Who Decided the Books of the Bible? (Biblical Canon Explained)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лют 2024
- This video took months of research as I wanted to present something that would give Christians confidence in the inspired word of God and not to be led astray by unneccesary teachings or false gospels.
Galatians 1:8 says "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." I pray that this video will give you the confidence required to put your full faith in the 66 book canon of our modern bible!
#bible #jesus #animation
Sub Count: 8,298 - Фільми й анімація
"They weren't accepted by Jews of Jesus' time". My brother in Christ, Jesus wasn't accepted by the Jews either.
You got me on that one 💀
Yeah but it's from the old testament
@@LPSCaitelynJesus didn't consider those books as scripture
The thing is: the Jews at the time of Jesus (and far long after) didn't have a closed canon. The Septuagint was one of the cannons used by Jewish communities and was predominantly used by the apostles. Even today there are jews that don't follow the Masoretic Canon, notably the "Beta Israel". In other words: to claim that is to balantly lie in order to justify protestant removing of books historicaly used by the Church and recognized by Church's synods, based on what is very probable was an understandable error from Luther.
@@michelduarte5283 You don't know what LXX is?
“They weren’t accepted by the Jews of Jesus’ time.” Septuagint is the most quoted canon of Old Testament in the New Testament. Jesus is also seen celebrating the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah celebrated by the Jews), something that is straight out of the Maccabees.
Explain further with citations
Which Septuagint? In each of them we have different books that are not included in today's books.
@jonnyemerick9142 Do your homework yourself
The Pharisaical tradition was also not closed at Jesus’s time, it was an open tradition, with vague borders. The successors of the Pharisees, the Rabbis, in the Talmud and Mishnah also disagree on the text. This video is blatantly false. The Jews of Jesus’s time had no closed canon, and there canon wasn’t closed u til the third or fourth century AD. About 3-4 centuries after Christ and the Apostles. The “fake councils”, of Jews to determine the canon at Jesus’s time, have been said to be Protestant conspiracies, and are proven to historically not have happened. Plus, Councils are a Christian Institution, not a Jewish one. There were five major traditions at the time:
Sadducee (probably first five Books), Samaritan (first five Books), Essene (those who had the Dead Sea Scrolls. They included all of the ProtoCanonicals except for Esther, and other Books like Enoch, etc), the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew, centuries before Christ by 72 Rabbis, later Books were translated later), this included the 7 Books of the Catholic Canon, all the Books of the ProtoCanonicals, but was also not closed. There were multiple Septuagint collections, with Books like 3-4 Maccabees, 1-2 Esdras, etc. It also included additions to Daniel and Esther, that the Protestant canon doesn’t have. The Greek was used more widely, whereas the Hebrew was used more in Palestine. However, the Septuagint was also used in Palestine. And the Septuagint Bools were also available in Hebrew and Aramaic. Then, the Pharisaical canon, which , according to historians, was not closed either. They had a general idea of the canon, but it was not closed, and there were seemingly five main traditions (mainly more). Of which only the Sadducee (probably) and Samaritan tradition were closed.
There were other Books not in any of these traditions (sometimes preserved in the Essene library, but that they probably didn’t see as canon), but that were still copied down; meaning at least some people thought they were Canonical.
There was a debate at the Council of Rome, precisely because St Jerome had learned from the Jews, about the 7 Books, but the Council Decided, and St Jerome therefore accepted them. After the Protestant Reformation, the 7 were called DeuteroCanonical, and the other ProtoCanonical, whereas the Protestants just called them Apocrypha. The early Protestants pointed to the verse saying the Scriptures come from the J-ws, but that does not mean they decide the canon. That’s simply twisting the verse and stretching it to push your own narrative. Books like Wisdom also have clear prophecies of Christ. Plus, they don’t accept the New Testament, and their canon was made way after the Apostles. Are Christians still subject to Rabbinical authority? Obviously not.
Finally, Martin Luther removed these Books, after centuries of them being used by Christians. He used the Jewish Canon as an excuse, but he clearly got rid of them, according to historians, because they contradicted his doctrine. Like 2 Maccabees supporting Purgatory, and praying for the dead. Martin Luther also said he wanted to get rid of Books like James and Revelation, even saying they were his enemy, and he wanted to burn them. However, he was stopped by his followers, from being to radical, out of fear this would cause trouble to the Reformation.
David, there were also multiple Palestinian canons. This was not closed at Jesus’s time. The Talmud and Mishnah, after Jesus’s time, still argue over the text, and they followed the Palestinian tradition. It wasn’t closed until the 3rd or 4th century. The Septuagint tradition as chosen by the Church. Which Palestinian canon? There’s multiple.
I honestly learnt more from the comments than the video.
According to the video you weren't searching for truth but a way to prove your friend wrong "I wouldn't stop at anything to prove my friend wrong" - that meant you'll even deny or intentionally leave somethings out just to prove your friend wrong (I'm not saying you did but I'm just saying you could).
But I love the comments as i see people argue for both sides.
I also did learn from the video though and the illustration and animation is beautiful. You got yourself a new subscriber.
But i can't really trust your word because of the quote above as you researched not for the truth but for claims that support your beliefs...
Peace
@@Herbertl_Lee Is this reply meant for my comment?
I'd like to see people's opinions on your questions
@@JudeJohnbosco it just a thought experiment and anyone is welcome to leave their comments,have a great day 😁
Yes, an accurate observation. I also subscribed to this channel, but there were omissions in this video that made it less than accurate, complete and truthful.
Very true. The video contains inaccuracies and omissions. It does not look to me as an exercise in determining historical truth but rather one aimed at confirming one's bias
Lies again? Bet Clic Big Clit
this is a high-quality video, but I don’t feel that you investigated the manner without your own protestant bias. this is borderline propaganda as it’s very misleading because you’re twisting facts to bend to your protestant views.
you left out that when the new testament quotes the Old Testament, that the vast majority of the quotes are specifically from the septuagent and not the masoretic. there are enough differences between the two on specific verses that it’s very clear which version is in the New Testament. this indicates that the Greek version of the Old Testament was considered sacred scripture at the time that the new testament was written.
Exactly right - this was unfortunately not truthful complete research.
The Protestants, out of all the groups of Christians, should theoretically be the most open to recognizing the flaws and mistakes of the Protestant movement. But it's quite the opposite.
While decrying church authority, they cling so desperately to the authority of the Protestant movement.
They ignore the logical absurdity of two different and mutually exclusive formulations of the sola scriptura premise.
Catholics and Orthodox aren't perfect, and neither are the Protestants.
That is why all the glory goes to God who is perfect! And His anointed Messiah to whom He has given all authority in heaven and on earth.
You are right.
The Greek did make the Hebrew write it all down.
They reference the septuagent bc that was the only one they could read since it was in Greek lol
I'm inclined to think that Yeshua and much of Israel were speaking/reading in their native tongue. The reason the quotes from the "Greek Bible" (mislabeled Septuagint) appear could be due to the fact that the "Greek Bible" used generally more reliable Hebrew source texts, and the original NT quotations of these texts were from that same Hebrew source as well. So it could be that much of the NT was translated from Hebrew just as the "Greek Bible" was (There is a case for Hebrew/Aramaic Primacy if you look outside of the academic echo chambers). This has good explanatory scope for explaining some of the testimony of Josephus and other sources who contradict the mainstream Greek primacy narrative.
There is also a habit of translators quoting a tangential text in their language by simply copying from a translation already available than to translate it from the source text itself. For example, if the gospels were written in Hebrew and then quoted a verse from the TaNaKh, a Greek translator may be apt to simply pull the TaNaKh quote from the "Greek Bible". Not maliciously, but out of utility and to offer the Greek reader a consistent presentation.
Edit: I'm only making a clarification of an alternative approach to the observation that there are similarities between the "Greek NT" quotes of the TaNaKh to the "Greek OT". I agree with the general sentiment of the comment.
Should i mention that the ethiopian bible has 81 books?
Those few extra books are small
Nah
Nah, many of those books are outside of the Septuagint, unlike the 7 books outside the Protestant canon, those 7 books are in the Septuagint and when a NT writer cites the Old Testament they cite from the Septuagint
They all disagree with the rest
ya as an ethiopian its called libral canonization , and the last book was added when i was an 2 or 3 , and i am 23 , its called libral canonisation for a reason , close to 10 or some thing is exclusively ehiopian and the church never denied that
The 4 reason fail, when you find out that the Deuterocanonical Books have been found in Hebrew in the Caves of Qumran, Faith alone is not a belief held before Luther and is denied in James, and the more you read the Deuterocanon the more the wordings in there match better with many quotes from Jesus in the NT
@@TheMCNanno Clement would like a word with you
Faith alone is not denied in james
Also Tobit and The Apocalypse regarding Seven Archangels (or just angels, pulling from memory)
@@wanderingoutlaw2083 before Abraham had done anything he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. A true faith will bear fruit because all those who are in Christ will beat fruit because he is the vine but that fruit doesn't justify it is a sign of true conversion
Did you purposely forget to mention that Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, Revelation, and called the epistles of John epistles of straws because they too contradicted his own theology?
Why do you not mention that Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28?
He basically did what Jehova witnesses do today to try to make the Bible teach what he wanted to teach.
