This makes me so sad. There’s too much for me to know. I feel so ignorant and blind. Like am I supposed to research every denomination and find where I fit in? Do I just go to all churches since God should be in each one? Lol. God, send help I’m drowning in information and it’s disturbing my inner peace. It’s like I was separated from my parents at birth and everybody shows me a different pic of who they were - in some pics they’re tall, in some they were Black with dreads, in others they were White with blue eyes. Some people have stories of my parents they would like to tell me but my closest relatives say it’s fake news... I just want to see their real faces and know them myself but I have to rely heavily on this stories people are passing down to me. 😔 I know God is not the father of confusion so whenever I get confused like this I feel really bad for being lost- like I’m doing too much and I just need to hold tightly to what it is that I do know.
What I recommend to do is to pray & pray alone to God. Don’t overthink because to be honest I’m confused as well on this issue. So what I say is to ask God for wisdom & grace. All you need is Christ in your heart & live through faith
True. That is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to direct and guide us along His righteous path according to His word ~ Your ears will hear a word behind you, "This is the way, walk in it," whenever you turn to the right or to the left. Isaiah 30:21(NASB)
Nope it's a relationship. Little by little, get to know every book. Do not let anyone tell you different. This world is a big lie and most religious people dont know much. Yoi can do all the deeds of the church and you still wont make it to heaven. So be vigilant. And pray for discerment.
First of all my LOVE take a deep breath and exhale a few times. There is so much to learn. Right now you have what is called Monkey Brain. it is going everywhere. If you want to know your blood line take a DNA test. Now I say to you do not look back but look at the present and moving forward. You may be going through an awakening and it is a lot to take in. Sometimes you have to take a step back and remove yourself from all of this. I started to read a part of the bible that was removed and I also verified it at the museum and I was in shock. I went home and immediately removed all christmas decoration and got on my knees crying. I surrendered myself and to him and promised not to fight what he has laid out for me. I understand that you want to know your family but not to the point that you miss out on life. GOD has something planned for you but if you spend too much time looking backwards then the assignment GOD has for you will be given to another. I was so confused at one point that for the first time in my life I question Jesus. So one day I saw a tree that was dying and I cried out to Jesus if you are the son of GOD please heal this tree. If not then I ask GOD to bring death to this tree once and for all. The tree survived and every day I visit this tree when I walk my dog. I do not tell anyone which tree it is but it brings a smile to my face because that day when I touched that tree I felt what you are now feeling. I even stopped saying the pope and changed it to that pope because he is not the father. Your going through an awakening so my advice is to learn how to concentrate and focus. Dandapani has really great videos. You must learn concentration before you can begin to master meditation. Praying is speaking to GOD and meditation is listening to GOD. Praise our LORD and SAVIOR that you have awaken. So put your head up and be happy because most people in this world are lost and walking around like zombies. I hope this helps.
I have started reading The Lost Books... I wanted to do my own research too because people would have been recording events throughout time before the flood, before Abraham etc..... If it is not evil as you said, then I will continue to read it until the end. I wanted to know more about God, I thirst for that knowledge but I do not want to jeopardize my spiritual growth by delving in the unknown. Thanks for your advice.
READ & continue to read. The lost books are of the lost tribes of Israel. The TRUE Hebrews. The direct descendants of Abraham, Jacob and Ham. Where were they? Africa... For more information... Shaynerodney95@hotmail.com
If curiosity is a sin to someone's God, that is not a God I could believe in; I refuse to be told I can't know anything or be limited on information. History was written by the winner of wars; I have lost my intrest for the "winners", so now its time to look for the truth. Also to note how any sect of religion starts, is because someone doesn't believe or think something could be true in the original; so its not cannon. Which i call bullshit on, again History is re-written by the victors, this includes religious history.
they are good books, I enjoyed reading them, they in no way changed my prior beliefs, nor did they influence me in believeing something different, it's kind of complimenteray information
eat the chicken meat spit out the bones...never make conclusions... keep on searching. never allow another man dictate to you what not to read never be swayed by any manmade doctrine search the scriptures daily . all scriptures is God breath timothy 3:16 and who determines what to read it is the spirit that lives in you that hungers for truth.
When I was dead for three minutes, I wasn't a Christian. In fact, I was a Satanist (a la LaVey), meaning I believed in an indifferent creator, but that we are (in a sense) our own gods. I certainly didn't believe in an afterlife. To quote LaVey, "Here and now is our day of judgment! Here and now is our day of joy! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth! Say unto thine own heart "I am mine own redeemer", then all thy bones shall sayeth pridefully "Who is like unto me? Have I not been too strong for my adversary? Have I not delivered myself, by my own brain and body?" ...that being said... when I died (for the third time, at age 33) I found myself staring down on my lifeless body. I was drawn toward a black hole that opened up in the sun that was in a painting on my wall. When I went through, I was in a dark corridor and saw a pinpoint of light, like a single star in the night sky. In an instant, it went from a distant pinpoint to the most brilliant light I'd ever seen, which enveloped me completely. I was filled with the most beautiful feeling of love that I've ever experienced. I was shown every interpersonal transaction of my entire life, through the eyes of those I was interacting with, complete with what they felt at the time. Three and a half minutes here on Earth was like 100 years there. I saw (and got to forgive) my dead father. I was shown a being of light pouring a bowl of darkness onto the west African continent, drying up a massive river. I can't tell you everything because 1) it would fill several textbooks...and 2) I was charged with keeping certain information to myself. However, I was told to read the entire Bible. I asked which one, and was told to find the lost books and include them in my studies. I came to with the words "Nag-Hammadi" repeating in my mind again and again. This being told me that man had edited his word against his will, and that the New Testament was given to set free the minds of man, from their worldly overlords. I've since then read the apocryphal texts, and saw exactly what he meant. The very idea of putting a crucifix on an altar is an act of idolatry. I was told that there are messages in that book, for every person who has ever lived and ever will, and that we need no intermediary to speak to him. That he is already inside each and every one of us. I was told that not one church still standing was faithful to his will, and that ecumenical counsel will only serve to lead one astray. Speak to God directly, have faith that he has heard you, and keep your eyes peeled for his answer. Simple as that... Yeshua Immanuel came to abolish silly superstitions. Then, the Romans invented "Jesus" as an attempt at usurping that gift. Anything that was tainted by the hands of Rome is corrupt. The Angel of Rome is Samael. One last thing, completely unrelated.... the number of the beast, like all Hebrew Gematria, is incomplete if it's more than one digit. Samael's number is 9. 666, is a multiple of 9, and like all multiples of 9, it's Gematria reduction invariably returns to 9. It's the number of the ego. Try it yourself... 0+9=9 1+8=9 2+7=9 3+6=9 4+5=9 6+6+6=18.... 1+8=9
I'm interested to know more. You should make a more in depth re telling in video form. Are you saying the gnostics were right? Don't they believe in a higher god or created the creator God? I'm really curious to hear this explained further. I've looked into multiple near death or after death experiences.
Also, would you mind clarifying what you meant by "Yeshua Immanuel came to abolish silly superstitions. Then, the Romans invented "Jesus" as an attempt at usurping that gift." Are you saying Jesus is real or fake?
The only danger of reading the Apocrypha is the part where you can earn your Salvation by giving Alms, which is totally contradictory to what the Gospel says, in Ephesians it says we can never earn Salvation by works. It is only by the Grace of God that we are saved.
I just started reading the apocrypha. I found out that these writings are used in the Talmud. I've been reading with caution as there is so much false information out here. I must say, it has been enlightening and explains a lot. God even explains to Adam and Eve that He would become flesh (Jesus), and sacrifice Himself to save the righteous and restore them. The Lord is good!!!
@@shel0016 Here we go again. Please show me in the scripture where Christ is the SECOND person of the so called Trinity. There is no Trinity. God is ONE. Didn´t GOD say i AM THE ONLY ONE! Jesus Christ is the name of our GOD, of our Son and Holy Ghost. Jesus said: "I came in the father's name". The name of the Son is the same name, because the body inherit the name of the Spirit. What did GOD say he was? He is the Spirit. Holy Ghost is the characteristic of GOD. "I AM HOLY". I sent the Holy Ghost in my name. Acts 4:10 Tells us the name and how many GODS there is. GOD has many functions, but only ONE name. Acts 2:38 = Peter Says which name saves you. When it says: " In the NAME of the father, son and Holy ghost" See how its written "NAME" not "NAMES". Just like i am Husband, seller, teacher, this all together are many of my functions but my name is only ONE. Hope this helps.
@@SpiritualEagle Hello Nico, my hope is to share these scriptures with you so you would understand more who God claims to be in the bible. You are correct, there is only one God and there is no one like him. *(Isaiah 45:5) “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me.” *(Deut 6:4) “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Jeremiah 10:6) "There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might." But we see God describe a plurality of himself, equating other distinct persons to have His image. *(Genesis 1:26) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. The Spirit was present at creation *(Genesis 1:2) "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Jesus was present at creation *(Colossians 1:16) "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible," The Father was present with His Son at creation *(1 Corinthians 8:6) "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." 2. Jesus Himself declares himself as "in the Father", meaning one with Him as God. He also declares to be a distinct person from the Father, explaining the words he speaks belong to the Father, not himself. *(John 14:9-10) Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.” You quoted Acts 2:38 .. describing two distinct people, with two distinct roles. 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus stated it is to our benefit that he leave so we can receive the Holy Spirit (the Helper) whom he (Jesus) would send. (John 16:7) Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. Three distinct people are named here which are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Name is singular, testifying that they are all in one another fully God. *(Matthew 28:19-20) "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Let's look at the verse before this even, where Jesus states authority was given to him from the Father. Again, distinct persons. (Matt 11:27 for further proof) *(Matthew 28:18) "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." There would be no need for the Father to transfer authority if they were not distinct. A scripture that shows all 3 distinct people performing 3 distinct actions. Matthew 3:16-17 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” The three distinct persons of the ONE God are all present here. The Son, obediently fulfilling all righteousness (Matt 3:15), the Holy Spirit descending to rest on Jesus, and the Father affirming that Jesus was in fact His Son. Scripture interprets scripture. God is three in One. One God, three distinct persons. These persons share in the divine attributes of God because they are each part of the God Head and take on distinct roles. Lastly, "sent in my Name.." declares by whos authority they were went. Not that they are the same person
I'm Roman Catholic and I have an old King James Bible with Apocrypha from the 1950s. It has 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, which are not in my Catholic Bible.
I also have an old bible, but not a King James Bible, It also has Apocrypha and the chapters in it. It is old. And has been in my family for a very long time.
@@micheletravis9057 Hi there! May I ask if it is written in Greek or different language? I am full of curiosity and this is case also similar to something I have in mind. Thanks in advance, have a good day!
@@evangelinethompson1125 Hello, it is in between the Torah ( old testament ) And the new Testament. The Torah, was written in Hebrew And Greek, The New Testament was also written in the same language. As for Apocrypha, I am not sure what language it was written in because it was taken out of the bible a long time ago. You can buy a bible with Apocrypha in it, on Amazon., As well as the book of Enoch, which was also taken out of our bible, but is still in the bible in Ethiopa
I read the apocrypha, and I agree there is useful information. However if the Jewish don't recognize it as Scripture why would the RC and Orthodox churches include it in the bible? Of course growing up Catholic I knew that most Catholics don't read the bible. We only got to learn the "highlights" of the bible, and during mass the priest has to follow an agenda of selected NT stories.
LegoGuy87 the reason that we use the same books that the jews use, is that they only worship out of the old testament. also, since jews wrote the old testament and only use the old testament, it is logical to use what they use
This books are reject by post Christian jews who also rejected the new testament so why go by a cult what rejects the new testament... The other jewish sect that didn't reject them was what's now known as Christians Catholics...
Shaolin Showdown God inspired the Church father’s to write the New Testament and the Church fathers were CATHOLIC and the word “CATHOLIC” means UNIVERSAL !!!! And 1500 years after the New Testament was written and practiced by the universal church Martin Luther decided he didn’t like all of the books in the New Testament and he just removed them so no it’s not true Christianity It’s Luther’s Christianity but guess what??????? The universal (Catholic) church is still the SAME as it was for over two thousand years ....
@@vickytheodorides no proof. No verbal, no video, no (most importantly) scriptual proof. Not even circumstantial proof at the very least. Dogma and consensus is not truth. Have you ever thought to consider that people who go against the Catholic church had a humble truthful merit behind theyre rebeliousness? And couldn't God have ordained that separation and the use of the CC thelroughout the centuries? Is man really more in control than God on any plain? Listen to what your saying and me. Critical thinking over cognitive dissonance.
@@vickytheodorides and thats not true. The Catholic church has not been the same in doctrine over two thousand years. Firstly the Roman calender is 2020. The Catholic church formed in 4th century not 1st. And that's proven by scripture. The knowledge and spiritual doctrine is not on par with the Catholic church, so that couldn't be the case. Secondly.... the official stance of the Catholic church has changed in salvation from various councils and many even doctrine on expressions. Many cardinals and scholars of the CC have left or been excommunicated because of non agreements. So there has ALWAYS been a conflict within the CC. You either are ignorant and don't really know because your naive. Or you willingly choose to hold earthly material cultural dogma over Gods will.
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it has not, rather why was it included in the first place?
I always always always take the books not included in the Bible with a grain of salt and am very weary of them. Except the book of Enoch as it is mentioned throughout the Bible. But it’s not evil to read book not included in the Bible Whenever I tell my family (Christian) about these books or even book of Enoch they say “It’s not on the Bible so it’s not a real book and I won’t read it.” Man decided what was in the final copy of the Bible and Torah. Book of Enoch was originally in the Bible but later taken out possibly Bc maybe it seemed to fantastical ?
I think it was removed because this world is not ready for it. Even the Smithsonian has the remains of the Nephilim and won't show it. It is a very dangerous book for this century to comprehend. You have to be awaken and it finds it's way to you. I thought my friend was crazy when she told me. It was as if I was walking around with a fresh pair of eyes. Suddenly I started to look at all the logos and signs with demonic symbols. Hollywood is from the holly tree that was from a pagan GOD that ate children. What the wreath represent and the starbuck symbols and so on. But now I am ok and observe not absorb.
They tell you not to read the book of Enoch yet it confirms giants and why witchcraft came about when 200 angles ( son of man ) came and slept with the daughters of the earth . with this happened it gave birth to inhumane creatures giants . this was also a way to battle the seed ( jesus blood line with a fake one for the devil , leading to just one of the reasons god floods the earth . it's crazy but a preacher pastor darby really broke it down . also he's on UA-cam so look him up to confirm this information .
@MTS 3 baby you must then wonder if the bible we have today now and the bibles before 1611 have 66books then who added them👀 the apocrypha was made and created by the catholics hence why all books of the apocrypha in some way or another contradict the true holy scripts which were recorded in all 66 books of the bible ;)
Jude references Enoch 1:9 as prophesy. It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
It's all about the Fruit of the Spirit and being open to God speaking to you through these books. I'm not Catholic but to shut them off is not being open but rather boxing your faith and God.
What about the story where Jesus and the kid are playing by the river bank. Jesus made some dolls out of the mud and the child told him he shouldn't do that, as it was against the Sabbath. Jesus, being the forgiving type that he is, has the child killed. Do you not what book that is? I've been trying to find it but haven't had much luck.
Rightly so since every book of the apocrypha is contradictory at points with the scriptures. Read and learn the other 66 books well and the apocrypha won't be an issue. At all.
Enoch and Jasher are mentioned several times in scriptures🤔... I've read Wisdom, Sirach, and Enoch so far. My only advice is to read the Bible first then if God wants He will help you connect the dots. Just be careful.... but come on do not call them false....
@@Southernplate Jasher is amazing and speaks of much of Abrams early life. Jubilee is another one that is fascinating with alot of Leviticus style laws and early detailed reports of the garden. nothing is contradicting with our cannon
I don't think he was calling them false but telling what the modern day translation of the word means and he did say they are a good read but mot scripture. I think that is the biggest point is that they weren't included in the Bible for a reason because for 400 years God did not speak so while these books are a great read they shouldn't be preached from the pulpit.
Thank you! I left catholism 50 years ago and have shunned that sect since being introduced to the simplicity of Salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. Your lesson has opened my eyes a bit.
