarified and deepened by the Catholic faith. All that changed in that respect is that I stopped disbelieving many things that I had thought were at odds with what I did believe. God bless you, my friend.
@@dfhyland “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so" (St Augustine) Legitimate authority folks is "key"';) Thanks for the vid!
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
Breno Santana Because he is an Early Church father. He lived on the land Jesus and his apostles walked. He was an apostle of the apostles. He is therefore an apostolic man. On the other hand, Protestants are removed several centuries from the Early Church. They should never claim Apostolic Succession. They are just heretics.
The Jewish church after Jesus had abdicated their authority. Septuagint the best collection--not the one shared w the Jews of today! Another reason the Catholic bible is superior.
"Communities who used these books"- well, those communities were the organized Church and councils decided what books were in the 'Canon'. Why leave out that this was the organized Church. Reforming against Rome is a choice. White washing all of Christian history before Luther is a tragedy. There was and is an organized Church. Actually, you submit to that Churches authority when you accept the Canon that they chose.
In the Roman Council, under the authority of Pope Damaso (366 - 384 AD), the first list of the Universal (Catholic) Church appears.It was the Bible that came out of the Church and not the Church of the Bible, so there is really no separation between" "Bible" "and" Tradition." The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church Bible was formed of 46 (OT) and 27 9nt0 = 73 books The first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church, the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, England The first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church - printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press: Johannes (John) Gutenberg.
I would have liked to have seen more references to the work of St. Irenaeus and how he had to contend against the Gnostic Gospels, pseudo-Scripture that was mass produced and threatened to inundate the legitimate Books of the New Testament.
Gravity Falls Canada The deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint, and there is nothing contradictory in them to the rest of Scripture. It's the Scriptures that were around at the time of Jesus. Sirach in particular is a beautiful book and has always been used extensively in Church teaching. I'm a former Lutheran, and I get the arguments for "sola scriptura" but it doesn't make sense outside Sacred Tradition....after all, there has to be some tradition involved since the Bible itself doesn't include a Table of Contents, right? I'd recommend reading the Church Fathers and not relying on Jewish tradition for the Old Testament.... they didn't accept Christ in the same councils they closed their Canon.
Gravity Falls Canada Let's not also forget that Martin Luther wanted to get rid of several books of the New Testament (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) because he knew they contradicted his teachings on "sola fide". When you get rid of Sacred Tradition, all is up for discussion...that's why there are 30,000+ protestant denominations worldwide, all claiming the appropriate interpretation of the Bible while there is ONE Catholic church, with various ways of expressing tradition but ONE TRADITION.
Gravity Falls Canada The canon for Christians is closed and it includes the Deuterocanonicals. Even within Protestant traditions early on, there was still regard for these books as being useful for teaching. Calling the Deuterocanonicals "satanic" and assuming Catholics worship the Pope sounds like you don't know all that much about Catholicism. Catholic.com has great answers to questions of the Church, regardless of your starting point! God bless-
Dr. Bret Powell Such foolishness! The Pope controls the time you send in made up purgatory, he acks as a replacement to Jesus Christ on earth. You are right, to call Chatolics satanic is not enought... You sons of Satan! How blasfimic to say that Jesus' sacrifice was not enought for our sins!?
Gravity Falls Canada Name calling doesn't really help with church unity, which Christ prayed for three times in John 17. Jesus is Lord and the Head of the Catholic Church, while the Pope is the 2nd in command guy (Look up what the keys to the kingdom really signifies in Matthew 16; it's not just metaphor!) We do believe that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was sufficient for salvation; that's why we connect ourselves to that event every day at Mass. I understand purgatory is a difficult thing to grasp, but it is logical. Since we don't leave here perfect and will need be perfected to be in Heaven in the presence of God, that implies a process of purification after death and prior to seeing God. Catholic.com has great resources about this. I'm not trying to make you angry, just pointing out there is a counterargument. We should all be praying for Christian unity!
@@GS-cj7rf you people focus on martin Luther too much, as if the principal doesn't matter. if the Jews don't have those books from the old testament, then its not canon. Simple logic, stop letting the catholic schools indoctrinate you
The video is not telling us who and when the bible we have today put together as a bible and who said or authority said this is the word of God,in my own understanding about all this the Jews were concerned about preserving Jewish idendity after destroyed the Jewish temple in 70ad and most Jews were convinced of christianty in seeing the fullfillment of the promises written in the septuagient in Jesus Christ and the Jews started new translation of Jewish scriptures and the septuagient was rejected by Jews,the new Jewish tranlation removed 7 books of old testament,but the christian kept all books of septuagient and also began to decide upon the new testament,in 397ad the christian council of carthage declared with proper approval,the canon of christian bible untill 1527ad when martin luther removed 7books of old testament of christian bible in german and protestant was born with new version of their bible but there were no protestant existed when the bible first put together their founder was the catholic preist martin luther who protested to the teaching and authority of the church
Asaph Vapor wrong. The Catholic and Orthodox bibles rely on the Septuagint, the oldest Old Testament cannon compiled during second temple judaism. In the year 80, Pharisees compiled a more official cannon that rejected some of books found in the original septuagint and the whole New Testament. The early church, the apostles (who quote from the Apocrypha), accepted the septuagint. This was the cannon until Luther reorganized it. He did not remove the apocrypha, but put in the end because he did not consider it dogmatic or important for the theology. He also thought to remove James and Revelations and put them in the Apocrypha, but he didn’t do it at the end. Later, the British completely removed the Apocrypha, thus giving birth the modern Protestant Cannon.
A Person Orthodox use the same cannon than Catholic but with an additional four or five books. Some of these books, however, are recognized differently, so it’s the same knowledge but with a different organization. In other words. They are the same books but reorganized differently. Others are completely knew to the cannon but are part of it since the Early Church and since the times of the second temple.
@Asaph Vapor What about Revelation 22:19? It is clearly stated that we should not removed part of the Bible, if we do we will not be in the book of life and the Holy city, I think this is a serious warning. We need the entire body of Scripture to believe right and to behave right. So what Bible is correct? Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox?
Canon was formed by the early Christian church, this was done through councils. Jewish canon is incorrect as they didn’t want to include books in Greek with Tobit now having evidence of being in Hebrew originally
The Catholic Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St. Damasus" and reads as follows: "It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing; however, is listed separately in later editions). Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Note, Italicized and bold books are the ones Martin Luther pulled out of the Old Testament). St. Jerome was chosen to perform the translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was (and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the 7 books later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe. Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7 Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation). The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead, Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and reconciliation.
@Asaph Vapor No all scripture was acknowledge, and categorized by the Catholic Church. All the writters of the new testament we're also Catholics. Only one church back then.
Why is there a star of david on the christian crosses? Also you could have used more unique symbols for the different denominations of christianity. Very hard to follow.
SmallGirl_VS_BigMountains, The split from Judaism was complete by the middle of the 2nd century. It happened quite quickly. The destruction of the Temple in 70AD facilitated the transformation of Judaism into the Talmudic, Rabbinic religion it is today. Alongside the rapid rise in Gentile Christian converts, the loss of the Temple also divorced the Christian movement from the religion of the Rabbis.
@@sfappetrupavelandrei Which would be--what? They claim the Torah was only for the Jews. There goes the first five books--right out. The Christians threw away the Sabbath, the feast days. They contradict Peter's own words and claim that toxic waste storage units (unclean animals) are food now, and then pray to their Christ for healing when their health is in the toilet--just amazing.
Surah al-Baqarah 79. So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, and then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a little price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn I don't know how they have convinced billions of people that they still have scriptures from Moses who he lived 1300 years BCE a small search and you will easily find out all of their lies
If most of the communities agreed to a set number of books and then proceeded to say no more adding or subtracting books, then why does the Latin Vulgate have more?
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Duke Temz Watch the time line progression again. Although he did not say it he at least got it right in the time line. First and only to have a formal council to declare cannon was the Catholic Church (late 4th century), and there was no idea of a book called the Bible before this. He then shows alterations at about 1000ad by the orthodox. And then in the 16th century protestants began distorting scripture. Not taking a swipe at protestants just giving historical context that this guy left out. Watch the video again with this in mind, he shows it but doesn’t say it. Not to fourth coming in his part.
Nice video clips and a BIT informative "coz it didn't say who wrote and compiled and called it Bible or Holy Bible. The number of books contained had long been in contentions because of, either ignorance or simply hard-headedness. Jews had no Canon of their Scriptures (TANAKH) up until 95AD. At about 200 BC in Alexandria, the Hebrew Scriptures were transalted into Greek Koine and was called Septuagint. The Septuagint contains 46 Books and this was the one used in Jesus time, and it was the one used by the Catholics when they compiled it with the 27 New Testament Books that summed up to 73 Books and called it The Holy Bible. When Martin Luther translated it to German he contemplated in excluding many Books both from the OT and NT, but changed his mind and excluded only some from the OT and it was 39 Books, thus it all contains 66 Books. And this was the pattern used by the King James Version of 1611. So please stop saying someone added and/or someone excluded some Books. Better check it out in Wikipedia or any Encyclopaedia, look for History of the Bible. Mudslinging will not solve the problem.