He may have wanted to remove them. But didn’t
Actually it was the epistle of James Luther called a Strohbrief, because it doesn't contain the concept of Jesus as Christ.
i tink u forgot historical context
he dint want to remove any thing there is always confusion in fixing things e,g jhon the baptist was confused abut christ being who he says he is , who is greater jhon of martin
@@zerowork7631He did want to remove them. Luther said (in some of these New Testament books) he “wouldn’t have them” in “his bible”. He clearly wanted these books to not be considered truly scripture. He failed.
I don’t see the word alone in Roman’s 3:28
10:13 1) The Church Fathers and the early christians does NOT use the Tanakh but the Septuagint.
2) The only passage we can find the phrase "faith alone" is in James 2,24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone". Faith alone doctrine is unbiblical. That's why Luther added the word "alone" in Rom 3,28 (says 'by faith', NOT 'by faith alone') and tried to remove James and other "disputed books" (deuterocanonicals of the New Testament).
3) The Tanakh as a closed canon actually was established after the Church closed the Christian canon.
4) Also the books of Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Judges, etc., are never mentioned nor quoted in the New Testament, so are we authorized to remove them too? The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Koine Greek Septuagint (LXX), editions of which include the deuterocanonical books.
Jerome (347-420) translator of the Vulgate in his Prologue to Judith says that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council (325 AD) to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scripture".
All Christian bibles had all 73 inspired books until the 1820s when the British and Foreign Biblical Society just decided to REMOVE the deuterocanonical books (because paper and printing were expensive and early publishers were able to hold down costs by eliminating those books) That is the ultimate reason today Protestants only have 66 books in their bibles and not 73.
Agreed 👌
Sorry but the author ran away as per his video because his position is untenable and sadly the vice of pride keeps one from softening a hardened heart.
James 2:25, Rahab was justified by sending the messengers out on a different route. If "justified" in James 2:24 means saved, then the action of Rahab saved her, which we know can't be true by Ephesians 2:8-9. On the contrary if the works we do are BECAUSE we walk by Faith, those verses don't contradict. If you aren't walking the walk, your faith probably isn't real, or "Faith without works is dead."
Exactly right. Most Christians (Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox) are not aware that Hebrew canon was revised by anti-Christian Jewish leaders who were against the early church use of the Septuagint as authoritative scripture.
Jesus when he read the portion of Isaiah in Luke, read the Septuagint version of that passage.
If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus, then it should be good enough for Christians.
Thank you for bringing up the Bible Societies of the 1800s when the books were actually removed form the Protestant bible. Its very interesting to read about the reactions that Protestants had to them being removed because of a vocal minority (Scottish Presbyterians) threatening to remove their funding if they books weren't dropped. Gary Michuta has an excellent breakdown of the history of this, even if a tad bit biased in his portrayals, but lots of truth to glean from our brother in Christ. NathanH83 does a fantastic investigation of the Greek Septuagint and how it differs from the Masoretic Text in his video (clickbaity title) "Where the Pyramids Built Before the Flood".
I'm a protestant, however I am in agreement that the Apocrypha should not have been removed and is likely scripture, however I am still reading through it and cannot give a final verdict on whether there are any heresies in them. So far the answer is no, but I am still reading them. Pray for the Lord to give me discernment and that he would illuminate his truth to me as I continue my study of them.
One glaring thing was left out...
Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuigint (more than 80% of old testament quotes), which includes the Catholic books.
Are you following the canon that the Jews that rejected Jesus use, or the cannon that Jesus and the early christian church used?
Interisting dilema for the protestant Canon.
Did the quote from the Septuigent? They were Jews, so wouldn't they quote from Hebrew copies of the law and prophets?
Luke definitely quoted septaguint. The use of word parthenos (virgin) proves it.
@@tiju4723 he would've, but it's more likely Jesus and the Apostles used the Hebrew versions. Jesus focused almost entirely on Israel, it wasn't until Cornelius that the church began to preach to the gentiles.
@@christiancrusader9374 Septaguint has nothing to do with gentiles. Entire septaguint translation was completed 200 years before Jesus.
@@tiju4723 it's the Greek version of the Old Testament, written for hellenized Jews. Actually you do have a point. Matthew was a tax collector, so he probably would've been one. Mark and John are harder to pin down, but the servants at the Jewish court appearantly knew John, which is why they let him in. And Mark is believed to be using Peter's account of wahat happened. It still doesn't prove which canon they used.
always appreciate ur uploads always learn something new & ur so great job with the illustrations great work 👍🏽
Thank you God bless 🙏
yes i agree ❤
The Protestant view of history is absolutely amazing.
the Septuagint was named after the 70 JEWISH scribes that compiled it. There were multiple jewish sects at the time on Christ, some liked the Septuagint, some liked the Tanakh, and some just the Torah/Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). The same argument for using just the Tanakh, can also be used for using just the Torah. And because Protestants officially only recognize the authority of the scripture, a protestant sect can come along and say "we only recognize the Torah because that what the Jews at Christ's time recognized" and no protestant could argue against him without having to contradict his own reasoning for using the Tanakh.
The issue with the Protestant Bible is that it appealed to an outside authority (Luther) for its compilation. If Protestants want to remain consistent in their thought, they cannot hold the Bible that they currently hold because that Bible does not tell you which books belong and which books don't.
The way you get to the Protestant Bible is by interpreting it under a certain theological lens. Luther was interpreting scripture in a certain way and concluded that certain books did not belong (they contradict the doctrine of sola fide) while also keeping a book that contradicts sola fide (the Epistle of James)
But here's the thing: the Apostolic fathers (early christians who knew the Apostles personally, meaning much more accurate scriptural interpretation) read scripture in a certain way, and that reading of scripture was passed down. And that's how you get the Septuagint as the official Old Testament.
So you have two choices:
the Old Testament compiled by a guy living 1500 years after Christ. A guy through his own reading of scripture developed an alternate canon
OR
the Old Testament compiled by those guys who were taught by men who were taught by the Apostles, the very writers of the New Testament, with Jewish backgrounds, who lived at the same time and same place as all those other Jewish sects who had their own Old Testaments.
The question of Biblical Canon has to do with history. are you going to trust the guy in the 1500s with the old testament of the Jews who rejected Christ? Or are you going to trust the Old Testament compiled by the first few generations of Christians, people who either knew the Apostles or their disciples, and even knew Christ before he ascended in Heaven.
Great explanation.
I want to add that hebrew writers of New Testament also accept and quote the book of Enoch as “prophesy”.
Not the caths
This is dishonest at best. Catholics seem to think that Luther is the boogeyman that Protestants worship. We have more access to better historical records than ever before. We don’t have to believe everything that Rome spoon feeds, especially when it can be contradicted by history and by even early church fathers(there are numerous examples of church fathers who can show that Marian dogma was not always believed and wasn’t even very well agreed upon for SEVERAL centuries, and that there are conflicting accounts on all aspects of it).
The majority of Jews pre-Jesus had a settled canon that didn’t include the 7 apocryphal books. Jesus, nor the apostles, would have recognized them as scripture. Anytime Jesus quotes scripture, he says “as it is written.” He never quotes the apocrypha as scripture. He quotes Enoch, but Enoch was never considered actual scripture by anyone other than gnostic groups.
Be honest.
Perhaps, that's the reason why there is Protestant and Catholic. People have to choose between how they gonna sleep at night:
Think you're on the same page with God. Then from there, show good works from love.
OR
You're not good enough. Try harder.
And that's not even mention how the Jews miss the whole thing altogether.
@@AlexKinPongLoBut this is not the same Enoch book. Just because the same sentence appears in today's Book of Enoch as in the Book of Jude does not mean that it is the same. The Book of Enoch contains false and occult teachings. The book was definitely written after the fact.
How do we determine which writing are Authorized? According to the Church, a consensus of Church Fathers who received apostolic succession and laid out a strict criteria. According to Protestants, Martin Luther.
Yes, it's nonsense!
Why would you support, say, the Church Fathers who claimed the Four Gospels were true? But deny all their other Catholic Beliefs?
How do you know Gnosticism isn’t true, but Trinitarianism is? By looking to the Apostolic Sees.
@@kyrptonite1825but do you know, that your bishops are true apostolic successors? What if modalist ect were truly christians?) Of course 1st true christians werent gnostics, but they could be close to the so-called semi-Arians, subordinationists, and so on. Its Faith, always Faith, in the fundamental basis
@@QWERTY-dv2hm, we have lists of the apostles and their successors to the current Pope that have been compiled and preserved throughout history
Great video and well explained. Honestly i have faith that God will not lead me astray. The Bible is what I was lead to read and believe so that is what I have done. I hope my fellow brothers and sisters pray for more spiritual decrement and ask God to show you what’s true and what’s false. That’s the best advice I can give you all.
Great advice! ☺️
And a Good advice it is ❤
Why do you think the people who lead you to read the Bible did so? Could it just be that they were also lead to do so and so they also just never questioned it?
Discernment**
If you read the Bible, you see the Christ made a church with authority who can make decisions on doctrinal matters
Imagine the courage to say that the deuterocanonical books wasn't accepted by the early church fathers. lol
I think this is a great video, and a job very well done 😁👍 thanks so much for your research and efforts!