I've been studying The Apocrypha lately, mainly using the New Oxford NRSV 5th edition study bible, alongside multiple other Oxford resources and external sources, and so far I am mostly in agreement with Dr. Robert Plummer. Though I still have some questions and have emailed them in, I do think that though they are not scriptural or divinely authoritative, the apocryphal books do have historical, literary, and moral value to them that is actually supported by some of the Old Testament scriptures. Many of the books of the Apocrypha reference many books in the Old Testament, and I've even found supporting references from the canon Old Testament exegetical annotations that are pretty much reverberated word-for-word in some of the apocryphal writings (bi-directional references). Additionally, though there are specific or exact historical inaccuracies such as where a certain river flowed from/to (the Tigris within Tobit), and exact timings that are clearly incorrect, the historical backgrounds and general happenings in many of the books are actually very accurate. 1 and 2 Maccabees tells the story of the Maccabean revolts, and have an underlying tone/message in them of how God is faithful to those who do not bend the knee to heretics and false Gods (hence him allowing victory to the Maccabeans against a vastly more powerful, influential, and resourceful foe). A majority of what is found in the Maccabean books is historically proven and accurate. The main reasons that make the Apocryphal writings 'apocryphal', is the Hellenistic literary styles and foundations behind them, as well as the fact that many of the authors are completely unknown and cannot be traced to an authoritative writer. If the writer cannot be proven as authoritative by God's divine inspiration, then how can the writings be authoritative? That is why the root Greek meaning "hidden things" accurately and aptly applied and still applies to these books. All in all, I think they are useful and edifying, ONLY if you have a strong foundation in the divinely-inspired scriptures, and if you also have a strong knowledge of the history of the time frames in which the apocryphal books were all written. They should not be taken as sovereign and authoritative divine scripture, but they can be read for their historical insight, gap-bridging, and moral reverberations and strong moral references to the canon OT. IF you can keep this key differentiation in mind when you read them, I do not believe there is any harm in enjoying these pieces of ancient literature.
Kody Pelton "The BIBLE" Greatest Book Ever Written. Last Days Prophesy! Babylon The Great (America) Is Falling. 1 EFDRAS 4:36 All the earth called upon the TRUTH, and the heaven blesseth it, all works shake and tremble at it, and with it is no Unrighteousness thing. All Praises To The Most High and his Son. The BIBLE: Historical and Prophetic facts about Jesus Christ and ELOHIM chosen people the Israelite nation.
Prof Plummer began with declaring those apocryphal books to be addition to the already fixed canon of 39 OT books. The problem with this statement is there is no single verses of NT that tells us which books and how many books belong to Old Testament - the word "addition" he used is not appropriate. Both Jews and the first Christians did not have a fixed canon during the time of Christ. We know that Jewish Talmud still cited as Scripture some verses of Sirach. The early Christians unanimously agreed only on inspiration of 38 books of OT (minus Esther) and 20 books of NT (minus 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation) while the rest were disputed. Prof. Plummer also claimed that Jesus never considered Apocryphal books as inspired. Well, how did he know that? The fact that Christ never cited from them does not indicate that He rejected them. NT also never quoted from Esther and Song of Songs and quoted from outside OT like Enoch (Jude 14), Assumption of Moses (Jude 9, according to Origen), unknown Scripture (in John 7:38, James 4:5). In 2 Peter 2:22 Proverbs 26:11 is placed in par with a proverb from outside the Bible. He also mentioned some historical errors in apocryphal books but the same applies to 66 books of Protestant Bible, they do not refer them as errors but as "difficulties" or "discrepancies".
No errors meaning inspired errors overrule writing errors. Purgatory not real. It makes scriptural contradictions. The bible doesnt contradict. And the Apocrypha was founded in Dead Sea scrolls. Carbon dating shows that the books where from around 240 B.C. to 280 B.C. the last book of OT is Malachi. Malachi was finnished 400 b.c. timing not right. If that were the case the 7 books should be after Malachi not within OT.
This is the first information I hear about the Apocrypha, and to me this seemed like a good answer. What I got from this is, that they do contain many good things, and truths and God uplifting texts, but not in the same sense as the Bible. They are more like books by christian authors like DL Moody or C. S. Lewis. Thank you for your view on this 👍
@@notremarchedelafin I actually did since then, or rather I now and then was confronted with the topic again. Adding to what I wrote in my original comment, I now know that: First, what made it and didn't make it into the Bible wasn't randomly decided at some council, but rather that there were strict criteria whether something counted as "Scripture" or not. F.e. It had to be from a very close witness to the Messiah, and it couldn't contradict something the Apostles already wrote. What we now know as th Apocrypha, failed those tests back then, so it was clear to the people, that they were not God inspired Scriptures. Second, some of th Apocrypha don't even claim themselves to be Scripture, but the Author of 2. Maccabees wrote something like: "At this point I'll stop my writings. If the story is well told, I reached my goal. If not, I tried my best." I hope this is helpful to someone wondering about this topic 👍
@@chessversarius2253 , personnally, I am convinced many apocryphal books are inspired. I don't have a clear opinion on all of them. As for what you say about 2 Maccabees, I'll check it out. Would you have the verse by any chance?
@@notremarchedelafin Hold on, I found the verses: 2 Maccabees - Chapter 15: "37 So ends the episode of Nicanor, and as, since then, the city has remained in the possession of the Hebrews, I shall bring my own work to an end here too. 38 If it is well composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage." I think it's a bit funny, but in a good way, how honest he is when he writes that last sentence ^^. Personally, I didn't read any of the Apocrypha, because I don't want to "lead myself into temptation" to perhaps believe it or to let it damage my (hopefully) biblical faith (and if I’m not supposed to listen to it anyway, I don’t want to invest time into it). So I don’t know much about the content, except for a few snippets I've heard. Therefore, I can totally see that they are inspired *in such a sense* , that they can contain truths, and good teachings, but I'm sure, they are not inspired in the same way, as the Bible is. You probably already know this, but the Bible says of itself: "All *scripture* is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," -2. Timothy 3:16 The Bible is the only book/ the only *scripture* which we are supposed to use to judge other things with and to learn and to train us into becoming healthier, better, holier. I also heard, and the verses I found seem to agree, that the books of the Apocrypha never claim to be *scripture* themselves. Other books can definitely help to understand *scripture* the Bible, but the Bible must have the final say. Because if we say there are other books with the same authority, then where do we stop? If we can add the Apocrypha, we might as well add the book of Mormons. These are at least two reasons that came to my mind just now, why we shouldn't trust the Apocrypha, as much as we trust the Bible. I hope this is understandable, it’s all I could manage ;) May God help us both to find truth that makes us free! John 8:32 Have a good day :)
I was introduced to the word Apocrypha in a movie, Alias Grace. One of the characters explained what the Apocrypha Book is. I was intrigued to learn more. Thank you. I subscribed.
I learned about it through esoteric philosophy research. Specifically when I was reading about gnostic. But I was intrigued about all of this stuff through storytelling too.
The apocrypha was part of the Hebrew scriptures until about 100AD when *_the jews who rejected Jesus_* took out all the books after Ezra AND corrupted the scriptures to remove/alter prophecies about the Messiah. Our OT comes from the Masorite text from 1000AD. The LXX (which includes the apocrypha) was translated 250BC. Which do you think should be trusted.
The apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew scriptures during the 3rd century BCE but was added.. But never part of the Hebrew scriptures. It was only part of the septuagint
This video sounds great and seems informative. The speaker is also clear and respectful which is awesome. Unfortunately the content is quite false and misleading. While it contains some truth, that often just helps the falsehoods and omissions become easier to swallow. Forgive the expression but remember that rat poison is 95% food. We must all seek the full truth, this is not about teams. This is about loving each other and trying to help each other get closer to God. 1) *No debate between New Testament Canon:* Martin Luther did in-fact want to remove several books from the New Testament including James and Revelation among others (it's in his own writings) The speaker mentioned about things that should give us pause. Someone wanting to remove the divinely inspired writings of an Apostles that walked with Jesus should definitely give us pause. 2) *Jesus and the Apostles did not believe this was part of the canon:* It is in-fact strongly supported that Jesus and the Apostles did use these books as did most of the Jewish people of the day. This is evident through objective historical study and reasoning. For example, the vast majority (like 80%) of Jesus's quotes and citations are derived from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the TaNaKh (Jewish Bible, aka Old Testament) which included the books that Martin Luther removed. To put it plainly, Jesus and the Apostles primarily used a Jewish Bible that contained these books. 3) *Not in the Jewish canon at Jesus's time:* This is an objectively and historically false statement. There was no official Jewish canon during Jesus's time. The Sadducees for example used only the Torah (First 5 books of Moses, aka "The Law") completely disregarding the rest of the Jewish Bible (our Old Testament) that other Jewish sects used, such as the Pharisees and Essenes. Again, pls see above 2) 4) *Not in the synagogues of today:* The texts are not in modern day synagogues because the Jewish people were largely wiped out by the Romans in 70AD and the Pharisees were really the only sect of Judaism that survived. So a few hundred years after Jesus, the sect of Judaism that condemned our Lord to a brutal death and brought destruction upon their temple, tossed out the Greek Old Testament, which was what was in use in Jesus's time, and translated it back into Hebrew. Tailoring it where they saw fit to support their narrative that Jesus was not the messiah. These texts were in synagogues in Jesus's time. Please see above 2). I love Jewish people, I admire their devotion to God's word and I do not want to offend anyone. However, from a Christian perspective it would be self-destructive and nonsensical to make determinations on what is Christian Biblical Canon based on modern day Judaism. 5) *Not quoted as scripture:* Meaning Jesus never directly quoted from these books. There are multiple books in the Old Testament that Protestants accept as canon that Jesus never explicitly quoted from or referenced. This is unfortunately not a determining factor of whether certain books should not be canon only that the books that were quoted or cited by Jesus definitely should be canon. If removing books that Jesus did not quote from or reference were a valid criteria then several other books of the Old Testament would also need to be removed. 6) *They contain certain errors:* Many of the NT scriptures are disputed by secular atheists on the grounds of historical inaccuracies. This is a selective critique that if you accept as valid you must objectively apply to the entire bible as a whole. It is an entire area of study and debate. Personally, I have never seen anything whether disputed by protestants or atheists that stands out as a smoking gun. I have seen minor objections from people rigorously searching for a that "ha! gotcha!" moment which never really comes to fruition. In short, a very weak argument especially Christian to Christian. 7) *The Catholic Church had certain regional councils:* This is also no small thing as the speaker seems to imply. The "Catholic" church, as the speaker put it, was the "early" church. Call it what you want, but every Christian denomination has the same church father's which included the Apostles and those closest generations to them. These early church councils were not some minor fantasy football gathering. Right or wrong, for the first 1000 years after Jesus, there was one church. This church and the early church fathers of it often responded to growing heresies by calling together large councils of many bishops in huge regions where these heresies were taking root. They took definitive positions in these councils on theology that almost all Christians of any denomination still hold true today. Handled subjects like; the trinity; whether Jesus was fully God (Arianism); the introduction to gnostic and false gospels that stated women need to become men to get to heaven. The early church, definitively, consecutively and consistently through the centuries made it clear what the canon of the bible was and is. Then one day a random German Catholic monk decided that he was wiser than all of the church fathers, including perhaps some Apostles. I love all you guys btw. I just want people spend some time digging and understanding their own beliefs. Stress test your own arguments and pray for discernment. Jesus wanted us united when he prayed that we all be one unified body. There should only be one church and you should work diligently to understand why the church you are part of IS or is not in the fullness of God's truth.
obviously the old testament writers were reading the book of Jasher since they mention these ancient Hebrew writings more than once within the "Canon" whats your opinion on those writings.
2 Maccabees Chapter 07 It came to pass also, that seven brethren with their mother were taken, and compelled by the king against the law to taste swine's flesh, and were tormented with scourges and whips. But one of them that spake first said thus, What wouldest thou ask or learn of us? we are ready to die, rather than to transgress the laws of our fathers. Then the king, being in a rage, commanded pans and caldrons to be made hot: Which forthwith being heated, he commanded to cut out the tongue of him that spake first, and to cut off the utmost parts of his body, the rest of his brethren and his mother looking on. Now when he was thus maimed in all his members, he commanded him being yet alive to be brought to the fire, and to be fried in the pan: and as the vapour of the pan was for a good space dispersed, they exhorted one another with the mother to die manfully, saying thus, The Lord God looketh upon us, and in truth hath comfort in us, as Moses in his song, which witnessed to their faces, declared, saying, And he shall be comforted in his servants. So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body? But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did. And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life. After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully. And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again. Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains. Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner. So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life. Afterward they brought the fifth also, and mangled him. Then looked he unto the king, and said, Thou hast power over men, thou art corruptible, thou doest what thou wilt; yet think not that our nation is forsaken of God; But abide a while, and behold his great power, how he will torment thee and thy seed. After him also they brought the sixth, who being ready to die said, Be not deceived without cause: for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against our God: therefore marvellous things are done unto us. But think not thou, that takest in hand to strive against God, that thou shalt escape unpunished. But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord. Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them, I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you; But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake. Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs. But when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel the young man to save his life. And when he had exhorted her with many words, she promised him that she would counsel her son. But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education. I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise. Fear not this tormentor, but, being worthy of thy brethren, take thy death that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren. Whiles she was yet speaking these words, the young man said, Whom wait ye for? I will not obey the king's commandment: but I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses. And thou, that hast been the author of all mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hands of God. For we suffer because of our sins. And though the living Lord be angry with us a little while for our chastening and correction, yet shall he be at one again with his servants. But thou, O godless man, and of all other most wicked, be not lifted up without a cause, nor puffed up with uncertain hopes, lifting up thy hand against the servants of God: For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all things. For our brethren, who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God's covenant of everlasting life: but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. But I, as my brethren, offer up my body and life for the laws of our fathers, beseeching God that he would speedily be merciful unto our nation; and that thou by torments and plagues mayest confess, that he alone is God; And that in me and my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which is justly brought upon our nation, may cease. Than the king' being in a rage, handed him worse than all the rest, and took it grievously that he was mocked. So this man died undefiled, and put his whole trust in the Lord. Last of all after the sons the mother died. Let this be enough now to have spoken concerning the idolatrous feasts, and the extreme tortures. 2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and “TOUCH” NOT THE UNCLEAN “THING” and I will receive you, And now you should decide if you will need to obey the apocryphal books or not anymore...
I am a Muslim. I have done some research on different Bibles. I personally think that Jews and Protestants are correct about OT books. The Deuterocanonical / Apocrypha books are important writings but not scriptures and these do not even read like scriptures, nor are they attributed to prophets. Jerome also accepted this view, but since these books are in Septuagint so it had to be included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. However, even in Sept. these are called important writings (Anagignoskomena) but are called not scripture or inspired by divine. The idea of scripture is that such books are attributed to prophets and not only to important Jewish writers. The Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox Canon includes very strange additional books in both OT and NT, it is a minor canon and is highly not reliable. So, Jewish and Protestant idea of OT canon makes sense, as OT belongs to Jews, so all Christians should accept their canon for OT. It will be better for them.
"So, Jewish and Protestant idea of OT canon makes sense, as OT belongs to Jews, so all Christians should accept their canon for OT. It will be better for them." Amen!
Something interesting is that in the Qur'an, Muhammad said to use the scriptures the Jews and the gospel of the Christians as a basis to judge him. We have thousands of manuscripts from before Muhammad was born for both the Old and New Testaments that confirm what we have today is what he was referring to, and yet, that same Qur'an denies the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the entirety of the New Testament is based on.
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it was not, rather why was it included in the first place?
The Septuagint, which contain the canonical books that are rejected by majority of our Protestant brothers and sisters, is quoted over 75% of the time in the New Testament by the Apostles and Our Lord.
Yeah the books of Jasher and Iddo are mentioned in the Bible, among others, but they’re not the Word of God. There’s a reason all spirit-filled Christians agree and all dead religious traditions end up on a different side. And I say that as someone who grew up Catholic and got saved 5 years ago.
75%? Really? I know of 2 (that are linked together) other examples would be appreciated. I found the 1 Esdras prophecy naming Jesus and the years till his appearance were interesting.
While I agree that the Deuterocanonical books are canon, I do not see how that claim is accurate. However, there are some parallels that are so startling that they may as well be quotes. Like when Pharisess are mocking Jesus on the cross for saying he is the Son of God. Goes with Wisdom 2.
@@jembenjamin yes, I agree. I'm sure much of it is historically accurate, but that doesn't mean it's the living Word of God, sharper than a two eged sword. There's a reason dead religions like Catholicism and orthodoxy accept these works as canon, they have no discernment or Holy Ghost.
I started skimming through it out of curiosity and it really seemed like it belongs there. And that you said about explaining who and how the pharisees and saducees became seems quite important. I'm not catholic but I think I'll have a go at reading it.
My grandmom have a copy of 1970 American bible which was given to her by an American friend and in that bible contains Old Testament chapters like Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom and apocrypha. The book still lives but is quite battered and Moth-eaten, after I saw this vid I realize that what I have now is a somewhat complete version of the Bible, a gem of original doctrine. When I compared it to the latest bible I found that the new one is missing a lot from its old counterpart which is very disappointing since then I never bought a new Bible but instead rely on the old one cause it tells the truth somehow.
The original Hebrew canon of scripture did not have the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were never affirmed by the Roman Catholic church until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
I have heard that some Anglican and Lutheran Bibles include the Apocrypha, but still, the stories are supposed to be interesting reads. My paternal grandparents bought a 1792 Bible which had/has them at a yard sale. I was/am Southern Baptist, though Reformed since 2011/12. The Medici family had operas on Saint Ursula (1624/25) and Princess Judith (1626) that would've been amazing productions if the music survived. As a sopranist, I'd have wanted to memorize the role of the Archangel Michael in the former piece; in the latter piece, some male soprano role.