How it was formed: both late era Romans and remnants of the fallen Roman Empire that were opposed to the Isreali beliefs got their hands on the original texts after Isreali disintegrated as a nation and with hostility hid several books (scrolls). Seeing a large portion of Roman citizens who had over a couple centuries become fascinated with Isreali beliefs the ruling bodies and Roman pagan priests decided to both cater to the crowd by fueling their beliefs but also steering them away from their full access to the books to help limit them as well as throw in Roman concepts as edit material and add-ons. The eventual progression of this practice is what the very basis of Roman Catholicism was to become, for at the beginning of it's existence it centered around Roman deities/idols being renamed to biblical historic person's names and keeping the number of books that make a complete set stashed. To this day this is how it is, and every re-edit from Catholicism and the Christian sects merely alter and refashion the limited and heavily edited few books that Roman priests authorized for utilization, but not the originators - the Israeli people and their diety. Whereas people have opted to hold high the western editors such as Tindale, James and his scribes, and many more, it is more prevalent to instead prefer original languages and non-altered texts from the original peoples. The books forcibly removed by those foreigners were called in their foreign language lies. In that language apocrypha means lies. But that is how power and control works: slander that which you dislike or conflicts with your beliefs and Catholicism and all forms of Christianity historically has done that among denial and other things. The Scriptures, on the other hand were formed by prophets, Kings, and appointed scribes, witnesses, and even the Isreali deity. These are what the Bible was built upon, to which credit is due and to which man should return unto. This is immutable fact and the truth of reality.
"If anyone causes one of these little ones (the innocent) - those who believe in me - to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large milestone hung around their neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" ~Jesus (Matthew 18:6-7) Theirs is the greater sin if they have twisted the truth...their eternal condemnation awaits.
@@arthurlandissavingu6886 when you take a verse out of context contradicts what the word says about to be as a barean to search the scriptures daily if what we hear is true little ones is the children that i understand is regarding parents who knowingly or unknowingly cause their children to sin, and sin by definition of the word of truth is an act of transgression of the law of the Almighty
umsf mercenary the original people apparently appears to be bantu as ive read certain sources recent that seem to credible, as some of the word even spoken by the messiah is bantu in origin
So, long story short: We all agree on the New testament We disagree on the old testament. Why? Because diffrent comunities of jewish religion existed before the Second Temple Destruction. That particular moment set te begining of rabinical judaism which was one comunity that happened to dont admit the apocrypha books, but the other comunities like the ones that inspired the Christianity did hold on them. And because Christianity is partialy part of one of these comunities (probably the essenes comunity) then it makes sense that early Church admited the apocrypha
I will never understand why apologetics don't use this as an argument for ongoing revelation and refusal of bible inerrancy. more and more I am finding the biggest theologica problems stem from lack of dealing with tenporal biases and lack of dealing with the problem of evil.
I am sure this is interesting but the music is overpowering! The content is serious but the "music" is similar to that heard on childrens TV. Music is mathematical in nature. You are trying to get people to do English comprehension and maths at the same time. No doubt having this banal noise while you are trying to think is an American idea.
Yeah. The Council of Nicaea first established the Bibliography of the *Bible* , during the 4th century AD. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Though all books of the New Testament were written down in the 1st century AD. Particularly between the Crucifixion in 33-35AD, and around 95AD for the last parts... particularly the book of Revelation. Most were finished by the Destruction of the Temple in 70AD though.
@Mavors Between the Crucifixion and 95AD... when the last book was finished. They started writing stuff down within years of the Crucifixion, & were spreading the message almost from the day of the Ascension/Resurrection. ( _Historians have found evidence for some passages in the New Testament being in letters between Church leaders and members, from within 2-3yrs of the Crucifixion._ ) And the Council of Nicaea, brought the texts together in One Bibliography Book. Whilst defining what was definitely not canon, like the 2nd century texts that were written by charlatans.
@Mavors Read my comments, the Council of Nicaea didn't write any biblical texts... But it collected the biblical texts into a Single Bibliography book. Meaning that beforehand, you would have Scroll's/books with maybe a single book of the New or Old Testament's, up to maybe 2-5 books of the Word. The reason why the Bible is called the "Bible", is because the Council of Nicaea was able to make a Bibliography of the Word. In addition to confirming & clarifying various issues that had arisen in the past 4 centuries in Christianity. Like clarification of what the Trinity meant. ... And 50AD, would be when Paul started Finishing his texts. And possibly write his Letters. But that doesn't also mean that he Started the writing, during the same time period. Like I pointed out, parts of the New Testament were around before 40AD. Maybe written down, maybe just being preached or shared amongst other Christians... My point was that Peter and the other disciples, were preaching within the same month, if not week, as Jesus Christ's Ascension... And much of said preaching message eventually ends up being written down in the New Testament texts.
@Mavors additionally... yes, the Council of Nicaea doesn't write anything in the New Testament. But it does affirm the Canonical identity of various disparate texts that were being presented as biblical texts. Things like the 2nd century AD texts like the Book of Judas/Mary/Enoch... Or non-biblical Jewish texts, which the bible quoted or referenced as common texts that contemporary Jews would have been aware of. ( _Like if I were to talk about Dan Brown and his The Da'Vinci Code. We would both know generally what I was talking about, and know that it's not considered biblically accurate._ )
@Mavors disagreement with that assessment. Sorry. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Maybe we're just arguing over whether one Council actually publishes a book, versus the earlier Council defining what would be considered Canonical?? I Freely accept that I'm not an historical expert on this historical subject. So such nuances could easily be lost.
@Mavors fair enough. I was literally just telling someone else that I'm by no means a Historical Expert on this Historical subject. So...🤦♂️🙇♂️🤷♂️Sorry. _"In the short-term, however, the Council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time"_
Historic facts: The bible was written (Selected, transcribed & cannoned) in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, under Pope Damasus I, and Pope Innocent in the Catholic Church. The #1 criteria used to authenticate cannon was it's use in the Liturgy of the Mass. The 2nd criteria was it's universal (Catholic) usage. The 3rd was it's apostolic link. This is why so many books (The Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians, etc) were excluded. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint old testament, not the Hebrew. 300 of 350 referenced in the Gospel refer to the Septuagint.
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
I use the new testament to determine old testament. I read what the what new testament quotes. So if the nt quotes a book that's not in OT . I read book ie. Jude quotes Enoch
@@ljss6805 by St. Jerome Catholic priest, scholar, linguist, and theologian who translated the scriptures into we call now the Latin Vulgate under the authority of Pope St. Damasus.
@@jimmoriarty6964 Yeah, so... who put the Bible together that Jerome translated? Well, not Jerome. That would have been the Greek Christians predominantly. The Latin Catholics had nothing to do with it, other than a few of them ratifying the canon after the fact and de facto using it. So, we should say: the Orthodox Church wrote a lot of it and compiled it: you're welcome.
That is a very constructive description of the process by which the books of the "Bible" (quotes referring to its differing contents at various times in history) were selected (not to mention the other "sacred" writings of Christianity's chaotic first centuries). I find it to be more honest and historical than I would have expected of the Museum of the Bible. Specifically? In how it reveals that the Bible was a creation of human decisions made over a period of centuries, and that Christianity was in its first century essentially one of several offshoots of Judaism. Those ideas are very muted in churches today. Now I would like to visit the Museum of the Bible and see if this kind of objectivity is central to your work. I admit to a bias - I had imagined that the Museum of the Bible would just be another evangelical Bible promotion project like the "Ark Encounter." Remains to be seen... looking forward to seeing your museum!
@@aceraphael Where in the book does it say no more stories? Are you saying you're talking to a spirit about not writing any more? Both Matthew ["this generation"] & Revelations ["soon"] predicted the end was near. How many hundreds of years ago was that?!?! LOL
@@IsraeliteDefense This "generation" is not over a hundred years & "soon" isn't two thousand years. Stop attempting to justify the unjustifiable. You're just embarrassing yourself.
@@psk5896 just google dude. Here’s a question for you. If that book is the word of god, why are there so many different versions? And how can there be so many opposing interpretations? C’mon it’s 2020. It’s infantile to believe “everything in the bible” is true.
@@scottwees8967 The reason why they were different versions of the Bible is because A)we are finding older and more reliable manuscripts and B) because the English language changes over time. The different versions of the Bible do not change any of the meanings of the verses or scripture. The differences in biblical can I come down to the different manuscripts the translators use. For instance Catholic and orthodox translators use the Septuagint which was an ancient Greek version of the Old Testament which was used by the apostles due to its commonality at the time. Protestant translators prefer to use what is known as the Masoretic text, which is the original Hebrew language using manuscript that date all the way back to 230 BC. The greek manuscripts include something known as the apocrypha, the Hebrew does not.
I love the fact that there is no disagreement with the NT across major denominations As for the difference in the OT. I liked the way it was discussed. It reminds me what standards were taken for script to be considered cannon. I know the standards can be different depending on denomination
The NT was brought to you by the same persons who said the Sabbath had been changed--coincidently to the Roman worship day of the Sun. The same persons who said that none of that "OT" stuff applied to believers of the day. The same persons who decided that toxic waste storage units (unclean animals--which by the way were known even in Noah's day) were actually now food, as if their guy had just waved a magic wand 10 YEARS after the resurrection. This video glosses over a lot of things that should make you afraid or at the very least curious to study it out more.