Followers of Martin Lurther, adopted the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, and accepted the shorter Hebrew Canon instead of the original Christian canon and removed the books not in the shorter canon. Martin Luther assumed he was returning Christianity to its original canon but failed to realize he based it off a canon a 1000 years younger than what the Catholic church already was using.
And the Catholic Church has a long standing history of inventing dogma that isn’t biblically based. So what’s your point?
@c2s2942 your reply is literally a different subject and doesnt somehow make my obvious point any less obvious. Although concerning your different subject that you randomly thought would do anything to my comment, I highly doubt you could come up with any catholic dogma that contradicts scripture.
Exactly! Ask Fr. Pacwa once pointed out, the church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church not the One Holy Catholic and Pharisaic Church.
Nice video, thank you for creating it.
The fact that he starts his whole premise with the sentiment of “how can I prove my friend wrong in front of all these people?” Just seems so weird to me tbh
its less about the competition and more about setting up the narrative and making an engaging video (or trying my best to!)
@@bible.animations Martin Luther was lying he kill a guy and save by priest he should arrest
Join Catholic Church
We call this the fallacy of A Priori Argumentum.
@@Josh-mg7lp if i was the friend the claims wouldnt be refuted with ease
Great explanation, bro!
Thank you for your work brother. God be with you always
Thx for sharing this video ‼️it takes alot of work to research and then create the video itself. I appreciate all the videos you make to draw us closer to the MOST HIGH.
Jesus set up the Catholic Church, and he put in charge the apostle Peter. He gave Peter the key to the kingdom.
Although Jesus's Catholic Church is made of broken people. The Catholic Church can not deceive nor be deceived. Thank God that he left us with a church to interpret the Scriptures and teach the truth. God will not abandon his bride the Church. The Catholic Church will withstand the gates of hell. In the end, every knee shell bow and every toung confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. God bless you all, brothers in Christ
This was a great video! I'm currently studying and putting some information together! This is a helpful resource
I encourage you to find a video from the Catholic perspective as this one has many assumptions. I recommend you consider a channel like “Apocrypha Apocalypse” or to see the Catholic reason for why they are in their Bible, watch “Pints with Aquinas Gary Michuta” episode.
Not even necessarily quotations show a Canon. Not every Book is qoutes from. Some non-scripural Books are qouted. Some, even Greek legends, and the like
His information is biased ..He said that the only reason the Septuagint was included was because the catholic church wanted to sell indulgences. That's just insane. The medieval indulgence abuse was happening like 800 years after the canon was closed. The Orthodox community never did anything like this and still has the septuagint canon, why? because it was the canon accepted by the early Christians.
I suggest you look for another source for your material. This will simply mislead you
Also worth noting that in the epistle of Jude, the author mentions the Book of Enoch to be inspired yet is sadly absent altogether. As for the exclusion of certain epistles on account of them being pseudonymous is at odds with the inclusion of pseudo petrine epistolary writings. It was touch and go for a while as to whether John of Patmos's apocalyptic book should be included. I'm glad it was. It's his hellenistic answer to Daniel's mesopotanian literary style.
Hebrews is the GOAT however. It's the Bible's magnum opus.
Jude never says Enoch is inspired. A quotation doesn’t equate to inspiration. Otherwise every time Paul quotes a Greek philosopher, that means they’re inspired, even though they were pagan.
Great video, thanks for the effort brother. Keeping doing what you do.
10:15 lets refute the arguments why a protestant think that the 7 books should not be included in the bible (as if their opinion has some authority 🤷)
1) "Weren't in the Tanack" - Rebuttal: There was no official jewish canon prior 90AD, Meaning no official canon in the time of Jesus. Sadducces used the Torah, Palestenian Jews used the a list of what would be later known as the masoretic texts (hebrew written scripptures), Alexandrian (Greek speaking) jews used the greek OT bible Septuagint. To argue the 7 books weren't in the tanack is entirely wrong when there was no official canon in the time of Jesus
2) "Contradicted faith alone" - Rebuttal: So Martin Luther invented faith alone and since these books contradicted his new man made doctrine of faith alone somehow it would justify why they should be removed from the bible 🤷
3) "Weaker historical basis" - Rebuttal: Jesus celebrated the festival of lights/hanuka (John10:22), the only explanation how that feast came to be can only be read in the book of the Macabees, historically speaking, the Macabees is historically accurate
4) "Not affimed in the NT" - Rebuttal, Heb11:35-37 was from Macabees, Jesus' words of "do unto others..." was a reversed paraphrase from Tobit, Jesus's words of "forgive us of our sins" was a paraphrased from Sirach, James' conclusion of Abraham being justified because of offering Isaac was again in Macabees.
You did not research enough.
@joshuamunn2410 your argument is faith ALONE, which among the verses you gave has the word "alone"?
Don't forget that the book of Wisdom has the most accurate prophecy of the Passion of Christ. Wisdom 2:17-22
Let us see whether his words be true; lets us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, ‘God will take care of him’ These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent soul’s reward.
GOD decided. It is up to us to ask him for guidance, despite the historical records or the competition between churches.
"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it".
Isaiah 55;11
😊
So the book told you it was ultimately written by God, and you believe it because it says so in the book?
@@elilane8627 Not just that. for me, every time I get information, I look at the world around to check if it´s true. Then I search further.
@@valloren3005yeah exactly, me too. I think people get too hung up on the cynicism of all of the drama that they miss the key points. They should spend less energy judging and skepticizing, thinking they can know and control everything, and put more energy into prayer and their faith.
@@valloren3005 okay, what did you find in “the world around you” that points to the Bible truly being the word of God?
@@elilane8627 Complex! I have seen around and experimented myself what the plan of God for humanity is told there. Summarizing, we are stuck on a timeline, but God is eternal. For Him, there is no past, present or future. The time is circular, so you recognize that things repeat. They are, were and will be. Just watch closely. In the bible, He shows you that. If you read it as a whole, you find from Genesis to Revelation the same message over and over. God gave men governance of this world, but they were deceived and lost it to Satan, who is now in charge. However, God is going to restore Earth and offers us salvation. There is a calendar with a deadline for evil. It gets very clear when you understand what Israel means (the Law, the 2 houses of Israel, the feasts, the prophecies). Satan knows it all and influences our beliefs, we are too much brainwashed since very early age against the Word of God. Example? Most christians live in western world, right? Who frames the western thinking? Darwin, Einstein, Freud, Marx, greek phylosophers (!), etc... all atheists! The Bible warn us who Satan is: the father of lie, the one who deceives the whole world, the one who tricks the nations. Unfortunately the religious churches ignore (ou despise) all that. I only see 2 tracks: Either you (by faith in God) submit your thinking to His Word or you submit His Word to your thinking. Hope you make the best decision. God bless!
I needed this, thank u xD
I wish it was more indepth but this is nice to digest
Thank you so much brother 😊
The more I learn about Martin Luther the worse my opinion of him becomes.
There are 8 videos about him on this channel. ua-cam.com/video/6QdmAQtibDI/v-deo.htmlsi=4wZnWE_sXFtVN6LQ
It covers sola scriptura, by faith alone, The Jews and there Lies, etc.
The early Christians disagreed on the Canon, as seen from their writings. The Apostles may have Authored the New Testament (Catholic Criteria for the Canon, made by Catholics), but these Letters were sent to different Churches, not as a closed Canon. The numbers of false works attributed to the Apostles, and other works considered Scripture, are way more than the New Testament Canon. Some really early. The problem obviously becomes for a Protestant. If you refuse to accept that the Church is Protected from error, then how do you know your Bible Canon is correct, if the Bible Itself doesn’t tell you, and it wasn’t just always passed down. If you follow Scripture Alone, this is a huge problem, bc you don’t know what Scripture is. Meaning, you don’t know what is Scripture or not. You need an infallible authority to tell you.
Secondly, even modern history isn’t enough. It’s always changing. And we don’t even know the Author to Hebrews or to Revelations. Scholars disagree on stuff. Not to even mention the Old Testament, which I did elsewhere in the comment section. Luther isn’t considered infallible, and he blasphemed (look up Luther, Jesus, adultery, and you will see what I mean, he was also highly antis-mitic), and even wanted to get rid of Books like James for denying Faith Alone.
Also, the Church Deciding the Canon does not make the Church greater than a Canon. I’ll use a Protestant analogous: Imagine a grocery list was ripped, and a boy who was supposed to get groceries for his dad, taped the list back together. The boy is a servant of the list, not greater. Also, this analogy fails to recognize that we aren’t saying the Church is greater, but that you can’t figure out the Canon if you deny the Church is Infallible? Why accept some things from the Council, and not others? Even denying some of the Books from that Council? Why deny other Councils? Now, imagine if the grocery list fell into a pile of shredded grocery lists, and it was mixed up. The boy would need to be infallible, to get the proper grocery list. And you would have to trust the boy (Church). Also, the Church had Tradition at the time as well. Just like how the Church Interprets Scripture, putting together a Canon, does not make the Church Greater, but a Servant. The Magisterium serves the Deposit of Faith.
Also, then the Bible Canon rose in levels of Authority, throughout the centuries. The Church didn’t need a clearly defined Bible Canon, bc we also have Tradition and Scripture. In fact, there are very minimal translation issues in the Bible, that don’t change the meaning, according to manuscripts, but may be a problem for Protestants, not Catholics for the aforementioned reasons.