Its not like they just stood up one day, pointed at some books, and said "be gone!". Like the Reformation brought a lot of thinking and critical analysis. Even if they're wrong, it's best not to belittle the amount of effort placed in critiquing Catholicism and trying to really understand the core of what it meant to be Christian (and Jewish). Some early church leaders were heretics and taught things like Arianism. Not all their work correlates so even if the orthodoxy lineage is legitimate you can blame them for questioning the teachings of everyone in an honest search for truth
Josué Inhan but do you agree with the rest of what Jerome wrote? Pointing out what he said that might agree with Protestantism and ignoring what he wrote supporting Catholic beliefs because they don’t fit the Protestant narrative is hypocritical. Read the rest of what he wrote and tell me again that he agreed with Protestantism... not! There are many early writers who disagreed with Jerome re the Deuterocanonical books... do you ever bother to read them?
Great comment MyNameShrimp. St Jerome was THE Catholic who translated the Bible. Protestants base their faith on the Bible. Whereas the Church bases the Bible on the faith. Martin Luther misinterpreted the Bible, and thus made a horrible mistake, that may have cost him his salvation. The funniest paradox is Protestants will defend him, while he would chastise them if he were here today. The Lutheran Church is but a shell of what it once was. Catholicism has not changed since Christ instituted it on Holy Thursday.
Quincy Williams I would, personally, with a spirit of discernment in the Holy Spirit. Wouldn’t you, at least after praying for discernment from God beforehand?
1) The Jews before Christ did *not* have a set canon of scripture . The Sadducees said that only the Pentateuch was scriptural, for example. A significant faction of Jews did take the deuterocanonical (what Protestants erroneously call “apocryphal”) books as Scriputural. The deuterocanonical books *were included* in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation used in the New Testament quotes. 2) There are many Old Testament books in the Protestant canon that are not quoted in the New Testament. An OT book does not have to be quoted in the NT in order for it to be scriptural. 3) There are not historical errors in the deuterocanonical (“apocryphal”) books. Atheists regularly make lists of “contradictions” between books in the Protestant canon; this does not mean they are not truly scriptural. The same principle applies to Protestants making lists of “contradictions” in the Catholic canon. 4) No ecumenical council declared canonicity of *any* book to be a matter of faith until the Council of Trent. The argument he makes against the deuterocanon (what he calls the “apocrypha”) could be used against every book of the Bible. Protestants deny that Christ instituted a visible institutional Church, so they cannot explain how we know the canon of scripture to begin with. Their position is fundamentally incoherent. We do not stand in judgement of scripture; the God who wrote Scripture stands in judgement of us. Repent and believe in the *whole* Bible
I appreciate the attitude of the Anglicans when it comes to the Apocryphal books. They even include them in their readings of the Scriptures during the liturgy.
So the kjv was translated in 1611 and included the books of the apocrypha until 1885. (Which would explain why some old hyms quote the apocrypha) But what I want to know if it was never part of the Canon as stated in this video then why was it included in the scripture until 1885. Not trying to poke a beehive here just honestly curious
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it has not, rather why was it included in the first place?
I find it awfully hypocritical to use church authority to make your case against the Apocrypha being included in the Protestant bible. How does that make since exactly?
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon… Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) … …and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books. The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing? If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ. What does that mean exactly?
The one thing that everyone seems to forget is that, the Bible was rewritten many time's. Quite a few time's, bit's of the Bible have been removed for one reason or another. Funny how the dead Sea scrolls did have additional book's that was omitted. Look at the book of Enoch. It was left out.
@@tamiltruthersofficial6931 It's said that the Ethiopian people poses the Bible in its entirety. However, to be completely honest, I do not know for sure
Came across a bible that as 15 apocrypha n it... song of children" Shadrach Meshach Abednego". Story of Susanna...Bell@the Dragon...the rest of Esther... I'm blessed to have purchased this an I've now just begun to read......
He doesn't mention that some of these books were in the 1611 kjv and removed after that. That's around the same time the name Jesus for our messiah was introduced into the bible translated from the Greek Iésous pronounced yesus which some argue translates to hail Zues but i haven't done as much research on that last part as i intend to and can't say for sure if I think that's true or not yet. However the further you go back in historical translations the more truth you can find in the word. The current kjv cannon however is here in these times for a reason. And the more you read that yourself as apposed to listening to your religious leaders read a verse from one book then comparng it to another verse in another book to get their own points across the more you can see for yourself things that have been lost in translation.
@@nickreynolds8636 so because some ppl left it in scripture makes it scripture? Consensus isnt necessarily truth. Group think and tribalism isnt of God. Knowledge and intelligence is of God. A book is not inspired by God because man made it canonical. A book is canonical because God inspired it.
@@shaolinshowdown1123 People think words are just words and I'd agree. We just have to remember there are some words that are not just words and you must be careful to speak them.
@@armandoc.3150 no. Some phrases are not just phrases. It has meaning and logic. There is context in everything's. People who negate that and not choose that, choose what's attractive. What's attractive is flesh. Flesh is death.
I have read in JKV bible preface that the Apocrypha was included originally in the JKV, but then removed due to Puritan political in influence in England at the time. I wish I had a copy of that bible now to give better details on it.
Good morning Phyllis. You said; "but then removed due to Puritan political in influence in England at the time." Actually, the Apocrypha remained in the KJV until 1884. And it was not taken out for ecclesiastical reasons. The Apocrypha was taken out for purely economic reasons. ___________________________ The KJV Bible was 17" x 12" and 5 1/2 inches thick. It was a 1600 page lectern Bible . The King James Bible was too large to be carried and too expensive for most people. By taken out the apocrypha, tables, etc, the King James bible is the size it is today, and affordable. _________________________ "Puritan political in influence in England at the time" King James quelled any Puritan Political influence. And what he did not squelch escaped to the New World or hid in Switzerland. The Geneva Bible of 1599 removed the Apocrypha it had in the 1552 Geneva.
Just a quick question for anyone out there: The fact that there was a Protestant reformation; does this not prove that the Protestants removed themselves from an already established set of books? That is to say; isn't protestantism newer and reformed than the older established congregations? Which doctrine should we follow; the new or the old? I would think the old since it would be unreformed and authentic. Not to mention that Paul references some of those epistles we no longer have today.
Exactly. It'd be one thing if protestantism ended with Luther but noooo.... Snowflakes keep on doing their own thing that's why there are churches all over their show. I accept the traditions and reverence of our Lord and the teachings of the earlier church over anything and I will die that way.
@@no_prisoners6474 Manmade traditions are the pitfall. Luther argued that the Word of God (scripture) is the only source for appropriate doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church argued that tradition over-ruled scripture. When I mentioned early church fathers, I wasn't referring to the RCC, but those that immediately (1st and 2nd generation) following the Apostles.
No, most religious people are closed minded and do not want to talk about aliens, they want to obfuscate the reality of the situation down to some vague conception of Godly feels.
The Council of Trent under Pope Paul III convened in 1545, but it was the Council of Rome in 382, under Pope Damascus 1, which first included the Apocrypha in the Bible. And what's ironic about the whole thing is that the Protestants, who don't consider it canonical, wrote the most popular version of the Bible in circulation today...the KJV. The Apocrypha exclusion is as ridiculous as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hello. Thank you for your explanation into this matter. As far as the Book of Enoch is concerned, you seem correct about it being something to be avoided or almost sinful to even consider listening about it, especially reading it. I find such interest in the subject of Enoch only because he is vaguely mentioned in what would be the inspired and accepted Old Testemant. As I listen to readings of the New Testemant, he is mentioned within the lineage of Jesus Christ also. How can he be mentioned in both books, carried as teaching for many years and even still today? Why is it that what he was shown by God such taboo (for extreme lack of better words)to the preserved bible? How can we ignore his importance? How are we supposed to ignore his importanc? I'm sure this is also the case with other books within the Apocrypha. Thank you
Jason Wiser Although we don’t know much about Enoch, he is mention as a Man who walked with God. That is all the Lord has given us with regards to his faith and righteousness. We don’t know much about Melchizedek the High Priest of Salem, but he is mentioned in the book Hebrews in comparison to Jesus being our high Priest. He would seem to have more importance as far has Biblical figures go. Gods word only shows us what he thinks we need to know. That’s the best explanation I can ascertain
If you guys really want to lean about the Bible go to Israel News Live. Enoch is very important . You find out what lead up to the flood . You find out what the earth really looks like. You find out what's to come in Revelation.As far as Melcezedec he was Jesus plain and simple. Jesus was in the Old Testement more than once.Come out of organized religion and really get to know Jesus Christ and the times we live in. We are in the times of Noah.
The book of Enoch is NOT scripture or Apocryphal. It is in simplest terms, spiritual junk food. Only two groups have ever given it any notice. A small Jewish Ethiopian sect and the Mormons. Both of these groups deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Yes it is true Enoch is mentioned in the book of Jude. It is quoted as a warning to false teachers who infiltrated the early church and was understood very well by them. It was NOT mentioned as an endorsement of canon. Context matters.
Thanks for this! I've been looking for a clear description of what the apocrypha is, and what role it played during the reformation. This is super clear and concise :)
The Apocrypha was definitely quoted and referenced in the original New Testament. But those references were removed from the New Testament when the Apocrypha was removed from the Bible.
I suggest you read Sirach 28 compared to one of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. Or how about 2 Maccabees 7 compared to Hebrews 11:35 ? or Tobit 3:8 compared to Mark 12:18-22? or Wisdom 2:18 compared to Matthew 27:39-43? Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint-over 300 times. In fact. the Septuagint canon is used more than 80% of the times in the New Testament over the Masoretic canon. Without an authoritative Church they can trust, how do Protestants know what's in the canon and what isn't? The Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul famously suggested that the best we can say is that the canon of Scripture is "a fallible list of infallible books." It's fallible because, from Sproul's point of view, the Church that pronounced the canon had no real authority. But if a non-authoritative group of Christians in the third and fourth centuries could decide what the canon of Scripture was, then why couldn't another non-authoritative group of Christians do the same today? For example, in 2013, Hal Taussig, a member of a group of skeptical scholars called the Jesus Seminar, published a collection called A New New Testament. Added to the traditional New Testament were second-century apocryphal gospels such as "The Gospel of Truth," as well as texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls like "The Thunder: Perfect Mind." Most Protestants would never accept such books as part of the Bible, but what authority do they have to say someone like Taussig is wrong? After all, 500 years ago, Martin Luther and other reformers made their own tweaks to the canon. Luther called the letter of James "an epistle of straw" because it contradicted his theology of justification by faith alone (James 2:24 says, for example, that we are not justified by faith alone). Although that letter remained in the Bible, Luther and the other Reformers did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament, and they are still absent from Protestant bibles. How can Protestants denounce Taussig's alteration of the canon without undermining the Reformers' decision to alter the canon in the sixteenth century? The deuterocanonical books were considered inspired Scripture for centuries until Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther jettisoned them because they taught doctrines that conflicted with their novel theology. (The most famous example would be 2 Maccabees 12:46, which teaches the efficacy of praying for the dead in order to atone for their sins.) If protestants want to follow the canon of the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, then why do they even bother to either accept the canonical Gospels rejected by the jews, or even accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
Thanks for the video. What I’m curious about is the history of when the apocrypha was first actually considered scripture by the Roman Catholic Church, why it was considered to be scripture, who didn’t believe it was scripture in the early church days, etc. Does anyone know where I can read primary source writings of fathers, historians, etc. that discuss these historical details? The reason I ask is because the RCC claims that the apocrypha was considered scripture virtually since the beginning, but this seems unsupported by history. At the same time, I don’t have a lot of counter historical evidence either, more just circumstantial and biblical evidence.
If you want to know what the early Church believed, read the Early Church Fathers. The book “The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Early Church” by Jimmy Akin is a good place to start. You can go deeper from there.
@@queenofhearts7726 "If you want to know what the early Church believed, read the Early Church Fathers." If you want to know what the early church believed, read the Bible. That's exactly what they believed without the rituals and traditions of men that are found nowhere in Scripture. There are no priests in the New Testament, there are no scapulars, no orders of monks, no nuns, no bishops in the sense of the Catholic Church and there’s definitely not a monarchical episcopate. There are no popes in the Bible. Tradition developed that. There are no candles, there is no Lent, there is no holy water, there are no sacraments, there is no extreme unction and there is no veneration or worship of images, relics, beads, statues, etc. None of that is in the Scripture because it's all man-made traditions based on Pagan rituals and traditions.
@@jamesmadina7004 What is the context of that verse? Who is speaking? Who are they speaking to? What is the subject of the conversation? What is the time period? What is the location? What does the rest of Scripture have to say about it? These all have to be taken into consideration. Is it, as you imply, a blanket statement to allow anything and anytime to be added? What about..... 1 Corinthians 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. That seems to be a contradiction and the Scriptures do not contradict. That wipes out everything you believe about John 21.
Non catholics should still have a copy of the Catholic bible . Martin luther removed 7 important books that people should have access to. Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Judith, additions to Daniel, and Esther- It is not only the books of the apocrypha that Protestants are missing.
"Martin luther removed 7 important books" Martin Luther is like Kryptonite to Catholics. He is responsible for everything including the common cold. Martin Luther included the entire Apocrypha in his 1545 German Bible. Martin Luther treated the Apocrypha just as Jerome did. ~Both Luther and Jerome translated the Apocrypha ~Both separated the Apocrypha from the canon of scripture ~Both wrote a sharp disclaimer in the description that the Apocrypha was enlightening. But not inspired scripture or to be used for doctrine. ~Neither Luther nor Jerome changed their opinion of the Apocrypha.