This is both over complicated and over simplified. The disputed books are later books, often never existing in Hebrew, and weren't widely used, and believed to be written after God stopped sending prophets to his people. They were part of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Hebrew texts) and entered Christianity through that. The Christians were aware of their status, and the books were not held up as the canon but as deuterocanonical. The Protestants later recast them as the apocrypha, where the fell out of use for the most part as a primary source of theology.
I understood everything up until the end where he included the word GOD. B/c I did not see any God in any of what was going on. No more than a librarian organizes books that suit their politics
Isn’t America supposed to be a secular country that believes in religious freedom, so why would a religious text be the most important in the country like that? It sounds like you don’t understand your own constitution
@@Maxinestabile Just because some people aren't religious, that means those of us who are can't consider religious text to be the most important? What should be, then? Secular books? What YOU want it to be?
The whole religion came from a Polytheistic tradition in ancient Mesopotamia (where Asherah and Ba'al were also from). Asherah was the wife of Enlil, as you move closer to Babylon the Name Enlil becomes Elil, and then El. Also called (in this ancient religion) El Elyon and El Shaddai. If I remember correctly, Enlil was one of the Gods made by Primordial Tiamat (chaos) and Apsu in the Enuma Elish. Either way, Enlil is one of the gates to Ancient Babylon and one of their temples. There are many things we do know about this deity. For example, that he became the Jewish God worshiped by Abraham who also came from that exact same area of the world where the religion was from. As said to Moses "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by the name of El Shaddai but by my Name YHWH Was I not known".
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or the Hebrew Tanakh Bible or Dead sea scrolls... There is however only one Hebrew Tanakh Bible.Verify
In these video's there are always such strong convictions from all sides as to who is right, I believe this shows we all have a yearning for the truth and are serious about our faith and beliefs. These are what personally leads me to have such a strong faith founded in a personal relationship with God as I'm sure many of you share as well. In truth I believe there is a very important fact that can be stated that will hopefully prompt all of us to ask some deeper questions about this exact debate. My suggestion is to read John 10:22 and ask yourself where the feast of dedication is mentioned in the Protestant OR Jewish canon of scripture. You'll find out its not there and was removed. When you do please put some thought into this. We know Jesus and his disciples as devout Jews where in Jerusalem for the feast of the dedication (John 10:22), and the only place in Old Testament scripture this feast is mentioned is in Maccabees in the Catholic canon of scripture. Study some more and you will also see that Christ is our fulfilment of this feast (called Hanukkah or the Festival of Lights) as Christ is the true light of the world (Joh 8:12). You could then ask another important question. Why has the true meaning of the light of the world and fullfillment of this Old Testament feast been hidden from the world by a change in scripture? This is one of many reasons I call myself a bible based Christian and Catholic.
If I remember rightly the RC Church made sure all bibles were in Latin? Those who wanted to give people a bible they could understand were persecuted and killed. Hard to see how RCs can just forget history. The Church was desperate that worshippers only hear Christs message the way they translated it for centuries.
Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on John, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски of course there are nice good Christian s... Sorry to offend anyone kind . The new testament and Qur'an curses Jews... That is a big issue today. Sorry
If you count the Old Testament books of the Catholic Bible at minute 0:52 (counting Esther and Additions to Esther as one, and the Twelve Minor Prophets as one, and all the one and two books as one), then you get 27, paralleling the number of New Testament books
Protestantism - include only books accepted by Judaism. Catholicism - include additional books from Septuagint (ancient Greek Bible), but only those that have been included in Septuagint before Christ. Orthodoxy - include all books from Septuagint, regardless of whether they've been included before or after Christ.
Fact: there are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls. There is only one hebrew orthodox Bible Tanakh all match word for word.
@Asaph Vapor significant modifications were made by church father Origen such as " virgin will bear a child" in future tense addition from " young woman is pregnant" in present tense in Original Tanakh. Nonsense that " the original doctrines remain unchanged"... One of hundreds of modifications. That's is my point. Ps: Dr Bart Ehrman exposes all the changes made to the New Testament.
@Asaph Vapor yooo hoo.. I am a Jew .. Who defend s Torah Tanakh against corruption. Are you going to come burn my house down now? Or burn me on a cross as a heretic as church did for centuries? Lol
@Asaph Vapor not in Hebrew not a young woman.. In context that is about King Hezekiah birth then in that day not a man god idol 700 years in future. Here's a good one 1 John 5:7-8 An admitted insertion into New Testament to endorse Trinity. Rejected by Erasmus and Martin Luther and Sir Issac Newton. The Catholics who inserted it removed it now but it still is in KJV? Explain. Also we do not use Strong's Hebrew to explain what our scriptures mean... He was a Wasp . Isaiah 9:5-7 also changed to future tense. Isaiah 53 modified to say " him" Origen was the first to arrange a " old testament" for Christian Bibles. Marcion was first to compile a " New Testament" cannon. So where do Protestants get their sources? Koine Greek? Hebrew? Wycliffe and Luther attempted to use Hebrew but could not read such. Luther a rabid antisemetic man turned on us after rabbi refused to " translate" the way he sought. Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther... So we do not accept any Gentile opinionists translation s of our scriptures as you also reject Morons ideas and books. Peace out. Hebrew.
@Asaph Vapor In Salem Massachusetts Puritans burned alive heretics witches etc. They extermination of Naitive American people. They owned used Afrikan people as slave s . Not Catholics..
In the Roman Council, under the authority of Pope Damaso (366 - 384 AD), the first list of the Universal (Catholic) Church appears.It was the Bible that came out of the Church and not the Church of the Bible, so there is really no separation between "Bible" and "Tradition". The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church Bible was formed of 46 (OT) and 27 (NT) = 73 books The first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church, the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, England The first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church - printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press: Johannes (John) Gutenberg. ¡Por Hispanoamérica Unida y Cristiana. Viva Cristo Rey y la Virgen de Guadalupe!
>Maccabees >Apocryphal >Revelations >Not apocryphal And yeah, I'm sure Martin Luther knew better than the entire council of nicea and a thousand years of theologians and church leaders.
So confusing? So, if you asked 50 christains from different countries how many books are in the bible you would get different answers but if you asked 50 muslims from different countries how many surahs in the Quran despite differences you would get 1 answer 114 chapters. Seems to me that Men not verified by Jesus or God or even Paul decided according to their own understanding we are going to put these books in the bible and leave these ones out and what were the reasons we will never know its their own understanding and not God command that shocks me that modern day christains can accept this? There is evidence that the Quran was written down and verified during Mohammads lifetime.
According to the Quran, the Quran is unpreserved and was destroyed. Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did. S. 15:90-93 Shakir Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated: Those who break the Qur'an into parts. Pickthall who dismember the Qur'an. Palmer who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained: “Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)
Perhaps you should have mentioned that we don't have the original copy of any of the books in the Bible. Instead, we have thousands of manuscripts that differ from each other.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
There is no way masses of normal people just got together and agreed on what the word of God is. Like in anything else there had to be a bunch of rich powerful people that got together perhaps several times over and perhaps different people throughout history; to decide which books would be used to control people in the ancient and modern world. There wealth, status, and power would have depended on it
Do you also think the wealth, status, and power was dependent on those who “wrote” the words of the Bible? If not then the next logical, historical question is, if God can use fallible men to write His words, why can He also not use fallible men to compile His canon? All this is historical but if you have other reasonable and reliable “evidence”, please share. Peace!!!
@@srich7503 The amount of mental gymnastics one has to do to believe that Constantine and the council of Nicea decided on the the God hood of Jesus, a man they never met, who died 300+ years prior to them making this incredible determination and it just by coincidence happened to be a decision that served the emperor's & the elite roman interests is one of thousands of pieces of evidence that leads me to believe that it was not a man in the sky (God) using men on earth to determine what the "word of God" is. But rather it is men on earth claiming divine inspiration as they create a religion to rule over other men on Earth. Can you at least acknowledge that as a highly probable reality for many, if not, all religions? Some great modern examples: Scientology, Branch Davidians in Waco.
@@raulsanches3619 I would agree! That would take much mental gymnastics to think Constantine and the council of Nicaea decided on the canon. I certainty dont. The canon was not decided on for another 70 years after Nicaea. So, I will acknowledge/answer your question AFTER you have acknowledged/answered mine… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Well done video. Thank you for making and posting it. The Council of Rome essentially picked the books that the early Christians where reading and agreed where inspired by God. Then they prayed and sought God's will on which of those popular agreed upon books to include into the Canon that makes up our modern book of books aka the Bible.
@Mavors en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome Year 382 AD - Council of Rome... All Church leaders here are catholics... Protestantism is not yet in existence on this time...
The oldest complete bible in the sense of a codex is the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about AD 700. It has 72 books. The Book of Baruch was added about the ninth century to give the 73 books in use today. For example, it is the one in use at St Bede’s RC Church in Jarrow, which is where I made my First Holy Communion. The oldest complete Jewish codex is now called the Leningrad Codex and was produced in Cairo about CE 1008. There is a damaged Aleppo Codex which is a bit older.