Even James White in a debate with Trent Horn admitted the early Church didn’t go by Scripture Alone for the first 500 years of Christianity, due to having no Canon. When Trent Horn asked him when the switch happened, after the death of the last Apostle, or 500 years later, he was flavbergasted. Also, the Righteous Blood of Abel to Zechariah, is clearly not a reference to the Bible Canon. It’s a stretch to say that, and you still wouldn’t know the in-between, and besides that, this wasprobably a different Zechariah.
This wasn’t the case according to many top Biblical scholars.
Jesus also mentioning the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, also doesn’t mean He says what is in each of these categories, which were still open in the Jewish canon at that time. Catholics further split the Wisdom (I think)into two categories, to make the distinctions easier. most aren’t as familiar to this as the J-ws were.
Also, here’s how the Bible Canon was Created:
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
Vainglory overtook him rather than unity that Jesus heeded all to, he lacked faith that Jesus would not protect the Catholic Church as was promised in Matthew 16:18
To say that the church only made those 7 books canon just to make money is a big accusation. You should’ve provided a proof that the early christian church never used the septuagint version of the scripture. To say that because the Jews accepted only the 66 books and that makes it scripture is a very weak argument. Most early christians were Greek speaker thats why they use the septuagint and that’s missing in your video. Jewish convert to christianity may have used the masoretic text but the septuagint was definitely more accessible. Catholic church never made it canon just to make money. For all we know maybe for Luther that’s the only way he can fight the church but eventually failed.
So here are your reasons why deuterocanonical were excluded
1. They weren’t the Tanach
- not all Jews became followers of Jesus, it is safe to say that they will continue to reject the septuagint. Plus, language barrier made the christians to use septuagint.
2. Contradicted faith alone
- faith alone is unbiblical
3. Weaker historical basis
- I don’t know about this but why would early christians and the apostles use the septuagint if it were in fact weak historically
4. Not affirmed in the NT
- that’s not true. If you will do some deeper research. You would know that some from deuterocanonicals were mentioned in the new testament. Plus, not all the 66 books you accept were affirmed in the New Testament.
Mentioned doesn’t equate to scripture. If the apostles quote Star Wars, that doesn’t make Star Wars scripture. Paul often quoted Greek philosophers. Anytime Jesus quotes scripture, he says “it is written.” He doesn’t say that about the apocrypha.
so you don't exactly reject the apocrypha, just the parts that were mentioned? An easy way out huh. 😏
Luther failed at nothing. Look at the mess of the catholic church today
Very informative and well presented. Thank you. Have you considered doing a similar video on the Gospel of and Acts of Thomas? As for the Gospel, most of it is the same as the Synoptic Gospels with a few new bits.
Thank you so much! I’m a devout Christian who volunteers 3-4 days a week at my home church while visiting other churches. And this has been something I’ve been struggling with understanding in the past couple days.
Thank you.
Didn’t it feel like He kinda glossed over the point though? The early church had the authority to do this, b/c they were the church Christ founded. With authority (Matt 18), the pillar of truth (1 tim 3). These are the Christian’s the Holy Spirit guided. These are the ones who could test for orthodoxy, because they knew what was orthodox
Point is: shouldn’t our theology match theirs ?
@@bozzyb3187 where is that authority now
His animation,editing, etc. are awesome but the information is biased
Looks like the creator hid my comment :(
This video comes across as very misinformed, I would not take these statements for granted. Here is my response to the “4 reasons why” they weren’t included:
1. Who’s Tanakh? It is known by scholars both secular and Christian that the Hebrew Bible didn’t have a “universal” canon of scripture among the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes until at least a few decades after the Church was established. To say they “weren’t in the tanakh” doesn’t really hold weight here. We know the Essenes collected the deuterocanonical books, we know the Pharisees seemingly had a more strict canon, and we know the Sadducees certainly had a more strict canon perhaps not including the Ketuvim at all.
2. So the reason why Reformers removed these books is because they contradicted their arguments? Lol what.
3. This doesn’t make sense, we have portions of these books older than the oldest sections of Esther. What do the reformers mean “historical basis”?
4. Neither are Song of Songs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, I could go on. A reference does not affirm or deny a books canonicity. This is a incredibly weak argument. What counts as a reference also matters. Hebrews makes a clear mention to Maccabees, Romans and Ephesians have clear influences from Wisdom for example.
In conclusion, the Protestant polemics against the deuterocanon makes no sense to me, and often relies on misinformation and deceptive criteria that fail to produce their own biblical canon.
The Bible does not say, "Salvation comes by Faith Alone,". Martin Luther added the word ALONE at the end of that statement.
How does one receive salvation?
@@Folkloriquee Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV says, "For it is by GRACE you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH and this is not from yourselves, it is the GIFT of God not by works, so that no one can boast."
You do not find the word "ALONE" anywhere?
What is your understanding of this verse?
@@yllabis”not by works” makes the understanding of it faith alone, doesn’t it ?
@@Flay47- No it doesn't. We cannot add words to the Bible so it can suit our narrative.
Faith is active is it not? READ HEBREWS 11 which talks about the Heroes of faith. For example Rahab a prostitute displayed her faith by hiding the Israelite spies in Jericho and helping them escape.
By Faith Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. In other words. Abel didn't just believe in his heart but he backed his belief with action.
This is why the Apostle James says, "Faith without works is dead".
Whilst we are SAVED BY GRACE through Faith. We will be judged by our works (Romans 2:6 ; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelations 20:12 ;)
Salvation comes by Faith, but faith is never Alone!! Faith comes with works.
@@Flay47- Faith is never alone. Read you Bible carefully.
Salvation comes by Faith. But faith without works is dead faith it cannot save you.
Such an amazing video! Helped me so much because I have been trying to help out my Catholic buddies.
Can you please do one on the outline of the bible books, you do such good work!!!
I was going to comment, but I see my brothers and sisters in Christ have this covered. Well done my friends!
Soooo much is wrong here. Not only did Luther single-handedly decide to remove 7 books from the bible that were affirmed in countless councils before him, the dude added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. It doesn't say, "A man is justified through faith faith alone..." It says "A man is justified through faith..."
Where did you find this information?
But what about the thief that got saved in the cross with Jesus? He was saved through faith ALONE. In Catholicism, you are still saved by faith alone, but the justification part is much different than in the Protestant, where it’s simply a yes or no, but in Catholicism justification is kind of a process. However, there are many people who say Catholics are saved through works, and many people who say that works don’t matter in Protestantism, and both views are wrong.
So curvy Cyril of Jerusalem just died or something ?
Repentance is a work. If someone is dying and desires to be a follower that does count for baptism of desire (ONLY IF THE PERSON IS ABOUT TO DIE, IF THEY DONT THEY SHOULD DTILL BE BAPTISED)
Not to mention how it’s affirmed by Jerome and Athanasius and many other notable church fathers
Bible was canonised by Catholic church in the late 3rd century. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). So during the time of apostles and early Christians time, they don't even have a clue about New Testament books. Thats why Acts 2/42 says believers devoted themself in apostles teaching and fellowship. First bible printed by Gutenberg was a 73 book Latin Vulgate. First protestant bible developed by Martin Luther contained 73 books. First edition of King James version of bible (1611)contained 73 books. It even had saints feast days.
All the oldest available copies like Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniticus have 73 books.
Thank you SOOO MUCH for explaining it with animation, I know how much effort it is to put together.
Animation + editing awesome but the information is biased
Really love this video.... Thanks for the new knowledge added.
You should have mentioned that Jerome (4th century) coined the name Apocrypha and grudgingly included the books in the canon. There is no widely agreed upon list of books in the Apocrypha. Furthermore, the Apocrypha includes folklore, use of magic, worship of angels, and major historical errors such as identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the king of the Assyrians (he was the king of Babylon). The Apocrypha is beautiful and contain hidden secrets but require a discerning reader. This is why Jerome said that many of its books read like "the crazy wanderings of a man whose senses have taken leave of him," and they deserve to be "hidden" or separated from the canon of sacred scriptures.
As most protestants you ignore the orthodoxy, the true unchanged christianity. And removing those books makes Luther and his ilk anathema i.e. outside of church. There are reasons why those books were present even if deutorocanonical. The only one taht was argued over a lot was the Apocalipse. For instance Tobit shows that angels are servants that help us in our daily life and answer our prayers to God. It also establishes a 3rd angelic name, that of Raphael . As a note the four names existed for a long time on Judaism: Michael, Gabriel Raphael and Uriel. Other books are essenttial in prophecies about the Messiah and Manasseh exemplifies what Iona said : I knew that you are a merciful and patient God who feels sorry for the mistakes of humans and does not want for the sinner to die but repent.
The first mistake in the video that jumped at me was incorrectly dating Marcion. He was not alive in 85 BCE. He traveled to Rome around 140 BCE. His canon was circulating between 140 BCE and 150 BCE. Marcion was the first Christian to develop a Christian canon which all future canons are based on. You are correct, he a proto-Luke gospel and 10 letters attributed to Paul.
Another mistake was listing the final Jewish canon in 450 BCE. That is way too early. By the first century CE, only the Torah and Nevi’im was canonized. The Ketuvim was not completely canonized either in the late first century or second century CE.