@@DefenderOfChrist_ Since I merged after an almost fatal Car accident (as an Atheist back then...) with the living Light of GOD - after my Consciousness snapped its ties with the lifeless body - yes... In fact I had a telepathic Communication with the Light because I was rather furious then since it were these foul Dogmas of Christianity that actually had turned me into an Atheist....inquiring about religion in general & Christianity especially....and in a nutshell the answer was that all major religions have a spiritually true kernel - and a lot of untrue manmade distortions that happened because man projected his fallen nature upon God.... like a "God" of "wrath"
It took me personally a real looong time still to forgive Christianity and all these phony televangelists their spiritual BETRAYALS....actually as well a betrayal of Christ HIMSELF.... I later studied all major Religions and so I came as well to the gospel of Thomas that is SOOO MUCH closer to spiritual TRUTH....and this fraudulent powerbrokers of Christianity then were forbidding the truth in that to promote their bogus Distortions.... EVERYTHING that Christ really taught is in utmost harmony what all major religions and their great Saints/Masters teach...but Christianity in the COMPETITION with Judaism actually FORGED the old Testament - every scholar knows THAT, then came this holy Trinity crap and the false teaching of salvation....that somehow Jesus had to die to appease the wrath of his father though he actually was it.... and this absolutely BLASPHEMOUS FRAUD they "teach" to this very day.... Sickening....totally psychotic nonsens that has harmed humanity TREMENDOUSLY.... No wonder "Christ"ianity hardly ever produced great spiritual Masters but an enormous crowd of abusive Bullshitters... Christianity LITERALLY usurped the "Authority" from God....never had it ever... But clever as they were they knew "Well, for as long as no one experiences real Communion with God it'll all pay out fine..." The worst Corruption happened at the Council of Niccae when the true heretics of the unholy Roman State Church "won" the power battle against the real Saints and Gnostic that KNEW the real truth & path.... Then Christianity fell deeply and has never really recovered from that takeover of the Antichrist - the human Ego..... With ENORMOUS negative Consequences....of course Jesus was NEVER God....the Quran has that completely right....and even in the Bible there are passages that survived the massive editing that took place which clearly indicate that... Christianity simply preys on the spiritual Illiteracy of the masses and teaches a very dangerous mix of the real spiritual truth of Christ distorted with an awful lot of spiritually FALSE, abusive, blasphemous, occult antichristian Teachings that make it almost impossible to really attain true Redemption and Salvation....because guess what - just beLIEving false Stories about Christ will NOT liberate you let alone heal or redeem you....the CORE problem of that is the human Ego - and Christianity with its religious Corruption by exactly that Ego is actually REINFORCING the Ego instead of LIBERATING people from that yoke..... That's NOT any MINOR issue, that's really grave deception.... Fortunately Christ himself dictated in A Course in Miracles 55y an authentic path where the fundamental upside down Distortions of Christianity are corrected that has guided millions by now towards a genuine spiritual Awareness that is in harmony with what all the great Saints of Humanity have taught and said.... And also is in harmony with what hundred thousands of NearDeathExperiencers have firsthand experienced on the "other side"... Finally I could perfectly reconcile Spiritual Truth with impeccable non contradictory Logic/Reason with Christ with literally everything - that simply is IMPOSSIBLE with Christianity as so many billion of people had to find out...there are so many warning signs in Christianity that it should trigger everyone's Attention & Suspicions.... One just has to think : Could it possibly be that the religious powerbrokers of Christianity have CORRUPTED the real TRUTH of Christ for the sake of power over people, to abuse & exploit & enslave people, for plain money, wealth, religious Competition & Dominance, for political & social Control & Influence ??? OF COURSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT and I TAKE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for everything I said here before GOD & CHRIST.... Ask that any of these creepy Televangelists and they will start to sneak around that by literally all ways....because they know they can't do that with ease of mind.... I have roasted and grilled enough of these spiritual Scammers by now..... Because I come from direct own firsthand experience and deep KNOWLEDGE- not some flimsy beLIEf.... It's TOTALLY possible to KNOW God & Christ and to firsthand experience them... Belief should ONLY be the very first step, so that you basically START with your journey towards Knowledge & Conviction....yet for how many Christians is that a REALITY ? For at least 99% it ISN'T. Nobody has to give up CHRIST but I can only recommend to everyone to give up on all the falsehoods in Christianity because FALSE TEACHINGS & DOCTRINES will inevitably damage & slow down your progress and your spiritual learning..... And what I said here is just the very tip of the iceberg - there's sooo much more to this but I'm not in the mood of writing books now.... Understand that it is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE to have accurate Teachings, most truthful Scriptures and precise instructions for YOU will experience the damage, the delay, the awful feelings of being betrayed, fooled, abused & exploited... Therefore whoever is walking a spiritual path sincerely should ALWAYS pray to the REAL MOST HIGH GOD to guide you to the HIGHEST TRUTH, to make you aware of each & every religious/spiritual FALSEHOOD and to protect you constantly from Error, Deception, Superstition, Manipulation, Indoctrination....it's most crucial, especially in the beginning and intermediary levels where you just don't know enough.....🙏 And be clear that your Ego/Mind WILL deceive you so one MUST emancipate from that and ALWAYS ask every preacher, teacher etc. if s/he takes complete responsibility for all that s/he teaches/preaches/expresses before God & Christ.... Inquire if s/he ever had some own deepest Communion/Experience with God or just has read the Bible.... Actually - if one just checks what is really said in all of the major religions one can already arrive at great insights....but make sure you don't just read what some Christian fool without any real clue writes ABOUT other Religions as there are enough of such freaks around...😉 Study NearDeathExperiences....not just 10 or a 100, thousands and ten thousands... That all takes time but if one REALLY WANTS to KNOW there's no way around deep study and deep daily practice.... Pray, meditate, contemplate....that's too a MUST. Practice total forgiveness and total surrender - that's too an absolute MUST. Study great renowned Saints & Masters from various backgrounds and traditions... Compare, evaluate, discern.... That would be some of the real Basics of spiritual Life that will benefit everyone very deeply if really practiced.... Great success and good progress, hope that is helpful as an orientation for sincere spiritual Seekers in the becoming.....😇🤗🙏
There are two major issues I think here. A) Not all historic Christians have only 27 New Testament books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes more than 27 books in their NT canon. B) The Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament. The Book of Enoch, for example, is the source for what is quoted in Jude throughout 1:4-15 as well as in two verses in 2 Peter chapters two and three. In 2 Timothy and in Jude 9, the authors explicitly cite the Assumption of Moses, a deuterocanonical account for Moses' death and his body being assumed into heaven.
If I can ask, how would you know Jesus and the apostles didn’t believe they were in the cannon. Christianity started after Jesus had been crucified for quite some time. Like many many years.
he forgot to mention that Jesus did not recognize the apocrypha as scripture and that it contains books of doubtful origin, and authors whose identities are questionable. for example the hidden book of james probably wasn't written by the biblical james we know, as it is believed to have been written 100 years after james died.
But the apocrypha IS scripture, the reason why the OT canon was confirmed at the council of Trent was not because for 1500 the Church was confused but because there simply was no need for that official confirmation. What created that necessity for the Church to define the canon definitively was precisely the protestant split and the confusion it introduced. Councils are always a response to the matters of the given time and any doctrine they pronounce is a direct response to any doubts which may be circulating in the mainstream thought
It's not inspired. Jerome, and several prominent early church bishops all deny the books being inspired. 1st century Josephus (a Jew) even names every book that is inspired according to the Jews at the time. None of the books are named....
The seven books talked about here were removed by Luther in the 1500s. He claimed Devine Guidance. Then why are these books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Ask questions against scripture always For example… Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon… Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) … …and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books. The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing? If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ. What does that mean exactly?
BUT WHAT I BELIEVE , THIS IS WHAT YOU SAY , WHERE WERE YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES WHEN THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN .....HUMBLE YOUR SELF .....YOU KEEP CONTADICTING YOURSELF . I LOVE YOU
How can you know it was trustworthy? Have you listened to people with the contrary opinion? Have you inspected carefully the question? Realise this: If you only trust what your denomination teach about it, then you will have integrated all the errors of your denomination as well... I think you should push the research more...
I was looking for a Complete Apocrypha of The Jedi & Sith Arts. These Book's include Echani: A martial art taught to military special forces Teräs Käsi: A martial art created by the Followers of Palawa, which literally translates to "steel hand" in Finnish Stava: Invented by the Noghri, named after their homeworld's carnivorous predator Shon-Ju: An ancient art of unarmed force combat .
Why do you have a false image of the Son of God as your pic, the scriptures say his skin was like burnt brass not a white man, the disrespect. Its ok i forgot you're brainwashed lol
Fact check: the ecumenical council of Florence in 1433 affirmed the 7 books of the apocrypha as canonical scripture 100 years before the council of trent. I’m Protestant, but just want to make it known that there was debate about these books, they were not added to canon by catholics reactionarily.
@@erichudson8747 ...the original cannot be in English if written by the Jews as stated in the video....there is always a loss in translation moving from original text to english. Which council of men dictated what is scripture? I fund it all interesting... I will have to vist Barnes and noble soon. 😊
Is it not blasphemous to call the Almighty "God" He has a name which has been replaced over 7000 times in the Bible. Lord... which can be translated to Ba'al and of course God which can refer to any god from any belief and which some say the name refers to gad rae el one of the 200 fallen angels and possibly the one who tempted eve from the tree and... some also say fathered Cane .... Could it not be that the devil has hid himself in the good book he is the deceiver after all. Should we not use his name ?
bonkers 1 it don’t believe it to be blasphemy, it’s just a translation from the Hebrew, Adonai Elohim. Adonai is meant to say as a God fearing reverence. But whatever you say as long as you show God the respect and reverence He deserves as The One True God, He will always be listening to you. But it’s good to know you have a zeal to get to know God more, keep seeking Him my friend.
bonkers 1 I don’t get why people call The Lord Almighty other names if He Himself didn’t say to do so but “The Lord”..who the heck said to call him Rapha? Rafa? Adonai? Is it written in The Bible?? Isn’t the King James Bible the original?? Am I missing something here?
Without reading for yourself and challenging weather or not the lost books align with God you won't know for yourself whether they belong or were removed for political or doctrinal reasons
If the *Orthodox* Ethiopian church has the Apocrypha in the Holy Bible then it is canonical. Just be honest, you won’t get any money if your congregation does not need the church/middle man to have a connection with God.
But the orthodox church derives from the roman catholic church therefor its not canonical because every church that derives from the roman catholics is false
Unfortunately he is simply defending the protestant position. It should be remembered that the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox Christians separated 1054 AD. Orthodox Christians were using these writings as scriptures long before the protestant reformation began in 1519 or the council of trent which did not involve the Orthodox church. The apocrypha also appeared in the original edition of the protestant KJV of the bible in 1611. The Christian world does not revolve around Protestantism or the council of trent in the 16th century. Its clearly a political rather than spiritual decision....
What did Yeshua say when quoting Enoch? Where in the NT does Yeshua quote Enoch? I cannot find it. Jude MAY have referred to Enoch, but whether or not he was quoting the Book of Enoch or considered it scripture is highly debatable.
Jonathan Bouriaque “The Son Of Man” “Angels not marrying or being given in marriage...” He also refers to the New Temple where God’s Holy Spirit will dwell in the Hearts of Men, The Kingdom of Heaven being re-established here on the Earth that God’s Elect from throughout all the nations will be able to inherit and dwell in God’s presence Eternally... The Book Of Enoch solidly points to the coming of Messiah and his final and eternal Kingdom. It is “for the understanding of a future generation which is to come” I believe we are that generation. There are so many parallels and explanations of other stories throughout the cannon, and it is pretty clear to me that the people and writers of the scriptures accepted it as part of their story and teachings. I guess the real question for me is why was it removed and deemed to not be “inspired scripture” when Genesis clearly says that Enoch walked with God??? If he walked with God, and spoke to Enoch, and the Angels showed him all that stuff... Shouldn’t we be interested in what He has to say? Why would it be removed from the cannon? I believe I know the answer as to why...
J D It’s all about whether you believe or not... it’s easy to say that they wrote it to fit Hebrew Prophecy... There are too many correlations for me to believe that men were capable of completing such symmetry... The Scriptures are designed by the Hand of God. As well as the Book of Enoch.
there are many versions of the bible today- the message remains the same even if some of the wording is different. When you read the books of the Apocrypha you can see they do not sync with the 66 books of the bible- so yes I get why they were removed. the point may be that read what you wish - what you believe is the problem. so many believe the book of enoch was apocrypha yet you can clearly see it was not included.
Plummer states that it should give us pause to note that the Apocrypha was not formally recognised as scripture until Trent. Conversely, I think it should give pause to Plummer and other Protestants to note that the Orthodox and all Eastern Christians, who separated from Rome in 1054 also recognise the Apocrypha. So there was no disagreement about the Apocrypha until the Reformation. There was no dispute, so there was no need for a Council to decide on this until the Reformation. Of course the Eastern Orthodox were not party to the Reformation. This was a Western only dispute. So it should give Protestants pause that the whole Church up until the Reformation recognised the Apocrypha as scripture.
So the bottom line: These books were a part of the Septuagint, which was used by Jesus and the apostles, and were included in all Bibles until the reformers took them out. Hmmmm….who is wrong here? The protestants.
Brian Jonson Jews don’t recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. Plus, the Muratorian fragment, even in its imperfect form, only Wisdom is among the list, and it’s even listed after Revelation (a way of indicating in the early church that the book is disputed). Thus, just because these books were listed in the LXX does not make the Jews even in Jesus’ time consider it as Sacred Scripture even before.
Rey Tampus ALL Christians used the full canon until the reformers removed them. Do you then claim all Christians were wrong until the reformers “corrected” them?
Stop it dude. Got all dressed up and made a video saying the corrupted church using the same books for there knowledge. But tell people it's not scripture . Then talk about evil Disney making a movie for a book? Get out the flesh dude you are wringing people.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church put together all Divine inspired books into what we call the Bible. The bible was not written and put together for nearly 4 centuries after Jesus death. Martin Luther turned his back on the Catholic Church, took it upon himself, to remove himself, take books out of the Bible and even in the German translation put the word" Alone" to justify the Sola Fide . I was a Protestant for years, years, . When you start understanding Apostolic succession your eyes will open. You have Luther, King Henry the VIII, Calvin and others to thank for the split of the one true Apostolic church. The Protestant movement started in the 1500's. The Catholic Church, again, founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33. The sad part about all this is that since the 1500's we've had generation upon generation of Protestant churches, denominational and non denominational and it will be very difficult for Traditional Protestant Christian to want to seek and do more research on their own. It took me years to see the light. It is with humble heart that I challenge and urge any Protestant to visit, ask, a Catholic church or priest and ask him the hard questions. It does not hurt whatsoever to seek and educate yourself.
The only reason people don’t believe the apocrypha is canon is because the kings and popes in power only want you to believe what they want you to. Dead Sea scrolls and apocrypha are must reads.
This makes me so sad. There’s too much for me to know. I feel so ignorant and blind. Like am I supposed to research every denomination and find where I fit in? Do I just go to all churches since God should be in each one? Lol. God, send help I’m drowning in information and it’s disturbing my inner peace. It’s like I was separated from my parents at birth and everybody shows me a different pic of who they were - in some pics they’re tall, in some they were Black with dreads, in others they were White with blue eyes. Some people have stories of my parents they would like to tell me but my closest relatives say it’s fake news... I just want to see their real faces and know them myself but I have to rely heavily on this stories people are passing down to me. 😔 I know God is not the father of confusion so whenever I get confused like this I feel really bad for being lost- like I’m doing too much and I just need to hold tightly to what it is that I do know.
What I recommend to do is to pray & pray alone to God. Don’t overthink because to be honest I’m confused as well on this issue. So what I say is to ask God for wisdom & grace. All you need is Christ in your heart & live through faith
Ikr. How comw do you cope with this?
True. That is why we need the help of the Holy Spirit to direct and guide us along His righteous path according to His word ~
Your ears will hear a word behind you, "This is the way, walk in it," whenever you turn to the right or to the left.
Isaiah 30:21(NASB)
Nope it's a relationship. Little by little, get to know every book. Do not let anyone tell you different. This world is a big lie and most religious people dont know much. Yoi can do all the deeds of the church and you still wont make it to heaven. So be vigilant. And pray for discerment.
First of all my LOVE take a deep breath and exhale a few times. There is so much to learn. Right now you have what is called Monkey Brain. it is going everywhere. If you want to know your blood line take a DNA test. Now I say to you do not look back but look at the present and moving forward. You may be going through an awakening and it is a lot to take in. Sometimes you have to take a step back and remove yourself from all of this. I started to read a part of the bible that was removed and I also verified it at the museum and I was in shock. I went home and immediately removed all christmas decoration and got on my knees crying. I surrendered myself and to him and promised not to fight what he has laid out for me. I understand that you want to know your family but not to the point that you miss out on life. GOD has something planned for you but if you spend too much time looking backwards then the assignment GOD has for you will be given to another. I was so confused at one point that for the first time in my life I question Jesus. So one day I saw a tree that was dying and I cried out to Jesus if you are the son of GOD please heal this tree. If not then I ask GOD to bring death to this tree once and for all. The tree survived and every day I visit this tree when I walk my dog. I do not tell anyone which tree it is but it brings a smile to my face because that day when I touched that tree I felt what you are now feeling. I even stopped saying the pope and changed it to that pope because he is not the father. Your going through an awakening so my advice is to learn how to concentrate and focus. Dandapani has really great videos. You must learn concentration before you can begin to master meditation. Praying is speaking to GOD and meditation is listening to GOD. Praise our LORD and SAVIOR that you have awaken. So put your head up and be happy because most people in this world are lost and walking around like zombies. I hope this helps.
I have started reading The Lost Books... I wanted to do my own research too because people would have been recording events throughout time before the flood, before Abraham etc..... If it is not evil as you said, then I will continue to read it until the end. I wanted to know more about God, I thirst for that knowledge but I do not want to jeopardize my spiritual growth by delving in the unknown. Thanks for your advice.
READ & continue to read. The lost books are of the lost tribes of Israel. The TRUE Hebrews. The direct descendants of Abraham, Jacob and Ham. Where were they? Africa...
For more information...
Shaynerodney95@hotmail.com
If curiosity is a sin to someone's God, that is not a God I could believe in; I refuse to be told I can't know anything or be limited on information. History was written by the winner of wars; I have lost my intrest for the "winners", so now its time to look for the truth. Also to note how any sect of religion starts, is because someone doesn't believe or think something could be true in the original; so its not cannon. Which i call bullshit on, again History is re-written by the victors, this includes religious history.
they are good books, I enjoyed reading them, they in no way changed my prior beliefs, nor did they influence me in believeing something different, it's kind of complimenteray information
This is good to know.
There are many gods, but there is only one True God above all gods, His/Her name is Good/Love.
eat the chicken meat spit out the bones...never make conclusions... keep on searching. never allow another man dictate to you what not to read never be swayed by any manmade doctrine search the scriptures daily . all scriptures is God breath timothy 3:16 and who determines what to read it is the spirit that lives in you that hungers for truth.
Best advice I heard from anyone on this topic.
When I was dead for three minutes, I wasn't a Christian. In fact, I was a Satanist (a la LaVey), meaning I believed in an indifferent creator, but that we are (in a sense) our own gods. I certainly didn't believe in an afterlife. To quote LaVey, "Here and now is our day of judgment! Here and now is our day of joy! Choose ye, this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth! Say unto thine own heart "I am mine own redeemer", then all thy bones shall sayeth pridefully "Who is like unto me? Have I not been too strong for my adversary? Have I not delivered myself, by my own brain and body?"