@@kimsurey6087 Credit may go to King Oswald, an early convert to Christianity. Prince Oswald went into exile on the island of Iona near Mull in Scotland, learnt Gaelic, and then brought Saint Aidan (Aodhan?) back with him when he became King of Northumbria.
According to the Quran, the Quran is unpreserved Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did. S. 15:90-93 Shakir Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated: Those who break the Qur'an into parts. Pickthall who dismember the Qur'an. Palmer who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained: “Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)
Bible is more authentic than one man show Quran. Bible's writing covers the history of over 4000-5000 years. Most of the quran copied from jews and regurgitated over the period of 20-30 years. 😀
I’ll take “What is the Septuagint?” for 500, Alex.
A corrupt manuscript!
@@diegovalleperez3360 quoted by Christ and the Apostles and the early Church.*
@@malleusdei1520 it was mainly quoted because that was the version of the Hebrew Bible that was most common at the time because apart from the Levites and some really old guys no one spoke Hebrew anymore. While Jesus and the apostles did speak Hebrew, they wanted to write the Scriptures in a language that people can understand
Bible is the assist by the holy spirit
But many can't understand because this dericted by the holy spirit
The music is unnecessary.
¿Do you think music is sinful?
Why not just be honest and admit it was a Catholic Council that compiled the Bible at the council of Rome in 382 a.d.?
I noticed that too, the topic seems to be shied away out, calling the Catholic Council out among "other communities" or "different communities." I'm not the hugest fan of that approach either, but it is what it is
David Ortiz Without working?! So what do you call what the pastors and other church staff do? Resting?
Yup those pagan catholic Romans
Because they didn’t. Not everyone agrees with the Council of Rome 382 canon.
Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxies have different Old Testaments today. The New Testament 27 books were considered canon to some church fathers as early as 250 AD with Origen.
@@sweetxjc Who cares if they don't agree, then who are the people who decide on what the canon is? Who has that authority?
Inaccurate. Not one mention of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Masoretic, or anything specific. Just broad generalizing, with some major bias. Disappointing.
Sounds so peaceful, was it really. "They agreed" LOL.
In 367 AD, bishop Athanasius of Alexandria sent an Easter letter specifying the date of Easter that year and also listing the 27 books of the New Testament. By that time there was widespread agreement on the 27 books of the New Testament being inspired and accurate. So, yes, it was peaceful as there is no record of opposition. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter
Could you please show proof that it was otherwise? In the case of Quran , there was burning of non- standard texts and the Hadiths record a few instances of violent enforcement of the standardised text.
Around that time thr Septuagint was widely agreed upon also.
@@veritas399
What makes this bishop 100% correct? Who says everything that this bishop says is 100% authoritative?
@@IsraeliteDefense It is noteworthy that when Athanasius published the list of the 27 books in the New Testament, there is no record of any Christian disagreeing. In other words, the books recognized as authoritative and apostolic was settled before that time.
This is a great video, but the content is shared too quickly. It needs to be done at a slower pace and the background music should be minimized or deleted so that the viewer can concentrate on what is being taught.
I actually think that this video is perfect for the facebook generation of today.
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
I agree that the music is a tad louder than it should be.... I have an issue with that one the radio as well, I can't hear speakers well because of the 'background' music.... and I'm not an older person, it's just that the music volume is too loud....
@@asintonic No, my friend, not exactly. The Jews' Tenak is equivalent to the Christian Old Testament as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. And have you read the New Testament regarding salvation? No religion or good deed can save you...nothing but the blood of Jesus Christ. Read Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 14:6, JOhn 3:16 and Acts 4:12. I was raised Catholic. And while I recognize the Catholic church as a Christian church, it indeed embraces some heretical doctrine. When I began to learn about the Bible, I likewise began to realize this unfortunate fact and it was then that I left the Catholic church and became a non-denominational, born again Christian. Do some digging...if it is the truth you truly desire, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Take good care...God bless you!
The jingle makes four centuries go by in an instant.
So Protestants removed books from the original compilation of the the bible? Did I understand that correctly?
Kinda, Christians used extra books for 1500 years, but Martin Luther thought that Jews know better and removed extra books
This video is informative/educational, & presents an excellent overview explaining the selection of books, but the background music is a bit annoying.
Catholic Old Testament
Not at all. Historic facts: The bible was written (Selected, transcribed & cannoned) in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, under Pope Damasus I, and Pope Innocent in the Catholic Church. The #1 criteria used to authenticate cannon was it's use in the Liturgy of the Mass. The 2nd criteria was it's universal (Catholic) usage. The 3rd was it's apostolic link. This is why so many books (The Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians, etc) were excluded. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint old testament, not the Hebrew. 300 of 350 referenced in the Gospel refer to the Septuagint.
TERRIBLE MUSIC!! TAKES OVER AND HARDLY CAN UNDERSTAND YOU! YES US WHERE ENGLISH IS OUR 2ND LANGUAGE 😨
This doesn't answer any questions. Which communities did all this? Why did they do it? Who told them to do it this way?
Not bad.
The Greek Orthodox do not consider the canon to be closed...although they have not added anything to it in a very, very long time. I'm just saying.
Also, I was a little surprised that you did not mention the fact that the extra books accepted by the Catholics and Greek Orthodox appear in Greek translations of the Old Testament but not in Hebrew versions. I figured that that's what you meant by "timing" but I wasn't sure exactly what you meant.
The Dead Sea scrolls have Hebrew versions of the Septuagint's Deuterocanonical books,
The Tanakh appears to have been established as a reaction against the Christian Gospel - to remove Scripture supporting the Christian Messiah
@@davidblyth5495 That's not exactly conclusive. There are many scholarly sources that suggest Tanakh canon closed as far back as 300 BC if this is the case, it creates a problem for the books of the Apocrypha among others since they were circulating around 150 BC.
@@jordanpease3329over 60% of the Scriptural quotations by Jesus and the apostles come from the Deuterocanonical books.
What do you consider to be "apocryphal" books"?
You do know that "apocryphal" means "hidden"! The Deuterocanonical books certainly weren't hidden but part of the Septuagint.
I doubt the veracity of your " many scholarly sources" as they are probably contrived to lend credibility to the Tanakh as an earlier Jewish canon.
@@davidblyth5495 60% is a pretty specific number without any context so I'm inclined to be fairly skeptical. Either way, your arguments here are either dismissive or distractions. You're not actually addressing my point which makes this a red herring. Let me reiterate my point. When the canon closed is ultimately not conclusive and therefore your initial point cannot be made with certainty. My argument is an even that your point of view is incorrect. My argument is that you are stating it like the case is closed and that is categorically false.
@@jordanpease3329please read before commenting:
1. Your claim "60% is a pretty specific number" -in response to my post which referred to "over 60%" - not specific. You may do your own research.
2. There have been many canons of Hebrew Scriptures eg Sadducees limited theirs to the Torah. The Septuagint is simply one of them. In AD 90 the post 2nd Temple rabbis settled on a canon which we refer to as the Tanakh.
a misguided conclusion to make of how the Almighty works, who has no need of man made religion hence the reason and warning of apostate religion like the pharisees who wins over a proselyte resulting as a person twice as much a son of hell, and the following warning given in Revelation 22:18 for those that add and take away and so your summary of history of the cannon bibles is just that spiritual warfare the battle and survival of the authenticity of the word written and preserved by true and authentic elect of the Most High which is detrimental to the next generation to read the word in purest form
The music is wholly inappropriate and it ruins the video.
For me your comment is inappropriate.
why that freaking music at the background? rate 0 out of 10
I am a Catholic, formerly Presbyterian, and I want to thank you for this video. It is very balanced and clearly formatted. God bless you!
What led to the shift for you?
@@thejusticeavengers1 I wanted to be able to respond to my family members and friends who are Catholic, and I began to read the Catechism in order to find out what the Church taught (not just what others say the Catholic Church teaches). That led to other resources, and as I learned more about the Catholic faith I found more and more evidence in the Bible for the truth of Catholicism. I began to speak at length with a cousin of mine who was in Anglican seminary at the time, and he lent me a resource from a Protestant publisher that had quotes from early Church sources on different issues, and I saw Catholic faith in the Church just after the time of the Apostles. Then I began attending RCIA (catechism classes) at a local Catholic parish, still just trying to learn more, and I asked the priests at the parish a lot of questions. I read Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn and The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis de Montfort, and began praying the Rosary. That was a major turning point, and I have often said since that if I had only the graces that came into my life from praying the Rosary, that would be enough to make me a Catholic many times over.
I never felt that I abandoned my Protestant faith. Everything I ever believed as a Protestant Christian was clarified and deepened by the Catholic faith. All that changed in that respect is that I stopped disbelieving many things that I had thought were at odds with what I did believe.
God bless you, my friend.
@@dfhyland “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
@@dfhyland Thanks for sharing!
@@thecatechumen You're welcome! God bless you, my friend.
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so" (St Augustine)
Legitimate authority folks is "key"';)
Thanks for the vid!
Adque Why would you believe in him?
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
Breno Santana
Because he is an Early Church father. He lived on the land Jesus and his apostles walked. He was an apostle of the apostles. He is therefore an apostolic man.
On the other hand, Protestants are removed several centuries from the Early Church. They should never claim Apostolic Succession. They are just heretics.