He said 85AD
@@keyliatchedjou9100 Thank you for that. I mistyped. I might to write 85 CE.
Question, I believe Jesus quoted books in the Kevitum, like psalms, and proverbs
Oh, I caught other mistakes: I meant 140 CE, not 140 BCE and I meant 150 CE, not 150 BCE.
@@WLKNIFMinistries Yes, you correct. Jesus quoted the Psalms at his death and quoted psalms at other times. Yes, the gospels are one of the earliest attestations of the three-fold canon. However, the Ketuvim still was not fully canonized during Jesus' time. Daniel, Esther, Ruth, for example, were still in flux.
Im confused by something here. We can see in the Deuteronomy passage that "when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken" , but then also we see in Mark 13:26,30, Jesus says: "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory…Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."
This did not come true. Before that generation died, the things prophesied didnt happen. Does this mean that the bible is directly calling Jesus a false prophet? I am relatively new to the faith, and hadn't come across this reading from Deuteronomy before, and now I'm quite confused.
Thanks for any clarification
That is a contentious verse on the surface, but we know Jesus isn't a liar. What Jesus often did was use odd wording and stories to get people to think outside of their normal perceptions. The only part of what Jesus says that is truly confusing is what he meant by "this generation". However, we can perhaps infer from the first part his message what he means.
Mark 13:26 is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13-14. The Son of Man vision is part of Daniel's vision called the 4 Beasts. The vision is explained to be four kingdoms, with the fourth being unlike anything that Daniel could even relate it to. This final kingdom would be destroyed and power given over to the Son of Man (Jesus). Just what these four kingdoms are is a debated mystery thanks to the odd nature of biblical prophesy. Some say that Rome could be the fourth beast, but there have been many Rome-like empires since then. I would argue that a nigh incomprehensible kingdom has yet to rise since Jesus' time, though some have tried.
Biblical prophecies (as far as I've grown to understand them) are potentially a combination of near and far future events. Studying Revelation shows that there are three main groups of thought: Pre-Millennialism, Post-, and A-. Some say it's the past, others future, others none. I believe in both Pre- and Post- as much of Revelation does connect to historical events, but the book itself makes it clear that not everything has come to pass, most notably the return of Christ. So too is the nature of the 4 Beasts of Daniel, which also end with Christ's eternal reign.
All of the past leads up to the cross, and all of the future leads back to it. Christ's sacrifice at calvary is the axis by which all reality and life spins. "This generation" could be another instance of a both present and future thing, but being paired with other events that haven't yet passed is important to note. That whole passage has a weird wishy-washy feel towards time in the first place.
Strong's Concordance states that the word "generation" is used here in the manner that means of that specific day and age, however it's worth noting that could be interpreted as the Church, which is everlasting. Verse 31 of the Mark passage relates to judgement day and even then Jesus says his words shall endure and the Church is the 'body' of Christ, the proclaimers of his word. Certainly a possible explanation, but it's just that, a possibility.
Jesus certainly isn't a liar, so if there is a discrepancy with what he says, it's more than likely our inability to properly see the picture. Hope this helps. I tried to be as unbiased as possible. Feel free to ask anything else.
JESUS was describing the cruel and adulterous generation , not the current generation of Jews alive then .
@@barrykinservik5834So Jesus didn’t lie it’s just our fault for not understanding that his actual words and their actual definitions clearly aren’t supposed to be taken at face value because that would mean Jesus did lie and of course we already know that’s simply not possible because we’ve already defined him as someone who is perfect and could never be wrong. Seems legit
@@jerusalem330how do you know?
@@elilane8627 Jesus clearly knew the times he would return and what would be happening in the world ... wars and rumours of wars .... false Christ's..... earthquakes in diverse places .... strange sights in the sky...... He would also have known that the Antichrist has to come first . So he was describing the characteristics of the generation as opposed to the generation living then . He would have read the book of Daniel. Hope this answers your question 🙏
This video sounds like a "soviet" propaganda of protestant canon of 66 books.
Awesome video brother❤ very informative✝️
So what can you say about the 7 books of Moses and especially the book of Enoch?...
I'd really want to see or hear your review on that
I used to accept answers like this, but I just kept asking questions and there seems to be no good answer.
Me too ..asked too many questions and now I'm back to the church I used to call " the wh0re of Babylon" which was truly the Bride of Christ ..so glad He lead me to Truth ...May He guide all our protestant, orthodox and catholic brothers and sisters to the Truth of the Catholic church
Hello, I still have two questions though,
1. Why was the « apocalypse of Peter » not included in the end ? You mention it at 4:06 but then you don't say why or when it was removed.
2. What about the books of Enoch, I know they were not included in the Tanakh but the books where considered as true by the jews at Jesus's time.
about the book of enoch, i know it was written after he himself was alive. it was written I believe during the second temple period of jesus time. also I believe it talks about somehow enoch himself being the saviour which clearly contradicts the bible. and it also has other false teaching. i have not read it myself so I can not be assured, but this is what I have come across so far
The book of Enoch was popular among the Jews but they never accepted it as canon and it was not considered true.
Hey there, for the first question, apocalypse of Peter was written around 100 ad, and I believe people found two fragments of the book in Greek and Ethiopian version. Apparently there both different even tho there the same book. The book has a lot of Greek mythology which is not Scripture base, and around 100 ad there was a lot of churches that had there own "new testament" books because they believed they had the higher knowledge of spiritual stuff, this includes the apocalypse of Peter, and the book of Judah and etc. remember Scripture becomes valid when they connect, not when they contradict each other. And it's cool to see this happen because in the book of John, he says to be careful of people teaching "new stuff" that there's going to be a lot of people adding new stuff to the scriptures so they can deceive many and have for themselves benefits
Book of Enoch was included in all Dead Sea scroll. Period.
@@AlexKinPongLo yes. But it still doesnt answer the question. Why was it not in included in the Bible ?
I seriously clicked on the video hoping that it would show me the true story of the bible but it's just another video showing the weak analogy of protestants and there self contradicting claims about the bible. among plenty of historical errors and jumping of significant events such as visiting of queen Sheba to Solomon (by the time which she translated most holy books of the Jews of the era on to local Ethiopian language),the destruction of the Jewish books in 722BC when they were invaded by the Assyrians ,the Levites version of the old testament, Septuagint (LXX),translation of Saint Jerome ,council of nicea, Dead Sea Scrolls the 4 reasons why Luther left the books is actually not that satisfactory at all,1there are several versions of the Hebrew old testament and the more ancient ones than TANACH(btw is not actually compiled in 450BC but rather had several centuries of editing and compiling lasting up to 10th century )which included the "deuterocanonical" books.2,the principle of "faith alone" is formulated by Luther and believed by his sub dominions (which is the real reason he left them out because they contradicted with the religion he wanted to create)only.3,weak and strong arises from the fact that you want to prove since you have left several important historical events.4,actually it does confirm them in several parts like 1st kings 15:31,matheiw 27:9 and many others ,but even if there were none the same logic applies for all parts of the bible books. many of them weren't written on the other books of the bible making this a ridiculous argument.
One glaring FACT you left out...
Jesus and the apostles quoted **from the Septuagint** (more than 80% of old testament quotes), which includes the Catholic books!
The only authority give to Martin Luther to REMOVE books from the bible comes from those who follow him INSTEAD of The Rock Jesus' Established! (Joshua 24:25-28/Mat 16:18)
such a great and straight to the point video. God is good and may He bless you to keep working hard and sharing His Word! continue to plant the seeds 🌱
The Church has Modes of Credibility. Such as:
1. Historical Connection to the Apostles (read Apostolic Fathers)
2. Miracles, Catholic miracles have about similar evidence to things like the Resurrection. Take Fatima, for example.
3. Exorcisms
4. Teaching righteously
Etc.
Therefore, Catholic Authority doesn’t go into an infinite regression, but there are Modes of Credibility,
Easy to understand explanations. Thank you.
I'm heavily confused on why and how humans think we have the authority to remove books of the Bible even if we feel it contradicts. Just confused
Thanks for the well presented video. However, the Canon of the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) was affirmed in AD100, prior to which the “books” or scrolls were translated as you correctly indicate as the Septuigent (Gk) around 100-130 BC for the Jews in the diaspora. Therefore , the early Church, known as The Way, before the use of the word Christian in Antioch (Acts) already had Gospels and Letters to the Churches in circulation, yet not as a formal codex. Council of Hippo and Carthage was correct.
Unlike today, literacy was limited to nobility/aristocracy/church and the Bible was painstakingly hand copied and books were rare and expensive to the overwhelming population. Thus the Church either read from the Greek or Latin (translation by St Jerome).
The other error was to show that “indulgences” were sold over the centuries. While it is acknowledged that the Church erred especially in the 15th century in monetising indulgences or remission of sins, the Reformation did bring about changes in the Council of Trent AD1545-1565. The Church self corrected, and while corruption at various levels is acknowledged, Churches were build to the Glory of God. A period of the Renaissance.
What many modern Christians fail to recognise is how history repeats itself. The “prosperity gospel” is used to enrich individuals personally, with palatial homes, private airplanes, massive auditoriums and obscene salaries.
Nevertheless, the Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) were printed in the earliest Protestant Bibles, and finally “removed “ around 1850. Therein may be another video you may wish to research.