...that being said... when I died (for the third time, at age 33) I found myself staring down on my lifeless body. I was drawn toward a black hole that opened up in the sun that was in a painting on my wall. When I went through, I was in a dark corridor and saw a pinpoint of light, like a single star in the night sky. In an instant, it went from a distant pinpoint to the most brilliant light I'd ever seen, which enveloped me completely. I was filled with the most beautiful feeling of love that I've ever experienced. I was shown every interpersonal transaction of my entire life, through the eyes of those I was interacting with, complete with what they felt at the time. Three and a half minutes here on Earth was like 100 years there. I saw (and got to forgive) my dead father. I was shown a being of light pouring a bowl of darkness onto the west African continent, drying up a massive river. I can't tell you everything because 1) it would fill several textbooks...and 2) I was charged with keeping certain information to myself. However, I was told to read the entire Bible. I asked which one, and was told to find the lost books and include them in my studies. I came to with the words "Nag-Hammadi" repeating in my mind again and again. This being told me that man had edited his word against his will, and that the New Testament was given to set free the minds of man, from their worldly overlords. I've since then read the apocryphal texts, and saw exactly what he meant. The very idea of putting a crucifix on an altar is an act of idolatry. I was told that there are messages in that book, for every person who has ever lived and ever will, and that we need no intermediary to speak to him. That he is already inside each and every one of us. I was told that not one church still standing was faithful to his will, and that ecumenical counsel will only serve to lead one astray. Speak to God directly, have faith that he has heard you, and keep your eyes peeled for his answer. Simple as that... Yeshua Immanuel came to abolish silly superstitions. Then, the Romans invented "Jesus" as an attempt at usurping that gift. Anything that was tainted by the hands of Rome is corrupt. The Angel of Rome is Samael.
One last thing, completely unrelated.... the number of the beast, like all Hebrew Gematria, is incomplete if it's more than one digit. Samael's number is 9. 666, is a multiple of 9, and like all multiples of 9, it's Gematria reduction invariably returns to 9. It's the number of the ego. Try it yourself... 0+9=9
1+8=9
2+7=9
3+6=9
4+5=9
6+6+6=18.... 1+8=9
I'm interested to know more. You should make a more in depth re telling in video form. Are you saying the gnostics were right? Don't they believe in a higher god or created the creator God? I'm really curious to hear this explained further. I've looked into multiple near death or after death experiences.
Besides the lost texts, which bible to you recommend?
Also, would you mind clarifying what you meant by "Yeshua Immanuel came to abolish silly superstitions. Then, the Romans invented "Jesus" as an attempt at usurping that gift." Are you saying Jesus is real or fake?
The only danger of reading the Apocrypha is the part where you can earn your Salvation by giving Alms, which is totally contradictory to what the Gospel says, in Ephesians it says we can never earn Salvation by works. It is only by the Grace of God that we are saved.
That's right. Rat poison is 95% good food.
@@roberttassone7676 What does that mean 😭
I just started reading the apocrypha. I found out that these writings are used in the Talmud. I've been reading with caution as there is so much false information out here. I must say, it has been enlightening and explains a lot. God even explains to Adam and Eve that He would become flesh (Jesus), and sacrifice Himself to save the righteous and restore them. The Lord is good!!!
In Judaism it's called extra writings. Not part of the a Hebrew scriptures but extra for history
No he sent his son. Christ is part of God not the father himself dear. Thats why christ said only the father is good
@@shel0016 Here we go again. Please show me in the scripture where Christ is the SECOND person of the so called Trinity. There is no Trinity. God is ONE. Didn´t GOD say i AM THE ONLY ONE! Jesus Christ is the name of our GOD, of our Son and Holy Ghost. Jesus said: "I came in the father's name". The name of the Son is the same name, because the body inherit the name of the Spirit. What did GOD say he was? He is the Spirit. Holy Ghost is the characteristic of GOD. "I AM HOLY". I sent the Holy Ghost in my name.
Acts 4:10 Tells us the name and how many GODS there is.
GOD has many functions, but only ONE name.
Acts 2:38 = Peter Says which name saves you.
When it says: " In the NAME of the father, son and Holy ghost" See how its written "NAME" not "NAMES". Just like i am Husband, seller, teacher, this all together are many of my functions but my name is only ONE.
Hope this helps.
@@SpiritualEagle Hello Nico, my hope is to share these scriptures with you so you would understand more who God claims to be in the bible.
You are correct, there is only one God and there is no one like him.
*(Isaiah 45:5) “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me.”
*(Deut 6:4) “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”
(Jeremiah 10:6) "There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might."
But we see God describe a plurality of himself, equating other distinct persons to have His image.
*(Genesis 1:26) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
The Spirit was present at creation
*(Genesis 1:2) "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
Jesus was present at creation
*(Colossians 1:16) "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,"
The Father was present with His Son at creation
*(1 Corinthians 8:6) "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
2. Jesus Himself declares himself as "in the Father", meaning one with Him as God. He also declares to be a distinct person from the Father, explaining the words he speaks belong to the Father, not himself.
*(John 14:9-10) Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
You quoted Acts 2:38 .. describing two distinct people, with two distinct roles.
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus stated it is to our benefit that he leave so we can receive the Holy Spirit (the Helper) whom he (Jesus) would send.
(John 16:7) Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Three distinct people are named here which are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Name is singular, testifying that they are all in one another fully God.
*(Matthew 28:19-20) "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
Let's look at the verse before this even, where Jesus states authority was given to him from the Father. Again, distinct persons. (Matt 11:27 for further proof)
*(Matthew 28:18) "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
There would be no need for the Father to transfer authority if they were not distinct.
A scripture that shows all 3 distinct people performing 3 distinct actions. Matthew 3:16-17
16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
The three distinct persons of the ONE God are all present here. The Son, obediently fulfilling all righteousness (Matt 3:15), the Holy Spirit descending to rest on Jesus, and the Father affirming that Jesus was in fact His Son.
Scripture interprets scripture. God is three in One. One God, three distinct persons. These persons share in the divine attributes of God because they are each part of the God Head and take on distinct roles.
Lastly, "sent in my Name.." declares by whos authority they were went. Not that they are the same person
He was always going to do that even in the Old Testament
I'm Roman Catholic and I have an old King James Bible with Apocrypha from the 1950s. It has 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, which are not in my Catholic Bible.
I also have an old bible, but not a King James Bible, It also has Apocrypha and the chapters in it. It is old. And has been in my family for a very long time.
@@micheletravis9057 Hi there! May I ask if it is written in Greek or different language? I am full of curiosity and this is case also similar to something I have in mind. Thanks in advance, have a good day!
@@evangelinethompson1125 Hello, it is in between the Torah ( old testament ) And the new Testament. The Torah, was written in Hebrew And Greek, The New Testament was also written in the same language. As for Apocrypha, I am not sure what language it was written in because it was taken out of the bible a long time ago. You can buy a bible with Apocrypha in it, on Amazon., As well as the book of Enoch, which was also taken out of our bible, but is still in the bible in Ethiopa
You can also get a bible where part of it is translated from Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. There are some amazing diffences
@@micheletravis9057 That is so very kind of you to explain a lot to me, thank you so much! I do gladly appreciate it. :)
I read the apocrypha, and I agree there is useful information. However if the Jewish don't recognize it as Scripture why would the RC and Orthodox churches include it in the bible? Of course growing up Catholic I knew that most Catholics don't read the bible. We only got to learn the "highlights" of the bible, and during mass the priest has to follow an agenda of selected NT stories.
LegoGuy87 the reason that we use the same books that the jews use, is that they only worship out of the old testament. also, since jews wrote the old testament and only use the old testament, it is logical to use what they use
The catholic church is evil
Because the Apocrypha is the true hidden books that the “adopted” Jews kept out... for more info..
Shaynerodney95@hotmail.com
This books are reject by post Christian jews who also rejected the new testament so why go by a cult what rejects the new testament... The other jewish sect that didn't reject them was what's now known as Christians Catholics...
@@Robbthetruth "is evil"???? Ha Ha Ha! Is that all you have to say? Is that all 4 Founders together can concoct?? sounds ridiculous
A book is not inspired by God because man made it canonical... A book is conotical because GOD inspired it.
Trust in the word of God 🙏 not man! You get it! At least I'm not alone!
Now, how do you know which books were inspired by God??
Shaolin Showdown God inspired the Church father’s to write the New Testament and the Church fathers were CATHOLIC and the word “CATHOLIC” means UNIVERSAL !!!!
And 1500 years after the New Testament was written and practiced by the universal church Martin Luther decided he didn’t like all of the books in the New Testament and he just removed them so no it’s not true Christianity
It’s Luther’s Christianity but guess what??????? The universal (Catholic) church is still the SAME as it was for over two thousand years ....
@@vickytheodorides no proof. No verbal, no video, no (most importantly) scriptual proof. Not even circumstantial proof at the very least. Dogma and consensus is not truth.
Have you ever thought to consider that people who go against the Catholic church had a humble truthful merit behind theyre rebeliousness? And couldn't God have ordained that separation and the use of the CC thelroughout the centuries? Is man really more in control than God on any plain? Listen to what your saying and me.
Critical thinking over cognitive dissonance.
@@vickytheodorides and thats not true. The Catholic church has not been the same in doctrine over two thousand years.
Firstly the Roman calender is 2020. The Catholic church formed in 4th century not 1st. And that's proven by scripture. The knowledge and spiritual doctrine is not on par with the Catholic church, so that couldn't be the case.
Secondly.... the official stance of the Catholic church has changed in salvation from various councils and many even doctrine on expressions. Many cardinals and scholars of the CC have left or been excommunicated because of non agreements. So there has ALWAYS been a conflict within the CC.
You either are ignorant and don't really know because your naive. Or you willingly choose to hold earthly material cultural dogma over Gods will.
He forgot to mention that it was included in the original KJV until 1888 it was taken out in the US published KJV.
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it has not, rather why was it included in the first place?
I always always always take the books not included in the Bible with a grain of salt and am very weary of them. Except the book of Enoch as it is mentioned throughout the Bible. But it’s not evil to read book not included in the Bible
Whenever I tell my family (Christian) about these books or even book of Enoch they say
“It’s not on the Bible so it’s not a real book and I won’t read it.” Man decided what was in the final copy of the Bible and Torah. Book of Enoch was originally in the Bible but later taken out possibly Bc maybe it seemed to fantastical ?
I think it was removed because this world is not ready for it. Even the Smithsonian has the remains of the Nephilim and won't show it. It is a very dangerous book for this century to comprehend. You have to be awaken and it finds it's way to you. I thought my friend was crazy when she told me. It was as if I was walking around with a fresh pair of eyes. Suddenly I started to look at all the logos and signs with demonic symbols. Hollywood is from the holly tree that was from a pagan GOD that ate children. What the wreath represent and the starbuck symbols and so on. But now I am ok and observe not absorb.
They tell you not to read the book of Enoch yet it confirms giants and why witchcraft came about when 200 angles ( son of man ) came and slept with the daughters of the earth . with this happened it gave birth to inhumane creatures giants . this was also a way to battle the seed ( jesus blood line with a fake one for the devil , leading to just one of the reasons god floods the earth . it's crazy but a preacher pastor darby really broke it down . also he's on UA-cam so look him up to confirm this information .
Enoch is called the son of man and messiah in the book of Enoch it clearly contradicts scripture it was never in the Bible canon
The book of Enoch directly contradicts the Bible. The book was never a part if the Bible and you saying that really shows how little you know.
@MTS 3 baby you must then wonder if the bible we have today now and the bibles before 1611 have 66books then who added them👀 the apocrypha was made and created by the catholics hence why all books of the apocrypha in some way or another contradict the true holy scripts which were recorded in all 66 books of the bible ;)
Jude references Enoch 1:9 as prophesy. It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
so how does this differ from, "as it is written."?
It's all about the Fruit of the Spirit and being open to God speaking to you through these books. I'm not Catholic but to shut them off is not being open but rather boxing your faith and God.
What about the story where Jesus and the kid are playing by the river bank. Jesus made some dolls out of the mud and the child told him he shouldn't do that, as it was against the Sabbath. Jesus, being the forgiving type that he is, has the child killed. Do you not what book that is? I've been trying to find it but haven't had much luck.
@@kension333 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Thank you for explaining the books, too many Christians refuse to even acknowledge the significance of these.
Rightly so since every book of the apocrypha is contradictory at points with the scriptures. Read and learn the other 66 books well and the apocrypha won't be an issue. At all.
fun fact, the WHOLE bible is full of contradiction.@@roberttassone7676
It’s not, it simply contradicts your worldview. That’s called pride and you should work on it
Enoch and Jasher are mentioned several times in scriptures🤔... I've read Wisdom, Sirach, and Enoch so far. My only advice is to read the Bible first then if God wants He will help you connect the dots. Just be careful.... but come on do not call them false....
@@Southernplate Sad but true.
Spot on. Very diplomatic
@@Southernplate Jasher is amazing and speaks of much of Abrams early life.
Jubilee is another one that is fascinating with alot of Leviticus style laws and early detailed reports of the garden.
nothing is contradicting with our cannon
I don't think he was calling them false but telling what the modern day translation of the word means and he did say they are a good read but mot scripture. I think that is the biggest point is that they weren't included in the Bible for a reason because for 400 years God did not speak so while these books are a great read they shouldn't be preached from the pulpit.
His says thier useful but discredits them🤷 how can something help if u think it's a lie or fake🤔🗿
Thank you! I left catholism 50 years ago and have shunned that sect since being introduced to the simplicity of Salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. Your lesson has opened my eyes a bit.
The simplicity between Salvation through the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is comforting 🩷
They hid alot of theses books for a reason they don't want us to know
...that before the Renaissance all painted pictures of Jesus and the apostles were of black men. 🥲✝️
@@ivana5513 you wish
@MTS 3 baby that jesus was black?
@MTS 3 baby yea wel if you think that your delusional
@MTS 3 baby he was a jew from Jerusalem.... Ain't no blacks from there 😅 cuckoo... In your fantasy world maybe there is 🤣
I've been studying The Apocrypha lately, mainly using the New Oxford NRSV 5th edition study bible, alongside multiple other Oxford resources and external sources, and so far I am mostly in agreement with Dr. Robert Plummer. Though I still have some questions and have emailed them in, I do think that though they are not scriptural or divinely authoritative, the apocryphal books do have historical, literary, and moral value to them that is actually supported by some of the Old Testament scriptures. Many of the books of the Apocrypha reference many books in the Old Testament, and I've even found supporting references from the canon Old Testament exegetical annotations that are pretty much reverberated word-for-word in some of the apocryphal writings (bi-directional references).
Additionally, though there are specific or exact historical inaccuracies such as where a certain river flowed from/to (the Tigris within Tobit), and exact timings that are clearly incorrect, the historical backgrounds and general happenings in many of the books are actually very accurate. 1 and 2 Maccabees tells the story of the Maccabean revolts, and have an underlying tone/message in them of how God is faithful to those who do not bend the knee to heretics and false Gods (hence him allowing victory to the Maccabeans against a vastly more powerful, influential, and resourceful foe). A majority of what is found in the Maccabean books is historically proven and accurate.
The main reasons that make the Apocryphal writings 'apocryphal', is the Hellenistic literary styles and foundations behind them, as well as the fact that many of the authors are completely unknown and cannot be traced to an authoritative writer. If the writer cannot be proven as authoritative by God's divine inspiration, then how can the writings be authoritative? That is why the root Greek meaning "hidden things" accurately and aptly applied and still applies to these books.
All in all, I think they are useful and edifying, ONLY if you have a strong foundation in the divinely-inspired scriptures, and if you also have a strong knowledge of the history of the time frames in which the apocryphal books were all written. They should not be taken as sovereign and authoritative divine scripture, but they can be read for their historical insight, gap-bridging, and moral reverberations and strong moral references to the canon OT. IF you can keep this key differentiation in mind when you read them, I do not believe there is any harm in enjoying these pieces of ancient literature.
Kody Pelton "The BIBLE" Greatest Book Ever Written.
Last Days Prophesy!
Babylon The Great (America) Is Falling.
1 EFDRAS 4:36 All the earth called upon the TRUTH, and the heaven blesseth it, all works shake and tremble at it, and with it is no Unrighteousness thing.
All Praises To The Most High and his Son.
The BIBLE: Historical and Prophetic facts about Jesus Christ and ELOHIM chosen people the Israelite nation.
It doesn't matter what anyone think as the one and only say it was and is as it shall be. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Well said
I was looking for a Skyrim video ...
😂😂😂
😂😂
Same
Lmfao
😂😂😂
Prof Plummer began with declaring those apocryphal books to be addition to the already fixed canon of 39 OT books. The problem with this statement is there is no single verses of NT that tells us which books and how many books belong to Old Testament - the word "addition" he used is not appropriate. Both Jews and the first Christians did not have a fixed canon during the time of Christ. We know that Jewish Talmud still cited as Scripture some verses of Sirach. The early Christians unanimously agreed only on inspiration of 38 books of OT (minus Esther) and 20 books of NT (minus 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation) while the rest were disputed. Prof. Plummer also claimed that Jesus never considered Apocryphal books as inspired. Well, how did he know that? The fact that Christ never cited from them does not indicate that He rejected them. NT also never quoted from Esther and Song of Songs and quoted from outside OT like Enoch (Jude 14), Assumption of Moses (Jude 9, according to Origen), unknown Scripture (in John 7:38, James 4:5). In 2 Peter 2:22 Proverbs 26:11 is placed in par with a proverb from outside the Bible. He also mentioned some historical errors in apocryphal books but the same applies to 66 books of Protestant Bible, they do not refer them as errors but as "difficulties" or "discrepancies".
hey bud wasn't the Septuagint the popular cannon in jesus's time and even before Jesus? did it not have like a formal list of books?