Adque 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The Jewish church after Jesus had abdicated their authority. Septuagint the best collection--not the one shared w the Jews of today! Another reason the Catholic bible is superior.
"Communities who used these books"- well, those communities were the organized Church and councils decided what books were in the 'Canon'. Why leave out that this was the organized Church. Reforming against Rome is a choice. White washing all of Christian history before Luther is a tragedy. There was and is an organized Church. Actually, you submit to that Churches authority when you accept the Canon that they chose.
Why Rome over Eastern or Oriental Orthodox?
In the Roman
Council, under the authority of Pope Damaso (366 - 384 AD), the first list of
the Universal (Catholic) Church appears.It was the Bible that came out of the
Church and not the Church of the Bible, so there is really no separation
between" "Bible" "and" Tradition." The Bible is
part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church
Bible was formed
of 46 (OT) and 27 9nt0 = 73 books
The first Bible
with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church, the work
of Stephen Langton, Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, England
The first
printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church - printed
by the Catholic inventor of the printing press: Johannes (John) Gutenberg.
It just sounds like you’re a Catholic that wants to feel important
Kind of glosses over Hippo and WHO put it all together...
@Asaph Vapor So, you reject Jesus. Ironic.
@Asaph Vapor since you rejected the Authority of his Priesthood to teach, troll.
@Asaph Vapor So you have not read the Gospel on top of it, troll.
It figures after all it is Catholic.
ua-cam.com/video/QdF3uaOWim4/v-deo.html
You really have to be in denial of the Church Fathers and Christian History to think the Bible isn't Catholic.
Seems they have some sort of taboo against mentioning the fact that the Roman Catholic church made their canon. LOL !
I would have liked to have seen more references to the work of St. Irenaeus and how he had to contend against the Gnostic Gospels, pseudo-Scripture that was mass produced and threatened to inundate the legitimate Books of the New Testament.
I like how protestants are talked about like they were around when the Bible was complied and canonized.
Gravity Falls Canada The deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint, and there is nothing contradictory in them to the rest of Scripture. It's the Scriptures that were around at the time of Jesus. Sirach in particular is a beautiful book and has always been used extensively in Church teaching. I'm a former Lutheran, and I get the arguments for "sola scriptura" but it doesn't make sense outside Sacred Tradition....after all, there has to be some tradition involved since the Bible itself doesn't include a Table of Contents, right? I'd recommend reading the Church Fathers and not relying on Jewish tradition for the Old Testament.... they didn't accept Christ in the same councils they closed their Canon.
Gravity Falls Canada Let's not also forget that Martin Luther wanted to get rid of several books of the New Testament (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) because he knew they contradicted his teachings on "sola fide". When you get rid of Sacred Tradition, all is up for discussion...that's why there are 30,000+ protestant denominations worldwide, all claiming the appropriate interpretation of the Bible while there is ONE Catholic church, with various ways of expressing tradition but ONE TRADITION.
Gravity Falls Canada The canon for Christians is closed and it includes the Deuterocanonicals. Even within Protestant traditions early on, there was still regard for these books as being useful for teaching. Calling the Deuterocanonicals "satanic" and assuming Catholics worship the Pope sounds like you don't know all that much about Catholicism. Catholic.com has great answers to questions of the Church, regardless of your starting point! God bless-
Dr. Bret Powell
Such foolishness! The Pope controls the time you send in made up purgatory, he acks as a replacement to Jesus Christ on earth.
You are right, to call Chatolics satanic is not enought... You sons of Satan! How blasfimic to say that Jesus' sacrifice was not enought for our sins!?
Gravity Falls Canada Name calling doesn't really help with church unity, which Christ prayed for three times in John 17. Jesus is Lord and the Head of the Catholic Church, while the Pope is the 2nd in command guy (Look up what the keys to the kingdom really signifies in Matthew 16; it's not just metaphor!)
We do believe that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was sufficient for salvation; that's why we connect ourselves to that event every day at Mass. I understand purgatory is a difficult thing to grasp, but it is logical. Since we don't leave here perfect and will need be perfected to be in Heaven in the presence of God, that implies a process of purification after death and prior to seeing God. Catholic.com has great resources about this. I'm not trying to make you angry, just pointing out there is a counterargument. We should all be praying for Christian unity!
Jesus and the apostles used septuagint
@Asaph Vapor The LXX is Roman numerals for "70"--meaning the Septuagint.
I've often heard and read that Jesus and the Apostles did not mention or quote from the Apocryphal books of the Septuagint.
So Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have the non-canon books, got it
@@GS-cj7rf you people focus on martin Luther too much, as if the principal doesn't matter.
if the Jews don't have those books from the old testament, then its not canon.
Simple logic, stop letting the catholic schools indoctrinate you
The video is not telling us who and when the bible we have today put together as a bible and who said or authority said this is the word of God,in my own understanding about all this the Jews were concerned about preserving Jewish idendity after destroyed the Jewish temple in 70ad and most Jews were convinced of christianty in seeing the fullfillment of the promises written in the septuagient in Jesus Christ and the Jews started new translation of Jewish scriptures and the septuagient was rejected by Jews,the new Jewish tranlation removed 7 books of old testament,but the christian kept all books of septuagient and also began to decide upon the new testament,in 397ad the christian council of carthage declared with proper approval,the canon of christian bible untill 1527ad when martin luther removed 7books of old testament of christian bible in german and protestant was born with new version of their bible but there were no protestant existed when the bible first put together their founder was the catholic preist martin luther who protested to the teaching and authority of the church
200 years ago, not a single Bible in the whole world had just 66 books in it!
@Asaph Vapor facebook.com/elaineil.galanida/videos/2482615431812523/
Asaph Vapor did the Orthodox add books too?
Asaph Vapor wrong. The Catholic and Orthodox bibles rely on the Septuagint, the oldest Old Testament cannon compiled during second temple judaism. In the year 80, Pharisees compiled a more official cannon that rejected some of books found in the original septuagint and the whole New Testament. The early church, the apostles (who quote from the Apocrypha), accepted the septuagint.
This was the cannon until Luther reorganized it. He did not remove the apocrypha, but put in the end because he did not consider it dogmatic or important for the theology. He also thought to remove James and Revelations and put them in the Apocrypha, but he didn’t do it at the end.
Later, the British completely removed the Apocrypha, thus giving birth the modern Protestant Cannon.
A Person Orthodox use the same cannon than Catholic but with an additional four or five books. Some of these books, however, are recognized differently, so it’s the same knowledge but with a different organization. In other words. They are the same books but reorganized differently. Others are completely knew to the cannon but are part of it since the Early Church and since the times of the second temple.
@Asaph Vapor What about Revelation 22:19? It is clearly stated that we should not removed part of the Bible, if we do we will not be in the book of life and the Holy city, I think this is a serious warning. We need the entire body of Scripture to believe right and to behave right. So what Bible is correct? Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox?
Canon was formed by the early Christian church, this was done through councils. Jewish canon is incorrect as they didn’t want to include books in Greek with Tobit now having evidence of being in Hebrew originally
Clearly a work of fiction, edited over and over again by people who used the idea of a god to control.
@methodius--9405 You're confusing fantasy with reality.
The Catholic
Church at the “Council of Rome” in 382 A.D. finalized which books would be
included in the Holy Bible. This is known as "The Decree of Pope St.
Damasus" and reads as follows: "It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed,
we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church
accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis,
one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book;
Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one
book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty
Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes,
one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book;
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah,
one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations;
Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas,
one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book;
Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book;
Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias,
one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees,
two books. (Note, Baruch was considered part of Jeremias in this listing;
however, is listed separately in later editions). Likewise, the list of the
Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church
receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to
Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of
the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the
Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one
to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the
Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical
Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle
James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a
Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus
concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as
well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which,
by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it
ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad
through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the
holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar
decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic
voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall
have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed
on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Note, Italicized and bold books are
the ones Martin Luther pulled out of the Old Testament). St. Jerome was chosen to perform the
translation who finished his work in 404 A.D. The very first Bible was
published in 405 A.D. and is known as the "Latin Vulgate"; this was
(and still is) the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is interesting to note that the 7 books
later known as the "apocrypha" (and considered “not Biblical” by
protestants in KJV and other protestant Bibles) was (and has always been) part
of the Canons of the Bible. These canons were taken out by Martin Luther during
the Protestant reformation and not "put in" by the Catholic Church at
the Council of Trent as many Protestant denominations incorrectly believe.
Likewise, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther (in addition to the 7
Old Testament Books) also left out (for over a century) 4 books of the New
Testament. They are/were Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation).
The New Testament books were eventually put back in; however, the 7 Old
Testament Books remain deleted. An examination of the “left out” books (both
old and new) coincidentally are books which support/bolster the Roman Catholic
Doctrines/practices of Purgatory, Intercessory Prayer, Praying for the Dead,
Salvation by both Faith and Good Works, the Mass, the celibate priesthood and
reconciliation.
Still Bill thanks for such a helpful comment!! I try to defend the faith, but I still get tripped up on these facts.
You copy and paste everywhere. Haha!