+Pax Christi
The main issue with this video is that you're doing this:
deciding what to believe before finding evidence, and then cherry-picking the evidence to prove your arbitrarily pre-chosen beliefs
... instead of this:
starting with an open mind and looking at all the evidence/ideas/arguments equally to see which belief will come out on top
This video has some striking errors and omissions:
- The apostles were all Hellenized Jews and quoted from the Deuterocanon pretty extensively.
- The author skips over the Council of Rome and the Galasian Decree in 382 that established the western canon. Because Rome, Carthage and Hippo were regional, not ecumenical councils, the canon was never actually closed for what would become the the Eastern and Oriental Churches.
- In the 9th Century, a group of Jews in the Holy Land called the Masoretes wanted to purge Judaism of Greek influence and that meant adopting only the scriptures that were originally in Hebrew. This was about 500 years after three Christian councils had recognized the scriptures as divinely inspired.
- Vernacular bible translations were never banned. The Septuagint and new testaments were in Greek. They were translated first to Latin because at the time, Latin was the vernacular language. As the Church spread, the bible was translated into German, Romanian, Polish, French, Old English, Gaelic, Arabic etc. It is true that in 1408, the Church in England banned unsanctioned translations into English because John Wycliffe purposely mistranslated words to protest both the Church and the Crown. It wasn't a ban on English translations, just unsanctioned translations. Lay people were allowed to have their own bibles but illuminated transcripts cost the equivalent of $15,000 so people had to A)be literate and B) be affluent.
- It was really John Calvin more than Luther that advocated the truncated Bible. He used the Masorete's as his reasoning. Most protestant bible remained 73 books long until the late 19th century when Bible publishers in England removed the Deuterocanon as a cost saving measure. Protestant bibles are a product of shrinkflation.
- "As soon as a coin..." was not a widespread slogan. It is attributed to one man. Fr. Johan Tetzel. He was disciplined by the Church for his abuses. Was there other clerical abuses? Yes. They were addressed by the Church during the counter-reformation. But the presenter owes his viewers a correction for overstating the abuse.
Jude definantly references Apocryphal writings. Why would that not give authority to Enoch?
The Book of Enoch could've mentioned Jude.
@@mranumous I’m not sure I follow… do you mean 3 Enoch or all of them?
@@mranumousthe book of Enoch couldn’t have mentioned Jude, considering it was written before Jude was born.
II Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
[16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
When timothy is referring to "All scripture", he is almost certainly referring to the scripture present in the Greek translations that the early Christians used. Said scripture is not just the Old Testament most Protestants are aware of, but contains others like Wisdom and Baruch and Tobit.
@@zeektm1762 Those books were never part of the old testament canon according to Jews and according to the Lord, from Abel to Zechariah He said......The Lord never ever quoted from those. Those books teach contrary to doctrine and thats why they are not canonical. They are good for history but not doctrine.
For example, necromancy is forbidden in OT, but in Maccabbees its allowed. Witchcraft is forbidden in the Old testament and the new yet in Tobit its promoting it.
God is not a God of confusion, His Word never contradicts itself. The addition of the apocrypha to the OT was done at the council of trent as a counter reformation, so that the RCC could back up their false teachings of praying to the dead, veneration of idols etc.....
Right off the bat, the premise that the Catholic view is that the Church gives the books their authority is false. It’s hard to believe that the author of this video did extensive research and got this wrong.
I wish the background music and sound effects were quieter and the narration was louder. This is good information.
If God is Sovereign, Then whatever happens, he has ordained it, or allows it. Concerning his WORD, if he allows it I am okay with it. Nothing is beyond his control. End.
So then how does this belief factor into things you disagree with?
That really depends if the things that have come to the light are the things that God has hinted at us that are actually wrong.
But man can have the free will to reject God, and fallen away.
I partially agree, but what about, for example, the book of Mormons?
@@scriber36 what about it?
you said the 4 reasons those books were removed was bacause of
1) they werent accepted by the jews. But they were, the Septuigint, which the early church used as their scripture, included them. Early church fathers even argue that the reson some Jews rejected them was because they prophesied about the Christ.
2) They contradicted faith alone. Duh, faith alone is a reformation doctrine that was never taught until 1500 years after His resurrection. The only place where the bible says "faith alone" is in James 2, where it literally says "a man is not justified by faith alone." So deal with that please.
3)It has a weak historical basis, but it doesnt. They were accepted by the early church and even jesus and the Apostles almost always quoted from the septuigint, not the Hebrew text.
4) You said they werent affirmed in the NT but they were. Paul gets the armor of God from the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus celebrates Hanuuka in John 10 which was from the Maccabeees.
@joshuamunn2410 Ephesians 2:8 says "through faith", not "through faith alone".
Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28 both say "of the law"; not simply "works" or "deeds", but "works of the law" and "deeds of the law".
Which of these is correct?
James 2:14 RSVCE
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works?"
or
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works of the law?"
Which of these is correct?
James 2:18 RSVCE
"But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith."
or
"But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works of the law.” Show me your faith apart from your works of the law, and I by my works of the law will show you my faith."
Philippians 3:9 says it again: "of the law".
I'm noticing a pattern. There's "works", and there's "works of the law".
@lifeonahighway9700 I agree that the 4 reasons presented were unconvincing at best.
However, you misunderstood point 3. His point there is not that the Septuagint had a weak historical basis but that the deuterocanonical books had a weak historical basis. That too is not an accurate claim.
We rely on 1 and 2 Maccabees even to understand what Hanukkah is today. So those two books at the very least are actually strongly historical.
This guy has not thought deeply about this issue and clearly wants to not go too deep into it in case he comes to some uncomfortable findings.
Some will point to the book of Judith as an example and say that because it states that "Nebuchadnezzar... reigned over the Assyrians at Nineveh” that it is historically weak.
But that is not the case if the book was written in code to avoid angering the authorities of that time though. That is a possibility that Protestants have not even considered, let alone refuted or rejected.
2) Show me your faith without acts and I will show you from my acts my faith
Bro, the early fathers of the church of Writers of the new testament take 18 quotations from these seven books of the Septuagint. That proves that there's no lack of holiness to those books
Thank you :)
He never mentioned the book of Enoch but Enoch is mentioned in the scriptures.
Im not sure about the book of enoch, I read some of it and it checks out. Still I have my doubts though and still waiting on God responces on it.
It was written way too long after Enoch lived for it to even b considered as legit
The fact is protestants, Orthodoxs, and Catholica to watered down sources for Biblical knowledge instead of going to ACTUAL scripture. Thsts why Christianity is the lopsided bear with 3 ribs from Daniel 7
Enoch was not directly quoted, but I believe that Messiah’s beatitudes may mirror passages from the Book of Enoch
Enoch did not write the Book of Enoch, it was written several thousands of years after him. Quote: The Enoch that Genesis 5 mentions didn't write the book. Scholars and historians agree that the Book of Enoch is a compilation of writings from different authors. Historians date the oldest sections of the book to 300 B.C. They date the youngest sections to 100 A.D. Therefore, the book's composition occured 3,000 to 4,000 years after the historical figure Enoch walked the earth. End quote.
Real simple common sense… there are only 2 covenants; thus the Old & New Testament…
the apocrypha was NEVER in either of the testaments… they were placed in between both of the testaments in the KJV 1611… Also, the rhythm of them books are different from the books in the Bible. Also, the “extra” books have contradictions to basic Bible belief & even have contradictions within themselves…
The deuterocanonical books (these 7 books, not the whole Apocrypha) do not attempt to make a new covenant. Their contents are based on the context of the Old Covenant. This makes no sense.
What do you mean "rhythm" of the books?
Thankyou Im deciding which book should i buy orthodox or Catholic or protestants. ❤️❤️❤️
There are more books "missing". 4 Esdras mentions that there are 204 books. Even within the "OT" there are "missing"books mentioned.
What happened to Constantine and Nicea? Some faiths have more books and some less. The Ethiopian Bible has all three Enoch books. The Bible in orthodox Catholics have 70 apostles. Our Bible says that too. The history of how the Bible came to be depends on many opinions. Who didn’t allow the gospel of Thomas? Why? Who was Valentinus? Simon Magus? Some say that Acts was composed by many authors and some of the letters are credited to the wrong authors. You made an interesting video, good to start with but lacks so much information. But, the video would be a series of documentaries.
So to answer the Councils of Niceea and Constantinople dealt with certain heresies and created as a result the creed. Before the great schism when the catholics torn themselves from the orthodox root and later the protestants from them everyone agreed on the same books. Regarding Enoch almost no one accepted them due to certain ideas that go against the church dogma. The whole thing reads as fan fiction and is based on a single misinterpreted verse that says the sons of God ( Seth descendents) mingled with the daughters of man( Cain descendants). The Holy parents say that if demons could produce offspring virtually no woman would be left undefilled by them. About the gospel of Thomas is not really a gospel , rather a collection of sayings mostly collected from the other gospels and agins reads like fan fiction. It does not bring anything worth while to the table, the authenticity is debatable and was not accepted by the early church. Valentinus was a priests that officiated marriages in an age of christian persecution. His actions are totally opposite to the holiday of lust and debauchery named after him in modern times. Simon Magus was a sorcerer tried to buy the gift of the holy spirit seeing his demonic tricks no longer fool anyone. In the end he died curshing while falling from the sky wheere he was previously held by demons
Actually the Bible is missing more than 7 books.
