Should we read books that are not part of the Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 січ 2022
- Frank is often asked the question: “What books should be in the Bible?” which leads to other questions like, “The Roman Catholics and Protestants have different books in their Bibles; why?” It is important that we know how we got our Bible and why some books were rejected. Even though some books did not make it into the Biblical canon, does that mean they hold no value? Frank explains the answer to these three questions here. Check it out!
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined.org/donate/
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologetics.com/
● Online Courses: www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
● Google Play: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Canon #Bible #BooksInTheBible #QuestionsAboutTheBible #Christianity #Christians #Apologetics #Apocrypha #ChristianApologetics #CrossExamined #CrossExaminingIdeasAgainstTheTruthOfChristianity #DrFrankTurek #IDontHaveEnoughFaithToBeAnAtheist
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
Do you lie about things in there too?
@@beauty.of.the.struggle could you expand on your comment?
@@mbfrommb3699 he completely pulled that thing about the council of Trent right out of thin air.... Those books were part of the septuagent since the earliest days of Christianity; it was Luther who took them OUT, and he's just poorly trying to save face for his evangelical bias.
Feel free to browse around the rest of the comments section here, there's plenty of people who know church history better than Dr. Frank does
@@beauty.of.the.struggle but they were treated with respect, NOT made canon. They weren't all accepted as infallible.
@@troywright359 which ones? Yes, there are several books treated as canon by Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts which the Protestants, much later, took out.
I can think of macabees, Sirach, Baruch, a handful... They were always Canon.
The Bible is the most significant book ever written
Frank Turek accepts the Big Bang.
In clear disagreement with your idol Hovind.
There was no Big Bang
@@alphabeta1337
Frank says there was and it was god that banged it. Why can’t your leaders agree?
The Big Bang theory was made up by observing the existence of change and then falsely concluding everything came from a dot of nothing billions of years ago. Darwinism is based on the same flaw
@@alphabeta1337
Why do your leaders disagree?
It's funny how tons of books on the subject of the bible are written and read and we should read them. A lot of them are very informative like an exhaustive concordance or the many commentaries that have been written over the centuries. There's a wealth of extra-biblical literature out there but we have to discern between the biblical canon and the extra-biblical literature. Thank you, Jesus!
You don't need to read books if Jesus ever decides to visit you in person.
So far nothing but your own imagination.
@@JamesRichardWiley What? Jesus decides to visit you in person? What do you mean by that?
Totally agree people perish due to lack of knowledge, it’s all about perspective
@@JamesRichardWiley the way u speak comes from a place of confusion
Think about the 2 chapters taken out of the book of Daniel. I sincerely doubt that seven lions would be able to eat an entire cities worth of people in one day. I think it also said that God sent a prophet to give food to Daniel while he was in the second lion's den. I can't remember if it was Joel or Hosea.
Reading other extrabiblical works like Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, the antenicene church fathers, and materials from the dead sea scrolls etc is like reading the Federalist Papers. It's not the Constitution, but you get some good insight into it because of the background it provides for the times, the people and their mindset during the writing of that great document. A good scholar never limits themself to one document, but takes information from many other supporting documents.
Tread carefully; 1/3rd of the angels fell due to misinformation. The tree of death is the knowledge of good and evil, not just evil. The Tree of Life is the Lord Himself.
Good analogy. I have always appreciated what Sproul said, “the most important distinction you can make is the distinction between distinction and separation.” Enoch can inform my understanding of the available worldviews to the original authors without being Scripture itself. Jude’s reference to Michael and the devil’s disputation does not make the source material (Enoch) also Scripture. In fact, his point is about the Christian knowing to place appropriate jurisdiction with respect to accusations. The text doesn’t say Enoch is Scripture, but he would not have included the example if it wasn’t something he thought his 1st century audience would find relevant. So I can know Enoch is not Scripture and make a distinction when it’s referenced therein. Justin’s warning is justified in taking the Federalist papers analogy too far - though I don’t get the impression you have.
@@5jjt misinformation? How do you know?
@@sonnyh9774 because a lot of the books are complete bs. Lilith for example sounds like it’s a parody to embarrass God
@@5jjt the Bible itself even pulls from hostile pagan sources when it references them in polemics. What you said is silly and a good deal of it made up.
Read the word and then, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not ..." Don't ask for proof, ask God for faith. Don't listen to anyone who talks about proof or evidence. Listen to the Holy Spirit and let him guide you.
Holy Spirit… likes us to ask for proof sometimes
@@jlupus8804 True, but the proof is in the revelation from the Spirit. It doesn't come from any physical means. You can no more prove that God is real than anyone can prove He is not. The Spirit testifies to the sincere seeker in their heart and mind. I was referring to Frank saying, "I see no proof of XXX in the Bible".