@Asaph Vapor but the pope compiled it, and now in youre sect. Church you put it as the final authority. . ..😂😂😂
@Asaph Vapor
No all scripture was acknowledge, and categorized by the Catholic Church. All the writters of the new testament we're also Catholics. Only one church back then.
@Asaph Vapor
One spiritual church huh??
Let's just ignore history and scripture. If it makes you happy then why sure why not.
Thank you for this video! It amazes me how short, simple looking videos can convey important information so well.
Why is there a star of david on the christian crosses? Also you could have used more unique symbols for the different denominations of christianity. Very hard to follow.
The present of the star of David I think it represents the common Tradition we share with Judaism.
Christianity came from Judaism. Christianity was a Jewish sect until about 200-300ad. Jesus, His friends and family were Jewish.
SmallGirl_VS_BigMountains,
The split from Judaism was complete by the middle of the 2nd century. It happened quite quickly. The destruction of the Temple in 70AD facilitated the transformation of Judaism into the Talmudic, Rabbinic religion it is today. Alongside the rapid rise in Gentile Christian converts, the loss of the Temple also divorced the Christian movement from the religion of the Rabbis.
Its actually the Star of Rempham, an occult symbol.
@@sfappetrupavelandrei Which would be--what? They claim the Torah was only for the Jews. There goes the first five books--right out. The Christians threw away the Sabbath, the feast days. They contradict Peter's own words and claim that toxic waste storage units (unclean animals) are food now, and then pray to their Christ for healing when their health is in the toilet--just amazing.
Surah al-Baqarah
79. So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, and then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a little price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn
I don't know how they have convinced billions of people that they still have scriptures from Moses who he lived 1300 years BCE a small search and you will easily find out all of their lies
If most of the communities agreed to a set number of books and then proceeded to say no more adding or subtracting books, then why does the Latin Vulgate have more?
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
bro really couldn't of mentioned that the Catholic Church in the council of rome, synod, hippo and Carthage canonized the Bible🤣
So Protestants got it right
Duke Temz
Watch the time line progression again. Although he did not say it he at least got it right in the time line. First and only to have a formal council to declare cannon was the Catholic Church (late 4th century), and there was no idea of a book called the Bible before this. He then shows alterations at about 1000ad by the orthodox. And then in the 16th century protestants began distorting scripture. Not taking a swipe at protestants just giving historical context that this guy left out. Watch the video again with this in mind, he shows it but doesn’t say it. Not to fourth coming in his part.
@@dherpin4874 false, Protestants follow the true Tanakh of the Jewish faith in the old testament.
When did there become a "single official version of the Jewish Bible"? Thanks!
Nice video clips and a BIT informative "coz it didn't say who wrote and compiled and called it Bible or Holy Bible. The number of books contained had long been in contentions because of, either ignorance or simply hard-headedness. Jews had no Canon of their Scriptures (TANAKH) up until 95AD. At about 200 BC in Alexandria, the Hebrew Scriptures were transalted into Greek Koine and was called Septuagint. The Septuagint contains 46 Books and this was the one used in Jesus time, and it was the one used by the Catholics when they compiled it with the 27 New Testament Books that summed up to 73 Books and called it The Holy Bible. When Martin Luther translated it to German he contemplated in excluding many Books both from the OT and NT, but changed his mind and excluded only some from the OT and it was 39 Books, thus it all contains 66 Books. And this was the pattern used by the King James Version of 1611. So please stop saying someone added and/or someone excluded some Books. Better check it out in Wikipedia or any Encyclopaedia, look for History of the Bible. Mudslinging will not solve the problem.
How it was formed: both late era Romans and remnants of the fallen Roman Empire that were opposed to the Isreali beliefs got their hands on the original texts after Isreali disintegrated as a nation and with hostility hid several books (scrolls). Seeing a large portion of Roman citizens who had over a couple centuries become fascinated with Isreali beliefs the ruling bodies and Roman pagan priests decided to both cater to the crowd by fueling their beliefs but also steering them away from their full access to the books to help limit them as well as throw in Roman concepts as edit material and add-ons.
The eventual progression of this practice is what the very basis of Roman Catholicism was to become, for at the beginning of it's existence it centered around Roman deities/idols being renamed to biblical historic person's names and keeping the number of books that make a complete set stashed. To this day this is how it is, and every re-edit from Catholicism and the Christian sects merely alter and refashion the limited and heavily edited few books that Roman priests authorized for utilization, but not the originators - the Israeli people and their diety. Whereas people have opted to hold high the western editors such as Tindale, James and his scribes, and many more, it is more prevalent to instead prefer original languages and non-altered texts from the original peoples.
The books forcibly removed by those foreigners were called in their foreign language lies. In that language apocrypha means lies. But that is how power and control works: slander that which you dislike or conflicts with your beliefs and Catholicism and all forms of Christianity historically has done that among denial and other things.
The Scriptures, on the other hand were formed by prophets, Kings, and appointed scribes, witnesses, and even the Isreali deity. These are what the Bible was built upon, to which credit is due and to which man should return unto.
This is immutable fact and the truth of reality.
"If anyone causes one of these little ones (the innocent) - those who believe in me - to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large milestone hung around their neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"
~Jesus (Matthew 18:6-7)
Theirs is the greater sin if they have twisted the truth...their eternal condemnation awaits.
Well where’d you get your information from? What’s your source?
@@arthurlandissavingu6886
when you take a verse out of context contradicts what the word says about to be as a barean to search the scriptures daily if what we hear is true
little ones is the children that i understand is regarding parents who knowingly or unknowingly cause their children to sin, and sin by definition of the word of truth is an act of transgression of the law of the Almighty
umsf mercenary
the original people apparently appears to be bantu as ive read certain sources recent that seem to credible, as some of the word even spoken by the messiah is bantu in origin
canonization mainly took place during the constantine era
The Old Testament was writen by Jews who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and written in Greek by Jews converted to Christianity.
BE CAREFUL what Bible you read, not all of them are truly CATHOLIC.
So, long story short:
We all agree on the New testament
We disagree on the old testament. Why?
Because diffrent comunities of jewish religion existed before the Second Temple Destruction. That particular moment set te begining of rabinical judaism which was one comunity that happened to dont admit the apocrypha books, but the other comunities like the ones that inspired the Christianity did hold on them.
And because Christianity is partialy part of one of these comunities (probably the essenes comunity) then it makes sense that early Church admited the apocrypha
I will never understand why apologetics don't use this as an argument for ongoing revelation and refusal of bible inerrancy. more and more I am finding the biggest theologica problems stem from lack of dealing with tenporal biases and lack of dealing with the problem of evil.
I am sure this is interesting but the music is overpowering! The content is serious but the "music" is similar to that heard on childrens TV. Music is mathematical in nature. You are trying to get people to do English comprehension and maths at the same time. No doubt having this banal noise while you are trying to think is an American idea.
not good enough-try harder
Yeah. The Council of Nicaea first established the Bibliography of the *Bible* , during the 4th century AD.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Though all books of the New Testament were written down in the 1st century AD.
Particularly between the Crucifixion in 33-35AD, and around 95AD for the last parts... particularly the book of Revelation. Most were finished by the Destruction of the Temple in 70AD though.
@Mavors Between the Crucifixion and 95AD... when the last book was finished.
They started writing stuff down within years of the Crucifixion, & were spreading the message almost from the day of the Ascension/Resurrection. ( _Historians have found evidence for some passages in the New Testament being in letters between Church leaders and members, from within 2-3yrs of the Crucifixion._ )
And the Council of Nicaea, brought the texts together in One Bibliography Book.
Whilst defining what was definitely not canon, like the 2nd century texts that were written by charlatans.
@Mavors Read my comments, the Council of Nicaea didn't write any biblical texts...
But it collected the biblical texts into a Single Bibliography book.
Meaning that beforehand, you would have Scroll's/books with maybe a single book of the New or Old Testament's, up to maybe 2-5 books of the Word.
The reason why the Bible is called the "Bible", is because the Council of Nicaea was able to make a Bibliography of the Word.
In addition to confirming & clarifying various issues that had arisen in the past 4 centuries in Christianity. Like clarification of what the Trinity meant.
...
And 50AD, would be when Paul started Finishing his texts. And possibly write his Letters.
But that doesn't also mean that he Started the writing, during the same time period.
Like I pointed out, parts of the New Testament were around before 40AD. Maybe written down, maybe just being preached or shared amongst other Christians...
My point was that Peter and the other disciples, were preaching within the same month, if not week, as Jesus Christ's Ascension...
And much of said preaching message eventually ends up being written down in the New Testament texts.
@Mavors additionally... yes, the Council of Nicaea doesn't write anything in the New Testament.
But it does affirm the Canonical identity of various disparate texts that were being presented as biblical texts.
Things like the 2nd century AD texts like the Book of Judas/Mary/Enoch...
Or non-biblical Jewish texts, which the bible quoted or referenced as common texts that contemporary Jews would have been aware of. ( _Like if I were to talk about Dan Brown and his The Da'Vinci Code. We would both know generally what I was talking about, and know that it's not considered biblically accurate._ )
@Mavors disagreement with that assessment. Sorry.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Maybe we're just arguing over whether one Council actually publishes a book, versus the earlier Council defining what would be considered Canonical??
I Freely accept that I'm not an historical expert on this historical subject. So such nuances could easily be lost.