Curious fact, Roman Empire “converted to Christianity” with Constantine, wether it was for political reasons or true conversion thereafter, the Roman church took upon themselves to set a pope while in the meantime persecuted and almost got rid of the Christian Orthodox Church while pretending to be on the same page with them. TIL this day the Christian orthodox faith has the most books in their Bible.
Though the Roman asserts that they are the one true faith since Jesus, the truth is that they converted Roman pagan holidays into Christian (with the excuse of getting rid of the paganism), they suppressed God’s Word until they no longer could.
They can say that they had good intentions all along but the facts of history prove otherwise
You sound hater with a lot of emotions
There were a long list of popes before Constantine...
@@LORO__ the early church fathers were comprised of two main groups the Christian Orthodox (Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah) and the Roman Catholics (gentiles included). The Christian Orthodox (they still practice today, look them up and their history) state that though leaders were undisputed, the “pope” was something that the Catholic Church claimed to be a way to “unify”. Peter and Paul were actual leaders and no one disputed that.. but the Romans took it upon themselves to establish A leader, and called him the pope. The Christian Orthodox did not oppose at first as they saw no harm (little did they know that they were preparing to take over, look into the Christian Orthodox history). It was not until the 1800s that the Roman pope declared to be the sole representative of God on earth (I’m sure that had great motives behind it). Just as all the reputations they ruined when anyone disagreed with the abuse of power, the lives they persecuted and martyred when they attempted to bring light to their practices or to translate the Bible so believers could have access to the Bible in their homes. Or even the crusades that even killed their supposed comrades leaders, the Jewish orthodox. I don’t blame nor have anything against my Catholic brothers, I know they are believing what they have been told to be truth. It’s the Vatican who is the wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing that I strongly dislike.
What comforts me is that all will come to light and I think we might be very close to that! All of the things that have been done in the secret place will be exposed. What joy for those who have made peace with the True Living God, through Jesus Christ. 👑
For a more accurate portrayal of history see Joe Heschmeyer's video's "8 myths about Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation" and "How were the books books of the bible decided?", There's also Voice of reason's "the true story of how the bible was put together". Dr Brant Pitre also covers old testament canon in his video "The myth of the council of jamnia and the origin of the bible" Dr Brant actually shows in Jewish texts that even after 90ad through to around 300's Jewish scribes were still debating about old testament canon and were actually writing disagreements to scribes centuries prior to them. Even if by some miracle Jews had settled the canon in 90ad would you really accept the canon from those around the time period who crucified Christ considering as the church had already been established by this point.
Great video
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Exactly what Scripture is Timothy referring to?
Obviously the books of the New Testament did not yet exist.
So that just leaves ; the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:40
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Christianity got into trouble the moment they elevated the New Testament above the Old.
Revelation 2:5
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
That’s quite a conjecture on what was happening 2,000 years ago. Paul was asking Timothy to bring the parchments. He had also written to the Galatians and others. Timothy had been given the church of Ephesus. I don’t think they would get together to talk about football. They were spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. In fact, Paul stated that to stick with the Law was not necessary anymore. Galatians purpose was to answer a letter that Judaizers were changing the doctrine taught to the Galatians by Paul. Peter was admonished by Paul for not wanting to eat with the Gentiles because Peter was still biased towards the Jews but realized his error. No, the New Testament was at first by word of mouth (opinion until archeologists find any scripts). There’s evidence that at least one of Paul’s epistles is missing. I would suggest reading the Bible more often.
Yes, and most critical NT scholars do not think that Paul actually wrote the pastoral epistles, so I am not sure what to think of it.
@@haggismcbaggis9485scholars are not the Holy men, be aware most of them are antichrist. That's why they come with the theory of lilith, Gospel of Jesus's wife.
@@haggismcbaggis9485 more conjecture. You believe that? It’s your soul. The NT scholars are gaslighting you with rhetoric. Care for your soul and don’t let the outside into your temple. Read for yourself and the Holy Spirit will guide you. Scholars ruin everything like the Chaldeans in Daniel or the Pharisees, the gnostics, Valentinus, Marcion, false prophets. They are everywhere. The soul is the most precious thing anyone has.
@@lf7354 It seems more probable than not. Consequences to my soul have no bearing on whether something is true. Good scholarship does not rely on rhetoric, but rather examining evidence. Early Christianity was rampant with forgery with Pauline examples such as 3 Corinthians, Laodicea, Seneca, Acts of Paul and Thecla. I am sure some of authors sincerely thought they were being guiding by the Holy Spirit.
The 7 books were removed for Luther’s own ideology. No matter what way you try to twist or bend it. He didn’t agree with something that has been agreed upon since the 4th century.
10:38
And nor matter what way you try to caricature Luther, all church councils and authorities are reformable and can err. In addition, Jews still depend on the tanakh today meaning luther had a point
Wow! Are you friend of Luther? Have you talked to Luther face to face? Are you god to know his motives? Wow!
It's EIGHT books plus the additions to Esther & Daniel that were removed. Don't forget about "the Letter of Jeremiah" - which is usually attached to Baruch.
Luther never moved the books he put them I. Apocrypha but he kept them the 1611 king James still had them.
Luther was having a debate with I don’t remember who and he was getting his butt beat, at that point he said those books don’t count and recited a piece of Jerome view on them.
Could you provide some of your sources for this information?
Thank You ❤
Your friend continues to be right.
The ones who agree are just praising, with no fact, logic or argument. The ones who contradict you, they are casting light to all misinformation in your video. I am not christian (or even religious), but I can't imagine butchering the holy book I believe just to follow a random monk with his on agenda.
erm sir, please elaborate on the easy refutation of the Apostolic Succession and and Praying for intercession from mary, baptism, and grace and works
If his refutation was anything like this video, either he easily lost the debate or he was debating a tree
James 2:20 implies that faith + works = salvation, rather than only faith without works
wikipedia says marcion was born in 85. so how could a 1 year old publish a book?
i personally like the "Extra" books whether read as inspired or just good teaching and there are good things to get from them !! My Personal opinion !!! ❤
don't let this guy in charge of a church
Wrong, there are 81 books ☦️🗿
What are the other 8.
@@emeraldstories3586 Honestly, I don't know. But the orthodox church recognises slightly more than the catholic does for example.
Appreciate the love expressed at the end. I hope Catholics and Protestants can both practice it!
One question I'm left with is: you say in several spots that Jewish people and Christian people accepted X books as Scripture. How did that work practically? They probably weren't taking polls of people. It seems to me that it must have been the leadership (Jewish priests and Christian bishops) that God worked through to identify the correct faith held by the whole People of God (Old Testament and New).
I found this very educative and informative. Thanks for sharing your research in a digestible format
Thanks for affirming that the 73 catholic bible is the historical christian canon and that the 66 book bible was a result of Luther's OPINION.
Facts
Not even slightly is that the case, nice try lol
@@DMTFLTV have you watch the video? he did affirmed it
The KJV is also not inspired. You have no reason to beleive that. And arguments for it presuppose Protestantism, and use circular reasoning. They also use bad conspiracy arguments. And even the authors even said they were not infallible. It also used St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, btw. And also, it includes many mistranslations scholars note, aren’t in accord with the original Hebrew, like saying unicorn.
If it's not the case then name a single Bible that existed before the reformation that contained 66 and only 66 books.@@DMTFLTV
You still didn't answer by what authority can Martin Luther remove books? If he can, why can't we all?
Maybe he was correcting an error from the prior counsels? Even Jerome made a point of keeping them out of the Latin Vulgate before he was compelled by the church to include them
@@bible.animations Correcting an error? This is the same guy who said Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation are disputed books which we obviously believe not to be true. Why did he say those books are disputed?
@@espi371 According to history those 4 NT books WERE disputed in the early church. And yes, those 7 OT books were ADDITIONAL books written in Greek language, added to Septuagint by the hellenized Jewish church. By the way after the diaspora the Jews removed those 7 books from their canon while the church kept them until Luther.
@@csabasaghegyi6083 - It is possible that the 8 Deuterocanonical books [Don't forget: "the Letter of Jeremiah] were originally written in a Shemitic language - Hebrew &/or Aramaic - before being translated into Greek. Most of the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira has been found & preserved. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a lot of the DUAL LANGUAGE (Heb. & Aram.) Book of Tobi [i.e. Tobit]. The DSS also contained the Hebrew text of Psalm 151. That Psalm is unauthentic based on the Masoretic Text, but we do see that there was an original Hebrew text behind the Greek translation in the GrkOT. Jerome commented that there was a Hebrew text of 1st Maccabees; which apparently is lost now. The Shemitic names of persons & places in Yehudith (Judith) could indicate that there was an original Hebrew or dual Hebrew & Aramaic text of Yehudith. Catholics will also say that God could use any language, even the Greek language, for Divine Scripture. So if Jerome was mistaken about a Hebrew text of 1st Maccabees, it's possible that God just used the Greek language for the writing of 1st-2nd Maccabees.
The 22 [or 24] book Jewish Canon was common but there were several Jewish Canons b/c the OT Canon was still open. The discovery of the DSS is one proof of that.