Hey @Just from Catholic, can you cite your sources for these claims so I can investigate them?
No errors meaning inspired errors overrule writing errors. Purgatory not real. It makes scriptural contradictions. The bible doesnt contradict. And the Apocrypha was founded in Dead Sea scrolls. Carbon dating shows that the books where from around 240 B.C. to 280 B.C. the last book of OT is Malachi. Malachi was finnished 400 b.c. timing not right. If that were the case the 7 books should be after Malachi not within OT.
@@landonadams8122 ooooook
🔥🤾⛹️⛹️⛹️👌
This is the first information I hear about the Apocrypha,
and to me this seemed like a good answer.
What I got from this is, that they do contain many good things, and truths and God uplifting texts,
but not in the same sense as the Bible.
They are more like books by christian authors like DL Moody or C. S. Lewis.
Thank you for your view on this 👍
That's exactly what I thought
You should explore more views on this topic...
@@notremarchedelafin I actually did since then, or rather I now and then was confronted with the topic again.
Adding to what I wrote in my original comment, I now know that:
First, what made it and didn't make it into the Bible wasn't randomly decided at some council, but rather that there were strict criteria whether something counted as "Scripture" or not. F.e. It had to be from a very close witness to the Messiah, and it couldn't contradict something the Apostles already wrote. What we now know as th Apocrypha, failed those tests back then, so it was clear to the people, that they were not God inspired Scriptures.
Second, some of th Apocrypha don't even claim themselves to be Scripture, but the Author of 2. Maccabees wrote something like: "At this point I'll stop my writings. If the story is well told, I reached my goal. If not, I tried my best."
I hope this is helpful to someone wondering about this topic 👍
@@chessversarius2253 , personnally, I am convinced many apocryphal books are inspired. I don't have a clear opinion on all of them. As for what you say about 2 Maccabees, I'll check it out. Would you have the verse by any chance?
@@notremarchedelafin Hold on, I found the verses:
2 Maccabees - Chapter 15:
"37 So ends the episode of Nicanor, and as, since then, the city has remained in the possession of the Hebrews, I shall bring my own work to an end here too.
38 If it is well composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage."
I think it's a bit funny, but in a good way, how honest he is when he writes that last sentence ^^.
Personally, I didn't read any of the Apocrypha, because I don't want to "lead myself into temptation" to perhaps believe it or to let it damage my (hopefully) biblical faith (and if I’m not supposed to listen to it anyway, I don’t want to invest time into it). So I don’t know much about the content, except for a few snippets I've heard. Therefore, I can totally see that they are inspired *in such a sense* , that they can contain truths, and good teachings, but I'm sure, they are not inspired in the same way, as the Bible is.
You probably already know this, but the Bible says of itself:
"All *scripture* is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"
-2. Timothy 3:16
The Bible is the only book/ the only *scripture* which we are supposed to use to judge other things with and to learn and to train us into becoming healthier, better, holier. I also heard, and the verses I found seem to agree, that the books of the Apocrypha never claim to be *scripture* themselves.
Other books can definitely help to understand *scripture* the Bible, but the Bible must have the final say.
Because if we say there are other books with the same authority, then where do we stop?
If we can add the Apocrypha, we might as well add the book of Mormons.
These are at least two reasons that came to my mind just now, why we shouldn't trust the Apocrypha, as much as we trust the Bible.
I hope this is understandable, it’s all I could manage ;)
May God help us both to find truth that makes us free!
John 8:32
Have a good day :)
Jude 1:14-15
Samuel 1:17-18
I Chronicle 29:29
II Chronicle 12:15
II Chronicle 20:34
John 21:25
Daniel 12:4
He aint saying nothing! Just like his father Esau!
kan
His uncle would be Jacob. If Esau was really his father. Think about that Jacob and Esau were brothers. Get that racist baloney out of here
This comment tickled me too much😂😂
🤣😂🤣🤾⛹️⛹️Kobe!
That part.. Edom doesn't know scripture for real
I was introduced to the word Apocrypha in a movie, Alias Grace. One of the characters explained what the Apocrypha Book is. I was intrigued to learn more. Thank you. I subscribed.
I learned about it through esoteric philosophy research. Specifically when I was reading about gnostic. But I was intrigued about all of this stuff through storytelling too.
The apocrypha was part of the Hebrew scriptures until about 100AD when *_the jews who rejected Jesus_* took out all the books after Ezra AND corrupted the scriptures to remove/alter prophecies about the Messiah. Our OT comes from the Masorite text from 1000AD. The LXX (which includes the apocrypha) was translated 250BC. Which do you think should be trusted.
Some are still part of the Haitian Bible written in 98.
🗿
The apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew scriptures during the 3rd century BCE but was added..
But never part of the Hebrew scriptures. It was only part of the septuagint
This video sounds great and seems informative. The speaker is also clear and respectful which is awesome. Unfortunately the content is quite false and misleading. While it contains some truth, that often just helps the falsehoods and omissions become easier to swallow. Forgive the expression but remember that rat poison is 95% food. We must all seek the full truth, this is not about teams. This is about loving each other and trying to help each other get closer to God.
1) *No debate between New Testament Canon:* Martin Luther did in-fact want to remove several books from the New Testament including James and Revelation among others (it's in his own writings) The speaker mentioned about things that should give us pause. Someone wanting to remove the divinely inspired writings of an Apostles that walked with Jesus should definitely give us pause.
2) *Jesus and the Apostles did not believe this was part of the canon:* It is in-fact strongly supported that Jesus and the Apostles did use these books as did most of the Jewish people of the day. This is evident through objective historical study and reasoning. For example, the vast majority (like 80%) of Jesus's quotes and citations are derived from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the TaNaKh (Jewish Bible, aka Old Testament) which included the books that Martin Luther removed. To put it plainly, Jesus and the Apostles primarily used a Jewish Bible that contained these books.
3) *Not in the Jewish canon at Jesus's time:* This is an objectively and historically false statement. There was no official Jewish canon during Jesus's time. The Sadducees for example used only the Torah (First 5 books of Moses, aka "The Law") completely disregarding the rest of the Jewish Bible (our Old Testament) that other Jewish sects used, such as the Pharisees and Essenes. Again, pls see above 2)
4) *Not in the synagogues of today:* The texts are not in modern day synagogues because the Jewish people were largely wiped out by the Romans in 70AD and the Pharisees were really the only sect of Judaism that survived. So a few hundred years after Jesus, the sect of Judaism that condemned our Lord to a brutal death and brought destruction upon their temple, tossed out the Greek Old Testament, which was what was in use in Jesus's time, and translated it back into Hebrew. Tailoring it where they saw fit to support their narrative that Jesus was not the messiah. These texts were in synagogues in Jesus's time. Please see above 2). I love Jewish people, I admire their devotion to God's word and I do not want to offend anyone. However, from a Christian perspective it would be self-destructive and nonsensical to make determinations on what is Christian Biblical Canon based on modern day Judaism.
5) *Not quoted as scripture:* Meaning Jesus never directly quoted from these books. There are multiple books in the Old Testament that Protestants accept as canon that Jesus never explicitly quoted from or referenced. This is unfortunately not a determining factor of whether certain books should not be canon only that the books that were quoted or cited by Jesus definitely should be canon. If removing books that Jesus did not quote from or reference were a valid criteria then several other books of the Old Testament would also need to be removed.
6) *They contain certain errors:* Many of the NT scriptures are disputed by secular atheists on the grounds of historical inaccuracies. This is a selective critique that if you accept as valid you must objectively apply to the entire bible as a whole. It is an entire area of study and debate. Personally, I have never seen anything whether disputed by protestants or atheists that stands out as a smoking gun. I have seen minor objections from people rigorously searching for a that "ha! gotcha!" moment which never really comes to fruition. In short, a very weak argument especially Christian to Christian.
7) *The Catholic Church had certain regional councils:* This is also no small thing as the speaker seems to imply. The "Catholic" church, as the speaker put it, was the "early" church. Call it what you want, but every Christian denomination has the same church father's which included the Apostles and those closest generations to them. These early church councils were not some minor fantasy football gathering. Right or wrong, for the first 1000 years after Jesus, there was one church. This church and the early church fathers of it often responded to growing heresies by calling together large councils of many bishops in huge regions where these heresies were taking root. They took definitive positions in these councils on theology that almost all Christians of any denomination still hold true today. Handled subjects like; the trinity; whether Jesus was fully God (Arianism); the introduction to gnostic and false gospels that stated women need to become men to get to heaven. The early church, definitively, consecutively and consistently through the centuries made it clear what the canon of the bible was and is. Then one day a random German Catholic monk decided that he was wiser than all of the church fathers, including perhaps some Apostles.
I love all you guys btw. I just want people spend some time digging and understanding their own beliefs. Stress test your own arguments and pray for discernment. Jesus wanted us united when he prayed that we all be one unified body. There should only be one church and you should work diligently to understand why the church you are part of IS or is not in the fullness of God's truth.
The Bible says in Ecclesiasticus 12:10 never trust thine enemy, I’ll leave it at that.
Israel’s Own where is Ecclesiasticus found ?
J 2K in the apocrypha, and don’t say that’s not part of the Bible
J 2K in the apocrypha, and don’t say that’s not part of the Bible
🤣🤾⛹️⛹️⛹️
And I would call it taking out of context for proof texting.
The A prefix to a word means "without" for example: Avasuclar means without vascularity
Apocrypha means without inspiration or not inspired.
obviously the old testament writers were reading the book of Jasher since they mention these ancient Hebrew writings more than once within the "Canon"
whats your opinion on those writings.
They're def part of the canon. Jews and protestants and even later versions of the KJV removed them later on.
2 Maccabees
Chapter 07
It came to pass also, that seven brethren with their mother were taken, and compelled by the king against the law to taste swine's flesh, and were tormented with scourges and whips.
But one of them that spake first said thus, What wouldest thou ask or learn of us? we are ready to die, rather than to transgress the laws of our fathers.
Then the king, being in a rage, commanded pans and caldrons to be made hot:
Which forthwith being heated, he commanded to cut out the tongue of him that spake first, and to cut off the utmost parts of his body, the rest of his brethren and his mother looking on.
Now when he was thus maimed in all his members, he commanded him being yet alive to be brought to the fire, and to be fried in the pan: and as the vapour of the pan was for a good space dispersed, they exhorted one another with the mother to die manfully, saying thus,
The Lord God looketh upon us, and in truth hath comfort in us, as Moses in his song, which witnessed to their faces, declared, saying, And he shall be comforted in his servants.
So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?
But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did.
And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.
After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully.
And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again.
Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains.
Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner.
So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.
Afterward they brought the fifth also, and mangled him.
Then looked he unto the king, and said, Thou hast power over men, thou art corruptible, thou doest what thou wilt; yet think not that our nation is forsaken of God;
But abide a while, and behold his great power, how he will torment thee and thy seed.
After him also they brought the sixth, who being ready to die said, Be not deceived without cause: for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against our God: therefore marvellous things are done unto us.
But think not thou, that takest in hand to strive against God, that thou shalt escape unpunished.
But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord.
Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them,
I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you;
But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake.
Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs.
But when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel the young man to save his life.
And when he had exhorted her with many words, she promised him that she would counsel her son.
But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.
I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.
Fear not this tormentor, but, being worthy of thy brethren, take thy death that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren.
Whiles she was yet speaking these words, the young man said, Whom wait ye for? I will not obey the king's commandment: but I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses.
And thou, that hast been the author of all mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hands of God.
For we suffer because of our sins.
And though the living Lord be angry with us a little while for our chastening and correction, yet shall he be at one again with his servants.
But thou, O godless man, and of all other most wicked, be not lifted up without a cause, nor puffed up with uncertain hopes, lifting up thy hand against the servants of God:
For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all things.
For our brethren, who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God's covenant of everlasting life: but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride.
But I, as my brethren, offer up my body and life for the laws of our fathers, beseeching God that he would speedily be merciful unto our nation; and that thou by torments and plagues mayest confess, that he alone is God;
And that in me and my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which is justly brought upon our nation, may cease.
Than the king' being in a rage, handed him worse than all the rest, and took it grievously that he was mocked.
So this man died undefiled, and put his whole trust in the Lord.
Last of all after the sons the mother died.
Let this be enough now to have spoken concerning the idolatrous feasts, and the extreme tortures.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and “TOUCH” NOT THE UNCLEAN “THING” and I will receive you,
And now you should decide if you will need to obey the apocryphal books or not anymore...
I am a Muslim. I have done some research on different Bibles. I personally think that Jews and Protestants are correct about OT books. The Deuterocanonical / Apocrypha books are important writings but not scriptures and these do not even read like scriptures, nor are they attributed to prophets. Jerome also accepted this view, but since these books are in Septuagint so it had to be included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.
However, even in Sept. these are called important writings (Anagignoskomena) but are called not scripture or inspired by divine. The idea of scripture is that such books are attributed to prophets and not only to important Jewish writers. The Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox Canon includes very strange additional books in both OT and NT, it is a minor canon and is highly not reliable. So, Jewish and Protestant idea of OT canon makes sense, as OT belongs to Jews, so all Christians should accept their canon for OT. It will be better for them.
"So, Jewish and Protestant idea of OT canon makes sense, as OT belongs to Jews, so all Christians should accept their canon for OT. It will be better for them."
Amen!
Something interesting is that in the Qur'an, Muhammad said to use the scriptures the Jews and the gospel of the Christians as a basis to judge him. We have thousands of manuscripts from before Muhammad was born for both the Old and New Testaments that confirm what we have today is what he was referring to, and yet, that same Qur'an denies the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the entirety of the New Testament is based on.
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it was not, rather why was it included in the first place?
The Septuagint, which contain the canonical books that are rejected by majority of our Protestant brothers and sisters, is quoted over 75% of the time in the New Testament by the Apostles and Our Lord.
interesting
Yeah the books of Jasher and Iddo are mentioned in the Bible, among others, but they’re not the Word of God. There’s a reason all spirit-filled Christians agree and all dead religious traditions end up on a different side. And I say that as someone who grew up Catholic and got saved 5 years ago.
75%? Really? I know of 2 (that are linked together) other examples would be appreciated. I found the 1 Esdras prophecy naming Jesus and the years till his appearance were interesting.
While I agree that the Deuterocanonical books are canon, I do not see how that claim is accurate. However, there are some parallels that are so startling that they may as well be quotes. Like when Pharisess are mocking Jesus on the cross for saying he is the Son of God. Goes with Wisdom 2.
@@jembenjamin yes, I agree. I'm sure much of it is historically accurate, but that doesn't mean it's the living Word of God, sharper than a two eged sword. There's a reason dead religions like Catholicism and orthodoxy accept these works as canon, they have no discernment or Holy Ghost.
How many times did he say "It's not scripture"?
Mind control through repetition
Too many times 🙏
This is when skepticism turns into paranoia xD
@Don Lee because a man decided it's not. God didn't take them out man did remember that
Justin Wesley man actually added them
I started skimming through it out of curiosity and it really seemed like it belongs there. And that you said about explaining who and how the pharisees and saducees became seems quite important. I'm not catholic but I think I'll have a go at reading it.
The book of Jasper is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18... so u decide
My grandmom have a copy of 1970 American bible which was given to her by an American friend and in that bible contains Old Testament chapters like Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom and apocrypha. The book still lives but is quite battered and Moth-eaten, after I saw this vid I realize that what I have now is a somewhat complete version of the Bible, a gem of original doctrine. When I compared it to the latest bible I found that the new one is missing a lot from its old counterpart which is very disappointing since then I never bought a new Bible but instead rely on the old one cause it tells the truth somehow.
If your bible has 66 books then my friend you have a perfect non contradicting bible😎
The original Hebrew canon of scripture did not have the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were never affirmed by the Roman Catholic church until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
@@rickdavis2235 yeah because they had to translate them after the crusades
@@TheRealRusDaddy
" yeah because they had to translate them after the crusades "
What are you implying? I'm not following.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
I have heard that some Anglican and Lutheran Bibles include the Apocrypha, but still, the stories are supposed to be interesting reads. My paternal grandparents bought a 1792 Bible which had/has them at a yard sale. I was/am Southern Baptist, though Reformed since 2011/12. The Medici family had operas on Saint Ursula (1624/25) and Princess Judith (1626) that would've been amazing productions if the music survived. As a sopranist, I'd have wanted to memorize the role of the Archangel Michael in the former piece; in the latter piece, some male soprano role.
Still amazes me how some Protestant scholars believe that their knowledge of scripture is greater than that of the early Church fathers like Jerome.