@@garyjohnson8026 But how do we distinguish between the HS's leadership and an emotional feeling/conviction?
@@jlupus8804 They are close but in my experience the Holy Ghost leaves us with a calm, peaceful feeling which sometimes can bring on tears where as the emotional high give a temporary euphoric feeling that does not last. If you are sincere, you will be able to tell the difference.
That's like accusing someone of a murder and saying in the courtroom for the jury to just believe you....
I go by evidence. I do believe it points to the Bible. But I think blindly believing and "just having faith" is dangerous. Any religion can say to do that. What makes our faith different? The evidence. (And the power of God working in people's lives too of course, among other things)
If you read anything outside of the bible and anything in the bible, make sure you pray for wisdom in what God wants you to know.
I would say don't even read them unless you're strong enough to leave them after!
I agree, "above all else guard your heart", and that means what you see, what you say, and what you hear. Amen!
@Smurfette Did It The book of Enoch is not false doctrine. It actually gives you the context of the genesis 6 event and flood. Scholars date the existence of the book of Enoch to about 3rd Century BC. So this book was in existence way before the New Testament was even written or even before Christ came onto the Earth.
Some of the New Testament writers such as Jude and Peter were very well acquainted with the book of Enoch, which gives a background to their writings, making them actually quite similar to the book.For example:
Jude 6
And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day.
2 Peter 2:4a
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartaros and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment
These two texts are just a summary of what went on in Enoch. In short, Genesis 6 talks about when the sons of God came onto the daughters of men, this union resulted in the birth of the Nephilim/Giants. Now many pastors, people, in an attempt to shy away from the supernatural worldview of the Genesis 6 event like to attribute the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 to the "Godly line of Seth", which is no where supported in the scriptures. For whenever the term "Sons of God" is used in the Bible, it denotes a supernatural being, or an angel (if you will). For example in Job 38:4-7, God brings his charge against Job, and in the discourse He says:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the [a]line upon it?
To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
You can see that the sons of God were present and shouted for Joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Adam and Eve were not even created then much less any other person that could be considered from the "godly line of Seth." However, the angels were present.
We also see Satan being present among the Sons of God who were presenting themselves to God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1.
According to the book of Enoch, some divine beings came to the Earth, had children with the women, and these children became the giants. For their punishment, God bound them up in chains of darkness, which Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4a talk about:
(1 Enoch 10:4b, 6)
Fetter him hand and foot and cast him into darkness… And on the day of the great judgment he will be led off to the blazing fire.
The book also gives the names of the angels and the evil things they taught to men. Interestingly enough, I found one of the names of the angels in the old testament one time. It's the name Azazel, and it can be found in Leviticus 16:10 in the NLT, AMP, RSV. Some of the bible translations translate it as "scape goat." Leviticus 16:10 talks about the "scape goat ritual", where the sins of the people were put onto a goat and then sent into the wilderness.
If I begin reading them I'll make sure I've got some popcorn then :D
I’ve read so many different books. Especially the main religions ones. I don’t keep any of them. The Bible the Quran Torah etc.
@@thehimself4056 You should keep the Bible man...
Short answer Yes.
Long answer: Yes, but you should have a strong foundation for what is scripture, and what might merely have been a common book that helped inform scripture. There are wise uses for all books, but not all should be scripture.
Yet, who determines what is scripture? Even the conditions to be scriptures as stated by Frank are inked by men (not God). It sounds logical but we know that all men's logic are flawed.
I'm not disputing that the books in the Bible are fake - no, on the contrary, they are the truth from God.
However, the definition of Bible as canon of God's truth is wrong. It's determined by men.
@@mouselim72 God has been in covenant with Man since the dawn of time. Is it not fitting, then, that he would use man to deliver his scriptures?
@@NexusZ97 So there are certain men who speak to god and then they say which books are included?
@@CaptainFantastic222 there are men who literally walked with Jesus and knew his teachings well better than anyone. Those people set the standard of what is scriptural, and those who were taught directly by the next generation were likely immersed directly in said doctrine. Their writings are supplementary enough to give believers some support, but the Bible is THE ultimate authority
@@NexusZ97 yes but those men who walked with Jesus didn’t have councils to decide on which pieces of scripture were to be included and excluded? Who gave those men the authority to alter the Bible?
We should definitely stay away from the gnostic books. There's a reason why they were not included in the Bible. A good reason.
Unless you're investigating what the random internet Atheist is talking about when describing why they're not Christian.
@@Paulthored except gnosticism is not christianity so that makes no sense. Why would anybody want to go to a book that's not even christian to understand Christianity?
@@RobertA-oi6hw I know that.