@@csabasaghegyi6083 "kept them until Luther". No, the Church still has them printed together.
At 10:39 reason#4 doesn’t explain it everything because some of the New Testament writers quoted or “affirmed” the first book of Enoch and that wasn’t included.
“These book were included to make a so lot of money.” Yeah no. If that was the reason they were canonized how come they were reaffirmed at Carthage, Hippo, Trent, etc. Also why would it take until Martin Luther (1200 years later) to make these uncanonical. You think we would have heard it early then the 1600s. Also Martin Luther wanted 25 books removed, and not just small books like John 2, 3 and Phillimon. But the first 5 books of the OT, 3/4 Gospels, Act, Romans, James (because it condemns the idea of Sola Fide), Job, the 7 books he did remove, and a few more. In total it was 25 of the 73 books.
Argument 2 that these books dont belong in the canon because it contradicts "faith alone" is a fallacious argument. Thats like saying John shouldnt belong in the canon because it very explicitly says the Word was God, and that contradicts my presupposition that Christ is not God. This is not a well researched video unfortunately.
There's no biblical evidence that Christ is not God, there's immense biblical evidence that we are saved by faith alone. (check the references I left in the video) ☺️
Lolz.. faith alone is refuted every single time it was raised in a public debate. Even Jesus himself refutes it.
There is a vast amount of information omitted in this video. It seems as if the author only took the history that portrayed Luther in a positive light and did not read Luther's own vile writings. Stomachs would turn if one simply read the reasons why Luther wanted the New Testament books removed or read any of the books he authored.
@@bible.animations(w/as little snide as possible) none of those verses say the word “alone” just faith without the Old Covenant laws (circumcision etc).
Also, (w/minimal snark) why does the deuterocanon get taken out because the New Testament never mentions it, but Ecclesiastes, Esther, Nehemiah, and Song of Solomon get to stay. Even if that’s only one reason of many it’d still at least put a bunch of Old Testament writings into question.
But the word was God and is God, and it became flesh. It ties together with genesis with in the beginning. Jesus is God because He gave us the Holy Spirit.
What about the Book of Enoch, and the Ethiopian Bible? Because in my research, I've found an entirely DIFFERENT story that led me to believe the Ethiopian Bible is more complete.
what is that different story?
The story I have come to understand is that the Dead Sea Scrolls were translated, and then Ethiopia received one, and the European churches received one, but the European church has started cutting books out, and Ethiopia never found that need
Joe Heschmeyer in his Shameless Popery channel has some good commentary about this topic.
your slide of the hippo canon says 33 books, but you list a total of 34 books.
You was doing a fair job until you implied at 8:15 that the 7 books Protestants dropped were only in the full Bible to support ‘a lot of money’ for the Church. That’s a really weak argument.
1. Tithing and giving atonement money is clearly ordained and required elsewhere in the Old Testament see Lev 27:30 and Ex 30:16.
2. Praying for the dead in Maccabees: Jews still say the El Malei Rachamim prayer for the soul of the dead.
3. Authority of the Jews to decide canon: the Jews reject the whole of the New Testament so this ‘authority’ is inconsistent
4. Authority of being quoted in the New Testament: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the New Testament so this justification is inconsistent
I’m sure your colleague is eagerly awaiting the justification for why Protestants dropped sacred scripture from their Bibles.
As a Christian, I don’t agree with the veracity of most Jewish teachings. Jesus Christ called the Jewish priests evil (Synagogue of Satan). Even Jeremiah 8:8 is indicative of false teachings. That’s a Jewish book. During the Christian construction ten percent of the Roman population was Jewish. To think that they didn’t have a hand in the putting together of the Christian Bible is naive. However, Jesus made sure to have Paul teach Christianity removing the Jewish burden prospectively.
@@lf7354 The early Christians were Jews as was Jesus! Rabbinic Judaism came about after the destruction of the Temple (70 AD). They dropped the Septuagint around the second century AD because they thought the Greek translation of Scriptures supported Christianity too much (remind you of a certain Luther’s justification for dropping the 7 books which he thought supported Catholicism too much?)
@@notaholyjoebutworkingonit I have always said Jesus was born into the Jews. Jesus is the Son of God made flesh (Hebrews, John). In the New Testament it’s always the Hebrew people who were afraid of the Jews. An instance is the blind man that Jesus cured and the Pharisees were questioning the man’s parents and they were afraid of the Jews. There’s many other instances demonstrating a separation between the “Righteous” Pharisees and the ordinary people. This is one of the main reasons for Gods sending Jesus as a last chance and for God’s abandonment of them in 70ad. This is clear in Jesus parable of the rich man that bought land for grapes and winery. Leaving it to servants that eventually kill the rich man’s son in order to keep the business. Who are these servants that are referred to?
I personally prefer to read the prophets and the New Testament. The Jews killed their prophets angering God. But, Jesus always spoke of another flock and that was the Gentiles. That’s why I don’t put much into reading the Old Testament. The ministry of Jesus stands on its own. Why do we Gentiles have the book of another religion attached to ours? It’s said that it is because it’s referenced by Jesus. That’s a reason why I believe there was Jewish influence in the composition of the Bible.
The Jewish Talmud despises Jesus and says he is the son of a centurion that raped Mary. A total lie and easily debunked story. As History has shown, the Jewish “aristocracy” has had much influence in war and finance. Things that Jesus abhor. Only 144,000 will be saved says revelations. Paul speaks of the two olive trees in Romans. How one tree will lose its branches and branches of the other tree will be grafted into the first tree. That’s Gentiles into the Jewish proper faith. Again referred to in revelations as the two witnesses referred by many incorrectly to be Moses and Elijah or maybe Enoch.
The Judaizers did inject their beliefs into the new Christian faith. It caused the Thessalonians to believe the resurrection had already occurred. Paul had to bring back the inspiration of his teachings documented in Thessalonians 4:15.
The video had its moments but lacks so much on the history of the Bible. It left out the Council of Nicea when Constantine brought together the bishops and they chose the books to include in the Bible. The apocrypha is still in some orthodox Catholic Bibles and not in others yet they are read from or referred to in almost all Christian churches. The author of this video just wet the appetite of most viewers. I truly hope that these viewers will gain the inspiration to look further into learning the truth and becoming followers of Jesus.
@@lf7354 I’m afraid I can’t agree with your comments. God is always faithful to his everlasting Covenant so the Jews have this (Rom 9:4 & 11:29). We Christians are the ones grafted onto the vine of Israel, the root of which supports us (Rom 11:18) albeit we have our own New Covenant.
As regards to you not putting much into reading the Old Testament’; Jesus often asks ‘Have you read in the scriptures’ (for example Mt 19:4). If you don’t read the scriptures how would you ever answer a question from Christ?
However, I think your approach is in keeping with Luther and exemplifies the problem I have with Protestantism and the video: who gave Luther the authority to drop 7 books from the canon? Who gives you the authority to choose to ignore Old Testament scripture? Without the authority of the Church set up by Jesus Christ it seems Protestants can do anything they like!
@@notaholyjoebutworkingonit no, that’s not correct with what I am saying. I don’t approve or disapprove of the adding or taking of books. I study the Bible and all other literature available including history both scriptures and secular. I also study other religions as a method of comparing them and the way nature declares God. Books on DNA and how science also declares God.
The Jews have syncretic values passed on by their capture by Babylon and the Zoroastrian faith and other surrounding religions such as Sumerian, Akkadian and Phoenician. Also, recently found in Ugarit are historic tablets describing the Canaanite beliefs that are precursors to the Jewish beliefs with El, Asherah, Adonai, etc, gods removed by Guideon or Jerubbaal. To get into that is beyond the scope of this video and your doubts.
However, you do restate what I said and see that you agree. Romans 10 pretty much sums up Jesus requirements along with Matthew 14 and John.
As far as the covenant I agree to disagree. You state Pauline teachings but you don’t see that he walked away from Jewry. He states quite clearly that to follow the law is to bind oneself with unnecessary restrictions. The circumcision is not needed and God doesn’t gain anything by it. Romans and Corinthians are great books to find these things.
I’m not your priest or have anything to do with the outcome of your soul nor do you mine. How you interpret the word is up to you. I believe that one must keep looking for knowledge as Jesus and Paul said and continue to grow in faith and love of our Savior and Redeemer. That’s looking into all that is available and listening to the thoughts of those here teaching. Dispensing with the evil or incorrect and keeping the good. I am not a Protestant since I study the Catholic Bible but I also study the orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, etc. I don’t limit myself with dogma or doctrines but to my own heart and understanding of the written word. That’s not protesting anything. That’s studying for myself and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance.
I wish you success in your endeavors and Gods guidance. It was a nice exchange of ideas.
I feel your research was shallow, and only done in defence of 66 books, not with an open mind to understand.
It may be worth adding that the Eastern and Oriental Othrodox also have their own cannons and beliefs about what books belong in the Bible. Also, that while the Deuterocanonical books have long been part of the Catholic canon, their status as co-equally inspired scripture has been disputed within the church; including by Saint Jerome, who translated the canon into Latin.
Can you explain the 88 books of the Ethiopian Bible?
Short answer, the Holy Spirit.
He basically explained how the church made the bible lol