Its not like they just stood up one day, pointed at some books, and said "be gone!". Like the Reformation brought a lot of thinking and critical analysis. Even if they're wrong, it's best not to belittle the amount of effort placed in critiquing Catholicism and trying to really understand the core of what it meant to be Christian (and Jewish). Some early church leaders were heretics and taught things like Arianism. Not all their work correlates so even if the orthodoxy lineage is legitimate you can blame them for questioning the teachings of everyone in an honest search for truth
MyNameShrimp
And how do you believe that Jerome’s knowledge and the early church fathers are greater than the Jews’ living before Jesus Christ?
Jerome was doubtfull about the inerrancy and canonicity of the Apocrypha. Dont u believe me? Chek it out on the internet.
Josué Inhan but do you agree with the rest of what Jerome wrote? Pointing out what he said that might agree with Protestantism and ignoring what he wrote supporting Catholic beliefs because they don’t fit the Protestant narrative is hypocritical. Read the rest of what he wrote and tell me again that he agreed with Protestantism... not! There are many early writers who disagreed with Jerome re the Deuterocanonical books... do you ever bother to read them?
Great comment MyNameShrimp.
St Jerome was THE Catholic who translated the Bible. Protestants base their faith on the Bible. Whereas the Church bases the Bible on the faith.
Martin Luther misinterpreted the Bible, and thus made a horrible mistake, that may have cost him his salvation. The funniest paradox is Protestants will defend him, while he would chastise them if he were here today. The Lutheran Church is but a shell of what it once was. Catholicism has not changed since Christ instituted it on Holy Thursday.
Would you read the Book or Mormon then, by your justification of not being scared to read it?
Quincy Williams I would, personally, with a spirit of discernment in the Holy Spirit. Wouldn’t you, at least after praying for discernment from God beforehand?
1) The Jews before Christ did *not* have a set canon of scripture . The Sadducees said that only the Pentateuch was scriptural, for example. A significant faction of Jews did take the deuterocanonical (what Protestants erroneously call “apocryphal”) books as Scriputural. The deuterocanonical books *were included* in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation used in the New Testament quotes.
2) There are many Old Testament books in the Protestant canon that are not quoted in the New Testament. An OT book does not have to be quoted in the NT in order for it to be scriptural.
3) There are not historical errors in the deuterocanonical (“apocryphal”) books. Atheists regularly make lists of “contradictions” between books in the Protestant canon; this does not mean they are not truly scriptural. The same principle applies to Protestants making lists of “contradictions” in the Catholic canon.
4) No ecumenical council declared canonicity of *any* book to be a matter of faith until the Council of Trent. The argument he makes against the deuterocanon (what he calls the “apocrypha”) could be used against every book of the Bible.
Protestants deny that Christ instituted a visible institutional Church, so they cannot explain how we know the canon of scripture to begin with. Their position is fundamentally incoherent.
We do not stand in judgement of scripture; the God who wrote Scripture stands in judgement of us. Repent and believe in the *whole* Bible
I appreciate the attitude of the Anglicans when it comes to the Apocryphal books. They even include them in their readings of the Scriptures during the liturgy.
Wow. Eye opening.
So the kjv was translated in 1611 and included the books of the apocrypha until 1885. (Which would explain why some old hyms quote the apocrypha) But what I want to know if it was never part of the Canon as stated in this video then why was it included in the scripture until 1885. Not trying to poke a beehive here just honestly curious
The Apocrypha was not removed from the RV in 1885 as many believe. It just wasn't included yet. The apocrypha was included in the second edition of the RV in 1895. It was also included in the RSV of 1957 and is STILL present today in the KJVAA. The question is not when was it removed because it has not, rather why was it included in the first place?
3:24....caught himself LMAO! "it's really FFFFFF........enjoyable"...
,
😁🤣😂😱😱😱😉
🤣🤣🤣 Thanks for that.
Haha, I think he was going to say “Fun”
Fascinating
He was going to say fun.
I find it awfully hypocritical to use church authority to make your case against the Apocrypha being included in the Protestant bible. How does that make since exactly?
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
What does that mean exactly?
The one thing that everyone seems to forget is that, the Bible was rewritten many time's. Quite a few time's, bit's of the Bible have been removed for one reason or another.
Funny how the dead Sea scrolls did have additional book's that was omitted. Look at the book of Enoch. It was left out.
Is there any complete bible?
With all removed books
TAMIL TRUTHERS OFFICIAL yes in the old German Lutheran Bible..when coming to America the people decided to remove them..
It says in revelations not to remove anything from the Bible they will be held accountable
@@malika.k
Yes ma'am, you are absolutely correct.
@@tamiltruthersofficial6931
It's said that the Ethiopian people poses the Bible in its entirety. However, to be completely honest, I do not know for sure
Came across a bible that as 15 apocrypha n it... song of children" Shadrach Meshach Abednego". Story of Susanna...Bell@the Dragon...the rest of Esther... I'm blessed to have purchased this an I've now just begun to read......
So it's like a spin-off series. I'll have to read these
He doesn't mention that some of these books were in the 1611 kjv and removed after that. That's around the same time the name Jesus for our messiah was introduced into the bible translated from the Greek Iésous pronounced yesus which some argue translates to hail Zues but i haven't done as much research on that last part as i intend to and can't say for sure if I think that's true or not yet. However the further you go back in historical translations the more truth you can find in the word. The current kjv cannon however is here in these times for a reason. And the more you read that yourself as apposed to listening to your religious leaders read a verse from one book then comparng it to another verse in another book to get their own points across the more you can see for yourself things that have been lost in translation.
You win the internet today.
@@nickreynolds8636 so because some ppl left it in scripture makes it scripture? Consensus isnt necessarily truth. Group think and tribalism isnt of God. Knowledge and intelligence is of God.
A book is not inspired by God because man made it canonical. A book is canonical because God inspired it.
@@shaolinshowdown1123 People think words are just words and I'd agree. We just have to remember there are some words that are not just words and you must be careful to speak them.
@@armandoc.3150 no. Some phrases are not just phrases. It has meaning and logic. There is context in everything's. People who negate that and not choose that, choose what's attractive. What's attractive is flesh. Flesh is death.
I have read in JKV bible preface that the Apocrypha was included originally in the JKV, but then removed due to Puritan political in influence in England at the time.
I wish I had a copy of that bible now to give better details on it.
Good morning Phyllis. You said; "but then removed due to Puritan political in influence in England at the time."
Actually, the Apocrypha remained in the KJV until 1884. And it was not taken out for ecclesiastical reasons. The Apocrypha was taken out for purely economic reasons.
___________________________
The KJV Bible was 17" x 12" and 5 1/2 inches thick. It was a 1600 page lectern Bible . The King James Bible was too large to be carried and too expensive for most people.
By taken out the apocrypha, tables, etc, the King James bible is the size it is today, and affordable.
_________________________
"Puritan political in influence in England at the time"
King James quelled any Puritan Political influence. And what he did not squelch escaped to the New World or hid in Switzerland.
The Geneva Bible of 1599 removed the Apocrypha it had in the 1552 Geneva.
Just a quick question for anyone out there:
The fact that there was a Protestant reformation; does this not prove that the Protestants removed themselves from an already established set of books? That is to say; isn't protestantism newer and reformed than the older established congregations? Which doctrine should we follow; the new or the old? I would think the old since it would be unreformed and authentic. Not to mention that Paul references some of those epistles we no longer have today.
The answer of proper doctrine would be what did the early church fathers believe and write about.
Exactly. It'd be one thing if protestantism ended with Luther but noooo.... Snowflakes keep on doing their own thing that's why there are churches all over their show. I accept the traditions and reverence of our Lord and the teachings of the earlier church over anything and I will die that way.
@@no_prisoners6474 Manmade traditions are the pitfall. Luther argued that the Word of God (scripture) is the only source for appropriate doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church argued that tradition over-ruled scripture. When I mentioned early church fathers, I wasn't referring to the RCC, but those that immediately (1st and 2nd generation) following the Apostles.
@@blkjet117 whatever floats your boat. I'm over this.
No, most religious people are closed minded and do not want to talk about aliens, they want to obfuscate the reality of the situation down to some vague conception of Godly feels.
The Council of Trent under Pope Paul III convened in 1545, but it was the Council of Rome in 382, under Pope Damascus 1, which first included the Apocrypha in the Bible. And what's ironic about the whole thing is that the Protestants, who don't consider it canonical, wrote the most popular version of the Bible in circulation today...the KJV. The Apocrypha exclusion is as ridiculous as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hello. Thank you for your explanation into this matter. As far as the Book of Enoch is concerned, you seem correct about it being something to be avoided or almost sinful to even consider listening about it, especially reading it. I find such interest in the subject of Enoch only because he is vaguely mentioned in what would be the inspired and accepted Old Testemant. As I listen to readings of the New Testemant, he is mentioned within the lineage of Jesus Christ also. How can he be mentioned in both books, carried as teaching for many years and even still today? Why is it that what he was shown by God such taboo (for extreme lack of better words)to the preserved bible? How can we ignore his importance? How are we supposed to ignore his importanc? I'm sure this is also the case with other books within the Apocrypha. Thank you
Jason Wiser Although we don’t know much about Enoch, he is mention as a Man who walked with God. That is all the Lord has given us with regards to his faith and righteousness. We don’t know much about Melchizedek the High Priest of Salem, but he is mentioned in the book Hebrews in comparison to Jesus being our high Priest. He would seem to have more importance as far has Biblical figures go. Gods word only shows us what he thinks we need to know. That’s the best explanation I can ascertain
If you guys really want to lean about the Bible go to Israel News Live. Enoch is very important . You find out what lead up to the flood . You find out what the earth really looks like. You find out what's to come in Revelation.As far as Melcezedec he was Jesus plain and simple. Jesus was in the Old Testement more than once.Come out of organized religion and really get to know Jesus Christ and the times we live in. We are in the times of Noah.
Earth is flat as the Word of God declares
The book of Enoch is NOT scripture or Apocryphal. It is in simplest terms, spiritual junk food. Only two groups have ever given it any notice. A small Jewish Ethiopian sect and the Mormons. Both of these groups deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Yes it is true Enoch is mentioned in the book of Jude. It is quoted as a warning to false teachers who infiltrated the early church and was understood very well by them. It was NOT mentioned as an endorsement of canon. Context matters.
Thanks for this! I've been looking for a clear description of what the apocrypha is, and what role it played during the reformation. This is super clear and concise :)
Short answer
The realm of hermaeus mora
You have the knowledge comrade
Interesting enough, Hermaeus Mora looks very similar to ophanim or wheel heavenly beings.
The Apocrypha was definitely quoted and referenced in the original New Testament. But those references were removed from the New Testament when the Apocrypha was removed from the Bible.
IDK man, theres some Apocraphyl writings named in the Bible itself that didnt make it in to current versions of the modern Protestant Bible.
The original 1611 king James have it in there.
The original 1611 king James have it in there.
I suggest you read Sirach 28 compared to one of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. Or how about 2 Maccabees 7 compared to Hebrews 11:35 ? or Tobit 3:8 compared to Mark 12:18-22? or Wisdom 2:18 compared to Matthew 27:39-43?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint-over 300 times. In fact. the Septuagint canon is used more than 80% of the times in the New Testament over the Masoretic canon.
Without an authoritative Church they can trust, how do Protestants know what's in the canon and what isn't? The Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul famously suggested that the best we can say is that the canon of Scripture is "a fallible list of infallible books." It's fallible because, from Sproul's point of view, the Church that pronounced the canon had no real authority. But if a non-authoritative group of Christians in the third and fourth centuries could decide what the canon of Scripture was, then why couldn't another non-authoritative group of Christians do the same today? For example, in 2013, Hal Taussig, a member of a group of skeptical scholars called the Jesus Seminar, published a collection called A New New Testament. Added to the traditional New Testament were second-century apocryphal gospels such as "The Gospel of Truth," as well as texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls like "The Thunder: Perfect Mind." Most Protestants would never accept such books as part of the Bible, but what authority do they have to say someone like Taussig is wrong?
After all, 500 years ago, Martin Luther and other reformers made their own tweaks to the canon. Luther called the letter of James "an epistle of straw" because it contradicted his theology of justification by faith alone (James 2:24 says, for example, that we are not justified by faith alone). Although that letter remained in the Bible, Luther and the other Reformers did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament, and they are still absent from Protestant bibles. How can Protestants denounce Taussig's alteration of the canon without undermining the Reformers' decision to alter the canon in the sixteenth century? The deuterocanonical books were considered inspired Scripture for centuries until Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther jettisoned them because they taught doctrines that conflicted with their novel theology. (The most famous example would be 2 Maccabees 12:46, which teaches the efficacy of praying for the dead in order to atone for their sins.)
If protestants want to follow the canon of the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, then why do they even bother to either accept the canonical Gospels rejected by the jews, or even accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
Thanks for the video. What I’m curious about is the history of when the apocrypha was first actually considered scripture by the Roman Catholic Church, why it was considered to be scripture, who didn’t believe it was scripture in the early church days, etc. Does anyone know where I can read primary source writings of fathers, historians, etc. that discuss these historical details? The reason I ask is because the RCC claims that the apocrypha was considered scripture virtually since the beginning, but this seems unsupported by history. At the same time, I don’t have a lot of counter historical evidence either, more just circumstantial and biblical evidence.
Sola Scriptura get the king James 1611 bible. It is in that bible
If you want to know what the early Church believed, read the Early Church Fathers. The book “The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Early Church” by Jimmy Akin is a good place to start. You can go deeper from there.
@@queenofhearts7726
"If you want to know what the early Church believed, read the Early Church Fathers."
If you want to know what the early church believed, read the Bible. That's exactly what they believed without the rituals and traditions of men that are found nowhere in Scripture.
There are no priests in the New Testament, there are no scapulars, no orders of monks, no nuns, no bishops in the sense of the Catholic Church and there’s definitely not a monarchical episcopate. There are no popes in the Bible. Tradition developed that. There are no candles, there is no Lent, there is no holy water, there are no sacraments, there is no extreme unction and there is no veneration or worship of images, relics, beads, statues, etc. None of that is in the Scripture because it's all man-made traditions based on Pagan rituals and traditions.
@@rickdavis2235 there is no Rick Davis either. Everything cannot be written down in the bible as claimed by John. No offence.
@@jamesmadina7004
What is the context of that verse?
Who is speaking?
Who are they speaking to?
What is the subject of the conversation?
What is the time period?
What is the location?
What does the rest of Scripture have to say about it?
These all have to be taken into consideration. Is it, as you imply, a blanket statement to allow anything and anytime to be added? What about.....
1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
That seems to be a contradiction and the Scriptures do not contradict. That wipes out everything you believe about John 21.
Non catholics should still have a copy of the Catholic bible . Martin luther removed 7 important books that people should have access to.
Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Judith, additions to Daniel, and Esther-
It is not only the books of the apocrypha that Protestants are missing.
"Martin luther removed 7 important books"
Martin Luther is like Kryptonite to Catholics. He is responsible for everything including the common cold.
Martin Luther included the entire Apocrypha in his 1545 German Bible. Martin Luther treated the Apocrypha just as Jerome did.
~Both Luther and Jerome translated the Apocrypha
~Both separated the Apocrypha from the canon of scripture
~Both wrote a sharp disclaimer in the description that the Apocrypha was enlightening. But not inspired scripture or to be used for doctrine.
~Neither Luther nor Jerome changed their opinion of the Apocrypha.
I read the Gospel of Thomas and it was pretty eye opening, or at least i thought.
@@jonathanzogbi3028 it sounds like irony
For very good reasons......😉👌
The gospel of Thomas is a good antidote to the corruption that Christianity has done to Christ......
@@martinwagner7361 are you sure?
@@DefenderOfChrist_ Since I merged after an almost fatal Car accident (as an Atheist back then...) with the living Light of GOD - after my Consciousness snapped its ties with the lifeless body - yes...
In fact I had a telepathic Communication with the Light because I was rather furious then since it were these foul Dogmas of Christianity that actually had turned me into an Atheist....inquiring about religion in general & Christianity especially....and in a nutshell the answer was that all major religions have a spiritually true kernel - and a lot of untrue manmade distortions that happened because man projected his fallen nature upon God.... like a "God" of "wrath"
It took me personally a real looong time still to forgive Christianity and all these phony televangelists their spiritual BETRAYALS....actually as well a betrayal of Christ HIMSELF....
I later studied all major Religions and so I came as well to the gospel of Thomas that is SOOO MUCH closer to spiritual TRUTH....and this fraudulent powerbrokers of Christianity then were forbidding the truth in that to promote their bogus Distortions....
EVERYTHING that Christ really taught is in utmost harmony what all major religions and their great Saints/Masters teach...but Christianity in the COMPETITION with Judaism actually FORGED the old Testament - every scholar knows THAT, then came this holy Trinity crap and the false teaching of salvation....that somehow Jesus had to die to appease the wrath of his father though he actually was it.... and this absolutely BLASPHEMOUS FRAUD they "teach" to this very day....