@Mavors fair enough.
I was literally just telling someone else that I'm by no means a Historical Expert on this Historical subject. So...🤦♂️🙇♂️🤷♂️Sorry.
_"In the short-term, however, the Council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time"_
Just Curious.
Historic facts: The bible was written (Selected, transcribed & cannoned) in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, under Pope Damasus I, and Pope Innocent in the Catholic Church. The #1 criteria used to authenticate cannon was it's use in the Liturgy of the Mass. The 2nd criteria was it's universal (Catholic) usage. The 3rd was it's apostolic link. This is why so many books (The Epistle of Barnabas, Clement's letter to the Corinthians, etc) were excluded. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint old testament, not the Hebrew. 300 of 350 referenced in the Gospel refer to the Septuagint.
Arthur Pletcher what do you think is the true bible
the hindus don't have a bible, the moslems don't have a bible, the jews don't have a bible! Why would you say the jews have a bible? at :40 seconds. The bible was Compiled by Catholic Bishops, The Bible is a Catholic Book stolen and changed. The Bible is a Catholic Document. Outside the traditional Catholic faith there is Absolutely no Salvation! correct your video!
You should add a quick bit about the Holy Books that were used by Jesus and his Apostilles.
It's a Catholic book
No!
@@RRoxas65 yes it is
@@haroldchristiandoma64 I said no. And Roman Catholicism is filled with heresy.
@Larry Cavalli Catholic heresy. Still.
@@haroldchristiandoma64no it is a Christian book
I use the new testament to determine old testament. I read what the what new testament quotes. So if the nt quotes a book that's not in OT . I read book ie. Jude quotes Enoch
praise the lord
Join the church for the LIBRARY?? 😊
catholics determined the canon.
Great explanation Sir !
Translation: The Catholic Church put together the Bible you have today, your welcome.
Yeah, except not really. Depends on what you mean by "the Catholic Church"
@@ljss6805 by St. Jerome Catholic priest, scholar, linguist, and theologian who translated the scriptures into we call now the Latin Vulgate under the authority of Pope St. Damasus.
@@jimmoriarty6964 Yeah, so... who put the Bible together that Jerome translated? Well, not Jerome. That would have been the Greek Christians predominantly. The Latin Catholics had nothing to do with it, other than a few of them ratifying the canon after the fact and de facto using it. So, we should say: the Orthodox Church wrote a lot of it and compiled it: you're welcome.
Being Catholic won't get you to heaven.. you're welcome
@@ljss6805the council of Rome was the very first council to ever produce a canonical list of scripture. That is an inescapable fact.
You forgot about the Talmud ✡️
That is a very constructive description of the process by which the books of the "Bible" (quotes referring to its differing contents at various times in history) were selected (not to mention the other "sacred" writings of Christianity's chaotic first centuries). I find it to be more honest and historical than I would have expected of the Museum of the Bible. Specifically? In how it reveals that the Bible was a creation of human decisions made over a period of centuries, and that Christianity was in its first century essentially one of several offshoots of Judaism. Those ideas are very muted in churches today. Now I would like to visit the Museum of the Bible and see if this kind of objectivity is central to your work. I admit to a bias - I had imagined that the Museum of the Bible would just be another evangelical Bible promotion project like the "Ark Encounter." Remains to be seen... looking forward to seeing your museum!
What a wonderful video thank you for it!
Bible aka curated by Man
Protestant Old Testament have more books than Hebrew Bible. Video gives wrong info.
Thanks for the valuable message.
hahaha
So, if God wrote a new book for the New Testament today, Christians wouldn't accept it!
#Delusional
God won't write it, the only event to happen now is the end times and second coming of jesus...The bible warns of false prophets to come...
@@aceraphael
Where in the book does it say no more stories?
Are you saying you're talking to a spirit about not writing any more?
Both Matthew ["this generation"] & Revelations ["soon"] predicted the end was near.
How many hundreds of years ago was that?!?!
LOL
@@saint6563 “This Generation” and “Soon” aren’t exact times. It depends not their perceptive on “Soon” and “this generation”.
@@IsraeliteDefense
This "generation" is not over a hundred years & "soon" isn't two thousand years.
Stop attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
You're just embarrassing yourself.
Demonstrably inaccurate. Coming from "Bible experts" I would tend to think that this is not the result of ignorance.
Would you like to enlighten me on your wisdom of how the Canon Bible was established then , since you must know more than said "experts"
@@psk5896 just google dude. Here’s a question for you. If that book is the word of god, why are there so many different versions? And how can there be so many opposing interpretations? C’mon it’s 2020. It’s infantile to believe “everything in the bible” is true.
@Saad Bin Masud what? Sorry, not even close. Yo just have to look at the cover of your bible. What does it say?
@@scottwees8967 The reason why they were different versions of the Bible is because A)we are finding older and more reliable manuscripts and B) because the English language changes over time. The different versions of the Bible do not change any of the meanings of the verses or scripture. The differences in biblical can I come down to the different manuscripts the translators use. For instance Catholic and orthodox translators use the Septuagint which was an ancient Greek version of the Old Testament which was used by the apostles due to its commonality at the time. Protestant translators prefer to use what is known as the Masoretic text, which is the original Hebrew language using manuscript that date all the way back to 230 BC. The greek manuscripts include something known as the apocrypha, the Hebrew does not.
I love the fact that there is no disagreement with the NT across major denominations
As for the difference in the OT. I liked the way it was discussed. It reminds me what standards were taken for script to be considered cannon. I know the standards can be different depending on denomination
The NT was brought to you by the same persons who said the Sabbath had been changed--coincidently to the Roman worship day of the Sun. The same persons who said that none of that "OT" stuff applied to believers of the day. The same persons who decided that toxic waste storage units (unclean animals--which by the way were known even in Noah's day) were actually now food, as if their guy had just waved a magic wand 10 YEARS after the resurrection. This video glosses over a lot of things that should make you afraid or at the very least curious to study it out more.
This is both over complicated and over simplified. The disputed books are later books, often never existing in Hebrew, and weren't widely used, and believed to be written after God stopped sending prophets to his people. They were part of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Hebrew texts) and entered Christianity through that. The Christians were aware of their status, and the books were not held up as the canon but as deuterocanonical. The Protestants later recast them as the apocrypha, where the fell out of use for the most part as a primary source of theology.
Heresy. .......
Wait a minute. What about the Quran? Which part of the Jewish and Christian Bible does the Quran contain? Haha
Im retreating and thank God that ive got this time to read history
Yesssss
I understood everything up until the end where he included the word GOD. B/c I did not see any God in any of what was going on. No more than a librarian organizes books that suit their politics
This contrasts with your own comment earlier. It proves that God was the librarian, acting through human beings.
The formation of Construction of the book, is a testament of how Mankind can write their own history. The Serpent worked in history too.
Nicely done. Thanks for putting this together.
Excellent introduction to canon history, thank you. The Museum of the Bible is the most important museum in America.
Isn’t America supposed to be a secular country that believes in religious freedom, so why would a religious text be the most important in the country like that? It sounds like you don’t understand your own constitution
@@Maxinestabile Just because some people aren't religious, that means those of us who are can't consider religious text to be the most important? What should be, then? Secular books? What YOU want it to be?
terrible music wtf. hard pass
Should not be using so called the Star of David. It came from pagan beliefs surrounding Israel back then.
The whole religion came from a Polytheistic tradition in ancient Mesopotamia (where Asherah and Ba'al were also from). Asherah was the wife of Enlil, as you move closer to Babylon the Name Enlil becomes Elil, and then El. Also called (in this ancient religion) El Elyon and El Shaddai. If I remember correctly, Enlil was one of the Gods made by Primordial Tiamat (chaos) and Apsu in the Enuma Elish. Either way, Enlil is one of the gates to Ancient Babylon and one of their temples. There are many things we do know about this deity. For example, that he became the Jewish God worshiped by Abraham who also came from that exact same area of the world where the religion was from. As said to Moses "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by the name of El Shaddai but by my Name YHWH Was I not known".
No mention of people responsible for cannon. Tokyo many people any opinion to trust. Just trust the spirit if God he is the word.
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or the Hebrew Tanakh Bible or Dead sea scrolls...
There is however only one Hebrew Tanakh Bible.Verify
In these video's there are always such strong convictions from all sides as to who is right, I believe this shows we all have a yearning for the truth and are serious about our faith and beliefs. These are what personally leads me to have such a strong faith founded in a personal relationship with God as I'm sure many of you share as well.
In truth I believe there is a very important fact that can be stated that will hopefully prompt all of us to ask some deeper questions about this exact debate. My suggestion is to read John 10:22 and ask yourself where the feast of dedication is mentioned in the Protestant OR Jewish canon of scripture. You'll find out its not there and was removed.
When you do please put some thought into this. We know Jesus and his disciples as devout Jews where in Jerusalem for the feast of the dedication (John 10:22), and the only place in Old Testament scripture this feast is mentioned is in Maccabees in the Catholic canon of scripture.
Study some more and you will also see that Christ is our fulfilment of this feast (called Hanukkah or the Festival of Lights) as Christ is the true light of the world (Joh 8:12). You could then ask another important question. Why has the true meaning of the light of the world and fullfillment of this Old Testament feast been hidden from the world by a change in scripture?