Sickening....totally psychotic nonsens that has harmed humanity TREMENDOUSLY....
No wonder "Christ"ianity hardly ever produced great spiritual Masters but an enormous crowd of abusive Bullshitters...
Christianity LITERALLY usurped the "Authority" from God....never had it ever...
But clever as they were they knew "Well, for as long as no one experiences real Communion with God it'll all pay out fine..."
The worst Corruption happened at the Council of Niccae when the true heretics of the unholy Roman State Church "won" the power battle against the real Saints and Gnostic that KNEW the real truth & path....
Then Christianity fell deeply and has never really recovered from that takeover of the Antichrist - the human Ego.....
With ENORMOUS negative Consequences....of course Jesus was NEVER God....the Quran has that completely right....and even in the Bible there are passages that survived the massive editing that took place which clearly indicate that...
Christianity simply preys on the spiritual Illiteracy of the masses and teaches a very dangerous mix of the real spiritual truth of Christ distorted with an awful lot of spiritually FALSE, abusive, blasphemous, occult antichristian Teachings that make it almost impossible to really attain true Redemption and Salvation....because guess what - just beLIEving false Stories about Christ will NOT liberate you let alone heal or redeem you....the CORE problem of that is the human Ego - and Christianity with its religious Corruption by exactly that Ego is actually REINFORCING the Ego instead of LIBERATING people from that yoke.....
That's NOT any MINOR issue, that's really grave deception....
Fortunately Christ himself dictated in A Course in Miracles 55y an authentic path where the fundamental upside down Distortions of Christianity are corrected that has guided millions by now towards a genuine spiritual Awareness that is in harmony with what all the great Saints of Humanity have taught and said....
And also is in harmony with what hundred thousands of NearDeathExperiencers have firsthand experienced on the "other side"...
Finally I could perfectly reconcile Spiritual Truth with impeccable non contradictory Logic/Reason with Christ with literally everything - that simply is IMPOSSIBLE with Christianity as so many billion of people had to find out...there are so many warning signs in Christianity that it should trigger everyone's Attention & Suspicions....
One just has to think :
Could it possibly be that the religious powerbrokers of Christianity have CORRUPTED the real TRUTH of Christ for the sake of power over people, to abuse & exploit & enslave people, for plain money, wealth, religious Competition & Dominance, for political & social Control & Influence ???
OF COURSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT and I TAKE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for everything I said here before GOD & CHRIST....
Ask that any of these creepy Televangelists and they will start to sneak around that by literally all ways....because they know they can't do that with ease of mind....
I have roasted and grilled enough of these spiritual Scammers by now.....
Because I come from direct own firsthand experience and deep KNOWLEDGE- not some flimsy beLIEf....
It's TOTALLY possible to KNOW God & Christ and to firsthand experience them...
Belief should ONLY be the very first step, so that you basically START with your journey towards Knowledge & Conviction....yet for how many Christians is that a REALITY ?
For at least 99% it ISN'T.
Nobody has to give up CHRIST but I can only recommend to everyone to give up on all the falsehoods in Christianity because FALSE TEACHINGS & DOCTRINES will inevitably damage & slow down your progress and your spiritual learning.....
And what I said here is just the very tip of the iceberg - there's sooo much more to this but I'm not in the mood of writing books now....
Understand that it is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE to have accurate Teachings, most truthful Scriptures and precise instructions for YOU will experience the damage, the delay, the awful feelings of being betrayed, fooled, abused & exploited...
Therefore whoever is walking a spiritual path sincerely should ALWAYS pray to the REAL MOST HIGH GOD to guide you to the HIGHEST TRUTH, to make you aware of each & every religious/spiritual FALSEHOOD and to protect you constantly from Error, Deception, Superstition, Manipulation, Indoctrination....it's most crucial, especially in the beginning and intermediary levels where you just don't know enough.....🙏
And be clear that your Ego/Mind WILL deceive you so one MUST emancipate from that and ALWAYS ask every preacher, teacher etc. if s/he takes complete responsibility for all that s/he teaches/preaches/expresses before God & Christ....
Inquire if s/he ever had some own deepest Communion/Experience with God or just has read the Bible....
Actually - if one just checks what is really said in all of the major religions one can already arrive at great insights....but make sure you don't just read what some Christian fool without any real clue writes ABOUT other Religions as there are enough of such freaks around...😉
Study NearDeathExperiences....not just 10 or a 100, thousands and ten thousands...
That all takes time but if one REALLY WANTS to KNOW there's no way around deep study and deep daily practice....
Pray, meditate, contemplate....that's too a MUST.
Practice total forgiveness and total surrender - that's too an absolute MUST.
Study great renowned Saints & Masters from various backgrounds and traditions...
Compare, evaluate, discern....
That would be some of the real Basics of spiritual Life that will benefit everyone very deeply if really practiced....
Great success and good progress, hope that is helpful as an orientation for sincere spiritual Seekers in the becoming.....😇🤗🙏
There are two major issues I think here. A) Not all historic Christians have only 27 New Testament books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes more than 27 books in their NT canon. B) The Apocrypha are quoted in the New Testament. The Book of Enoch, for example, is the source for what is quoted in Jude throughout 1:4-15 as well as in two verses in 2 Peter chapters two and three. In 2 Timothy and in Jude 9, the authors explicitly cite the Assumption of Moses, a deuterocanonical account for Moses' death and his body being assumed into heaven.
you can look at him and tell he doesnt believe what he says
yeah he said he doesn't believe it at the beginning
....that the shouldnt be in the bible
Found the catholic lol
@@ALLAHALLAHism they always say some stuff to make themselves feel better. Its cringe lol
Anthony Garcia Like other Christians don’t
If I can ask, how would you know Jesus and the apostles didn’t believe they were in the cannon. Christianity started after Jesus had been crucified for quite some time. Like many many years.
he forgot to mention that Jesus did not recognize the apocrypha as scripture and that it contains books of doubtful origin, and authors whose identities are questionable. for example the hidden book of james probably wasn't written by the biblical james we know, as it is believed to have been written 100 years after james died.
using your criteria you would reject the 4 gospels as they weren't written by the named authors.
Do you, guys, from STBS have any reading about the subject? Any website with a deeper explanation, pls? Thanks a lot!
Tobit has the archangel Raphael in it.
It also has magic and being blinded by bird poop.
@@nietzschesghost8529 lol
@@nietzschesghost8529 and its heavily quoted in the apocalypse ... Non scripture with apocalyptic mysteries John affirms very interesting
@@justcoolforyou So if an author of "scripture" quotes a book, then that book that they quote must be "scripture" as well?
But the apocrypha IS scripture, the reason why the OT canon was confirmed at the council of Trent was not because for 1500 the Church was confused but because there simply was no need for that official confirmation. What created that necessity for the Church to define the canon definitively was precisely the protestant split and the confusion it introduced. Councils are always a response to the matters of the given time and any doctrine they pronounce is a direct response to any doubts which may be circulating in the mainstream thought
It's not inspired.
Jerome, and several prominent early church bishops all deny the books being inspired.
1st century Josephus (a Jew) even names every book that is inspired according to the Jews at the time.
None of the books are named....
People seem to think that God did not have enought sense to make sure the books he wanted were put in the bible.
The seven books talked about here were removed by Luther in the 1500s. He claimed Devine Guidance. Then why are these books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
"They" want to convince you it's false.
This has clearered my doubt. Thank you Sir
Ask questions against scripture always
For example…
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
What does that mean exactly?
Very helpful. God bless.
BUT WHAT I BELIEVE , THIS IS WHAT YOU SAY , WHERE WERE YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES WHEN THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN .....HUMBLE YOUR SELF .....YOU KEEP CONTADICTING YOURSELF . I LOVE YOU
So, do you think that all things that you believe are true?
Thank you - this was a very clear and trustworthy introduction - much appreciated
How can you know it was trustworthy? Have you listened to people with the contrary opinion? Have you inspected carefully the question? Realise this: If you only trust what your denomination teach about it, then you will have integrated all the errors of your denomination as well... I think you should push the research more...
I was looking for a Complete Apocrypha of The Jedi & Sith Arts.
These Book's include Echani: A martial art taught to military special forces
Teräs Käsi: A martial art created by the Followers of Palawa, which literally translates to "steel hand" in Finnish
Stava: Invented by the Noghri, named after their homeworld's carnivorous predator
Shon-Ju: An ancient art of unarmed force combat .
Thank you for explaining that!
Mushy video that did not touch on Purgatory and something close to indulgences that can be found in the Apocrypha.
Thank you, very helpful
Why do you have a false image of the Son of God as your pic, the scriptures say his skin was like burnt brass not a white man, the disrespect. Its ok i forgot you're brainwashed lol
Fact check: the ecumenical council of Florence in 1433 affirmed the 7 books of the apocrypha as canonical scripture 100 years before the council of trent. I’m Protestant, but just want to make it known that there was debate about these books, they were not added to canon by catholics reactionarily.
Interesting...I wish I read Hebrew so I could read it for myself.
Anita B. I saw the Apocrypha at Barnes and Nobles today lol you can buy it on amazon I’m sure. 🙂
It's in English!
@@erichudson8747 ...the original cannot be in English if written by the Jews as stated in the video....there is always a loss in translation moving from original text to english. Which council of men dictated what is scripture? I fund it all interesting... I will have to vist Barnes and noble soon. 😊
You can get a copy translated from the original Hebrew, that’s the one I’m looking into. Oxford University
@Russell Richards lol...which revision?
Jesus quoted from the Apochypha ( 2 esdras 1:30, Mathew 23:37. )
Is it not blasphemous to call the Almighty "God" He has a name which has been replaced over 7000 times in the Bible. Lord... which can be translated to Ba'al and of course God which can refer to any god from any belief and which some say the name refers to gad rae el one of the 200 fallen angels and possibly the one who tempted eve from the tree and... some also say fathered Cane .... Could it not be that the devil has hid himself in the good book he is the deceiver after all.
Should we not use his name ?
bonkers 1 it don’t believe it to be blasphemy, it’s just a translation from the Hebrew, Adonai Elohim. Adonai is meant to say as a God fearing reverence. But whatever you say as long as you show God the respect and reverence He deserves as The One True God, He will always be listening to you. But it’s good to know you have a zeal to get to know God more, keep seeking Him my friend.
bonkers 1 I don’t get why people call The Lord Almighty other names if He Himself didn’t say to do so but “The Lord”..who the heck said to call him Rapha? Rafa? Adonai? Is it written in The Bible?? Isn’t the King James Bible the original?? Am I missing something here?
@Jaykob Seiler you mean Yiddish not Hebrew
Baal is not
Yahweh Elohim my LORD GOD on High
Baal was the god of the Canaanites
they had terrible practices of burning and torturing children
Without reading for yourself and challenging weather or not the lost books align with God you won't know for yourself whether they belong or were removed for political or doctrinal reasons
Anybody else here because of Skyrim no just me okay.....
BlTCH LASAGNA nah I’m here cuz Skyrim too
I was looking up some puzzle thing in that’s why lol
The epistle of Peter quotes from enoch and Paul refers to it. So not sure how he says no one quotes them
Tobit would make an AWESOME Disney movie! I thought the same thing!!
A Disney movie that affirms things in the book of the apocalypse...lol interesting that a fake book has things John saw ...
justcoolforyou
Actually, I think Tobit is real history
What about how 2 Esdras clearly refers to the Son of God whom we must confess on earth?
If the *Orthodox* Ethiopian church has the Apocrypha in the Holy Bible then it is canonical. Just be honest, you won’t get any money if your congregation does not need the church/middle man to have a connection with God.
But the orthodox church derives from the roman catholic church therefor its not canonical because every church that derives from the roman catholics is false
how do you feel about the The Septuagint?
Why does it feel like he's lying and trying to convince the audience that these books should not be taken seriously?
I'm sensing it.
Unfortunately he is simply defending the protestant position. It should be remembered that the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox Christians separated 1054 AD. Orthodox Christians were using these writings as scriptures long before the protestant reformation began in 1519 or the council of trent which did not involve the Orthodox church. The apocrypha also appeared in the original edition of the protestant KJV of the bible in 1611. The Christian world does not revolve around Protestantism or the council of trent in the 16th century. Its clearly a political rather than spiritual decision....
@@christucker428 Jesus actually quoted from the apocrypha. Please read 2 Edras. Your completely wrong in your emotionally charged analysis
@@christucker428 one month later....did you read 2 Edras ?
@@psalm5187 I did, but i cant find it. Can you send the verse please?
I truly recommend the Tynsdale bible.
“Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament”???
Did not Yeshua quote Enoch?
What did Yeshua say when quoting Enoch? Where in the NT does Yeshua quote Enoch? I cannot find it. Jude MAY have referred to Enoch, but whether or not he was quoting the Book of Enoch or considered it scripture is highly debatable.
Jonathan Bouriaque “The Son Of Man” “Angels not marrying or being given in marriage...” He also refers to the New Temple where God’s Holy Spirit will dwell in the Hearts of Men, The Kingdom of Heaven being re-established here on the Earth that God’s Elect from throughout all the nations will be able to inherit and dwell in God’s presence Eternally...
The Book Of Enoch solidly points to the coming of Messiah and his final and eternal Kingdom. It is “for the understanding of a future generation which is to come” I believe we are that generation. There are so many parallels and explanations of other stories throughout the cannon, and it is pretty clear to me that the people and writers of the scriptures accepted it as part of their story and teachings. I guess the real question for me is why was it removed and deemed to not be “inspired scripture” when Genesis clearly says that Enoch walked with God??? If he walked with God, and spoke to Enoch, and the Angels showed him all that stuff... Shouldn’t we be interested in what He has to say? Why would it be removed from the cannon?
I believe I know the answer as to why...
J D It’s all about whether you believe or not... it’s easy to say that they wrote it to fit Hebrew Prophecy... There are too many correlations for me to believe that men were capable of completing such symmetry... The Scriptures are designed by the Hand of God. As well as the Book of Enoch.
And 2 Esdras 1:30
there are many versions of the bible today- the message remains the same even if some of the wording is different. When you read the books of the Apocrypha you can see they do not sync with the 66 books of the bible- so yes I get why they were removed.
the point may be that read what you wish - what you believe is the problem.
so many believe the book of enoch was apocrypha yet you can clearly see it was not included.
Plummer states that it should give us pause to note that the Apocrypha was not formally recognised as scripture until Trent. Conversely, I think it should give pause to Plummer and other Protestants to note that the Orthodox and all Eastern Christians, who separated from Rome in 1054 also recognise the Apocrypha. So there was no disagreement about the Apocrypha until the Reformation. There was no dispute, so there was no need for a Council to decide on this until the Reformation. Of course the Eastern Orthodox were not party to the Reformation. This was a Western only dispute. So it should give Protestants pause that the whole Church up until the Reformation recognised the Apocrypha as scripture.
What are some of the mistakes in the Apocrypha?
So the bottom line: These books were a part of the Septuagint, which was used by Jesus and the apostles, and were included in all Bibles until the reformers took them out. Hmmmm….who is wrong here? The protestants.
Brian Jonson Jews don’t recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. Plus, the Muratorian fragment, even in its imperfect form, only Wisdom is among the list, and it’s even listed after Revelation (a way of indicating in the early church that the book is disputed). Thus, just because these books were listed in the LXX does not make the Jews even in Jesus’ time consider it as Sacred Scripture even before.
Rey Tampus ALL Christians used the full canon until the reformers removed them. Do you then claim all Christians were wrong until the reformers “corrected” them?
Stop it dude. Got all dressed up and made a video saying the corrupted church using the same books for there knowledge. But tell people it's not scripture . Then talk about evil Disney making a movie for a book? Get out the flesh dude you are wringing people.
Brian Jonson Jesus never quoted once from the apocrypha
datchet11 he didn’t quote from an entire handful of Old Testament books. This doesn’t prove anything
Great content, thank you very much.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church put together all Divine inspired books into what we call the Bible.
The bible was not written and put together for nearly 4 centuries after Jesus death. Martin Luther turned his back on the Catholic Church, took it upon himself, to remove himself, take books out of the Bible and even in the German translation put the word" Alone" to justify the Sola Fide .
I was a Protestant for years, years, . When you start understanding Apostolic succession your eyes will open. You have Luther, King Henry the VIII, Calvin and others to thank for the split of the one true Apostolic church.
The Protestant movement started in the 1500's. The Catholic Church, again, founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.
The sad part about all this is that since the 1500's we've had generation upon generation of Protestant churches, denominational and non denominational and it will be very difficult for Traditional Protestant Christian to want to seek and do more research on their own. It took me years to see the light.
It is with humble heart that I challenge and urge any Protestant to visit, ask, a Catholic church or priest and ask him the hard questions. It does not hurt whatsoever to seek and educate yourself.
Luther saved Christian.
Cause of Luther the church can't burn people in the stake for having the Bible again.
The only reason people don’t believe the apocrypha is canon is because the kings and popes in power only want you to believe what they want you to. Dead Sea scrolls and apocrypha are must reads.