This is one of many reasons I call myself a bible based Christian and Catholic.
Why write an essay
Well said brother. Pax Christi
If I remember rightly the RC Church made sure all bibles were in Latin? Those who wanted to give people a bible they could understand were persecuted and killed. Hard to see how RCs can just forget history. The Church was desperate that worshippers only hear Christs message the way they translated it for centuries.
Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on John, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
Mike Ryan Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther
Mattin luther was wrong. We must try test and examine truth and it will stand. Not trust one man's opinion.
@@MitzvosGolem1 I'm no Lutheran or Protestant, but this is a crappy "guilt by association" argument.
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски of course there are nice good Christian s...
Sorry to offend anyone kind .
The new testament and Qur'an curses Jews...
That is a big issue today.
Sorry
@@MitzvosGolem1 No, it was just a poor argument.
If you count the Old Testament books of the Catholic Bible at minute 0:52 (counting Esther and Additions to Esther as one, and the Twelve Minor Prophets as one, and all the one and two books as one), then you get 27, paralleling the number of New Testament books
What’s the criteria for Old Testament cannon according Catholics vs Christian’s vs orthodoxy?
Protestantism - include only books accepted by Judaism. Catholicism - include additional books from Septuagint (ancient Greek Bible), but only those that have been included in Septuagint before Christ. Orthodoxy - include all books from Septuagint, regardless of whether they've been included before or after Christ.
The words of God they say
The words of God, men and angels.
Fact: there are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls.
There is only one hebrew orthodox Bible Tanakh all match word for word.
@Asaph Vapor significant modifications were made by church father Origen such as " virgin will bear a child" in future tense addition from " young woman is pregnant" in present tense in Original Tanakh.
Nonsense that " the original doctrines remain unchanged"...
One of hundreds of modifications.
That's is my point.
Ps:
Dr Bart Ehrman exposes all the changes made to the New Testament.
@Asaph Vapor yooo hoo..
I am a Jew ..
Who defend s Torah Tanakh against corruption.
Are you going to come burn my house down now?
Or burn me on a cross as a heretic as church did for centuries?
Lol
@Asaph Vapor not in Hebrew not a young woman..
In context that is about King Hezekiah birth then in that day not a man god idol 700 years in future.
Here's a good one
1 John 5:7-8 An admitted insertion into New Testament to endorse Trinity.
Rejected by Erasmus and Martin Luther and Sir Issac Newton.
The Catholics who inserted it removed it now but it still is in KJV?
Explain.
Also we do not use Strong's Hebrew to explain what our scriptures mean...
He was a Wasp .
Isaiah 9:5-7 also changed to future tense.
Isaiah 53 modified to say " him"
Origen was the first to arrange a " old testament" for Christian Bibles.
Marcion was first to compile a " New Testament" cannon.
So where do Protestants get their sources?
Koine Greek?
Hebrew?
Wycliffe and Luther attempted to use Hebrew but could not read such.
Luther a rabid antisemetic man turned on us after rabbi refused to " translate" the way he sought.
Mein Kampf quotes Martin Luther...
So we do not accept any Gentile opinionists translation s of our scriptures as you also reject Morons ideas and books.
Peace out.
Hebrew.
@Asaph Vapor heretication.info
Crusaders Inquisitions pogroms afrikan Slavery Imperialism colonialism witch burning alive heretics Jews forced conversion s Holocaust?
Explain please.
Peace out nice person.
@Asaph Vapor In Salem Massachusetts Puritans burned alive heretics witches etc.
They extermination of Naitive American people.
They owned used Afrikan people as slave s .
Not Catholics..
This video says a lot of nothing at all!👎🏿
In the Roman Council, under the authority of Pope Damaso (366 - 384 AD), the first list of the Universal (Catholic) Church appears.It was the Bible that came out of the Church and not the Church of the Bible, so there is really no separation between "Bible" and "Tradition".
The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church
Bible was formed of 46 (OT) and 27 (NT) = 73 books
The first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church, the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, England
The first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church - printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press: Johannes (John) Gutenberg.
¡Por Hispanoamérica Unida y Cristiana. Viva Cristo Rey y la Virgen de Guadalupe!
Well done on presenting a neutral account.
The music is annoying.
By the Catholic Church
And accepted by all her wicked daughters.
Jenna Caruthers
What kind of cockamamie nonsense are you babbling about?
What about the Coptic Bible?
bruh
i like teh sauce it keeps me the boss
@@FatTiki that is really cute XD
The Catholic Bible doesn't contain more books, The Protestant bible contains fewer books.
Well, that depends on your personal perspective, doesn't it?
Read your history, Obi Wan.
1546ad or 300ad...... yup the apocryphal books were added. nice try though
>Maccabees
>Apocryphal
>Revelations
>Not apocryphal
And yeah, I'm sure Martin Luther knew better than the entire council of nicea and a thousand years of theologians and church leaders.
except that the council of nicea never discussed the canon of the bible.
So confusing? So, if you asked 50 christains from different countries how many books are in the bible you would get different answers but if you asked 50 muslims from different countries how many surahs in the Quran despite differences you would get 1 answer 114 chapters. Seems to me that Men not verified by Jesus or God or even Paul decided according to their own understanding we are going to put these books in the bible and leave these ones out and what were the reasons we will never know its their own understanding and not God command that shocks me that modern day christains can accept this? There is evidence that the Quran was written down and verified during Mohammads lifetime.
According to the Quran, the Quran is unpreserved and was destroyed.
Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did. S. 15:90-93 Shakir
Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated:
Those who break the Qur'an into parts. Pickthall
who dismember the Qur'an. Palmer
who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry
It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained:
“Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)
Perhaps you should have mentioned that we don't have the original copy of any of the books in the Bible. Instead, we have thousands of manuscripts that differ from each other.
@Mavors Yes, it's an awkward phrase (if that's what you meant). In this case, it means "original manuscript".
What makes you think they differ?
But who were the people who finalized the canon?
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
bruhammed?
yes
Thanks! תּוֹדָה (toda)
There is no way masses of normal people just got together and agreed on what the word of God is. Like in anything else there had to be a bunch of rich powerful people that got together perhaps several times over and perhaps different people throughout history; to decide which books would be used to control people in the ancient and modern world. There wealth, status, and power would have depended on it
Do you also think the wealth, status, and power was dependent on those who “wrote” the words of the Bible? If not then the next logical, historical question is, if God can use fallible men to write His words, why can He also not use fallible men to compile His canon? All this is historical but if you have other reasonable and reliable “evidence”, please share.
Peace!!!
@@srich7503 The amount of mental gymnastics one has to do to believe that Constantine and the council of Nicea decided on the the God hood of Jesus, a man they never met, who died 300+ years prior to them making this incredible determination and it just by coincidence happened to be a decision that served the emperor's & the elite roman interests is one of thousands of pieces of evidence that leads me to believe that it was not a man in the sky (God) using men on earth to determine what the "word of God" is. But rather it is men on earth claiming divine inspiration as they create a religion to rule over other men on Earth.
Can you at least acknowledge that as a highly probable reality for many, if not, all religions? Some great modern examples: Scientology, Branch Davidians in Waco.
@@raulsanches3619 I would agree! That would take much mental gymnastics to think Constantine and the council of Nicaea decided on the canon. I certainty dont. The canon was not decided on for another 70 years after Nicaea. So, I will acknowledge/answer your question AFTER you have acknowledged/answered mine…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Yikes, this is an abysmal recounting of the topic. I would recommend doing your own personal reading.
Well done video. Thank you for making and posting it. The Council of Rome essentially picked the books that the early Christians where reading and agreed where inspired by God. Then they prayed and sought God's will on which of those popular agreed upon books to include into the Canon that makes up our modern book of books aka the Bible.
@Mavors You're right it was the council of Rome.
@Mavors en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome Year 382 AD - Council of Rome... All Church leaders here are catholics... Protestantism is not yet in existence on this time...
The oldest complete bible in the sense of a codex is the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about AD 700. It has 72 books. The Book of Baruch was added about the ninth century to give the 73 books in use today. For example, it is the one in use at St Bede’s RC Church in Jarrow, which is where I made my First Holy Communion.
The oldest complete Jewish codex is now called the Leningrad Codex and was produced in Cairo about CE 1008. There is a damaged Aleppo Codex which is a bit older.
I did not think I would hear the words Jarrow and Codex in the same sentence. Is there a reason the NE of England has so much religious history?
@@kimsurey6087 Credit may go to King Oswald, an early convert to Christianity. Prince Oswald went into exile on the island of Iona near Mull in Scotland, learnt Gaelic, and then brought Saint Aidan (Aodhan?) back with him when he became King of Northumbria.
This video made me respect the Muslim Quran even more
According to the Quran, the Quran is unpreserved
Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did. S. 15:90-93 Shakir
Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated:
Those who break the Qur'an into parts. Pickthall
who dismember the Qur'an. Palmer
who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry
It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained:
“Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)
Bible is more authentic than one man show Quran. Bible's writing covers the history of over 4000-5000 years. Most of the quran copied from jews and regurgitated over the period of 20-30 years. 😀