You know that.
Random, know-it-all, self-proclaimed Atheist internet scrub... probably does not. Unless they're also a troll.
Still, I imagine asking for specifics from said books and investigating those passages, might yield some perspectives that would aid in explaining why they're not considered Christian books or beliefs.
@@Paulthored all we need to know is the contradictions in it so we can help people avoid them.
@@RobertA-oi6hw nobody at all in this video was talking about "gnostic" books though.
But the council of Trent didn't add any books, they just affirmed the books that were already there in response to the reformation. Maccabees and the other apocryphal books were included in Jerome's vulgate in the 300s, and they stayed untouched until the reformation challenged them in the 1500s.
It's worth mentioning Jerome did not personally consider the Apocrypha to be canon, he was just obeying the church. Still, to say the council of Trent added books is inaccurate. It is the reformation that removed books, the debate is whether or not they were justified.
it’s not removing books if the books added weren’t suppose to be added in the first place.
@@Alan-rw3ez Christians for 1500 were using the same books of Scripture. It's a man-made belief to think that books can be removed from Scripture. Specifically a man-made belief from Martin Luther. Are you a Christian or a Luthiciferian?
The apocryphal books were included in all bibles until the late 1800's, Protestants never considered them canon but did consider them profitable to read.
Have you ever heard of the gospel of judas? im asking around because I heard about it, and what’s written in it is crazy. I’m trying to determine if it somehow refutes anything in the established canon
@@aspiringlegend9514 There are a couple reasons against its potential canonicity. For one, it was written at the earliest 130 AD, whereas the latest written books of the accepted canon were written around 90 AD. That's not to say late texts have no historical value, but considering ALL of the new testament (so a lot of separate sources) were written between 40 and 90 AD, anything outside that window should be considered secondary in regards to historical accuracy. Also, before the new testament was standardized in the 300s AD, there were multiple different proposed lists of canon, but not one of those lists included the gospel of judas, meaning the early church never even considered it.
So all in all, the gospel of judas is not reliable enough to refute anything in established canon.
Very good explanation at the beginning. Misguiding statement starts from 04:13 onwards... Fact is Canon of bible were fixed much earlier than that..Bible was canonised by Catholic church in the late 3rd century. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).
Timely video. My classmates argued about canon today in the class.
Was there a fight?
I bet the classmate with the biggest canon won.
@@chriswebster24
Ha ha. But seriously.
If they all wanted their own particular version established as the real one, the outcome would have nothing to do with its authenticity.
I don't care if you accept it or not but the book of Enoch was a part of the Bible before 68a.d or the 4th century
Even the Bible That Protestant Christians,Catholic Christians&Orthodox Christians agreed with ''the book of jude'' mentioned it by saying that the book was true
You can read jude 1:14-15 it say that
Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands of his holy ones
So Where does that word is found in the 66 Bible?How did jude know that Enoch prophecies that
Was he lying
No then Where is it found?
nowhere its only found in
Enoch 1:9
Jude mentioned Enoch 1:9
So if people's reject being arrogant and listen to the Bible They will sure accept the book of Enoch&the book of barok or second Jeremiah(which is mentioned in Matthew 27:9) but if you still reject and say that the Bible is only 66 i want you to answer me this questions
1st Where in Jeremiah did Jeremiah says this👉(read Matthew 27:9)
Have you found it in Jeremiah?
no
then the true answer is
many peoples might not know but its found in 2 Jeremiah not in
Jeremiah or 1st Jeremiah
(the only Jeremiah in the 66 Bible
Second)Where did Enoch say this
👉(jude 1:14)
Third) Where do we find the history that moses died & then the archangel Michael & the devil argued about his flesh in the 66 Bible እ
Jude 1:9
i have more than 13 questions that nobody answers it correct infact They just show me their arrogance&their 👅
so would you answer it Please or you can't🙇♂️
The Bible was not is not and will never be 66
Infact i say that the Bible is 81
@@SPDALL
Get some evolution in yee.
What a delightful explanation. I really appreciate how articulate this is.
You can tell which books are inspired by knowing the spirit of God, reading the words and then seeing if it plays out in real time or not....the Lord is so good to make it so simple.
Phenomenal! I have been wondering this forever now!
We pray for you every day that you might obtain the fullness of God's message. God bless you all, and remember to love others as Christ has loved you especially the unlovable because remember you were unlovable when Christ first loved you. 🙏❤️❤️🙏
Very interesting! Thank you
1 Enoch counts as Old Testament scripture in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and has played a significant role in its theology, especially via the andemta tradition of interpretation.
THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE PERFECT HOLY WORD OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER,………. AMEN
Amen. Yes it is.
Which one? there are so many different versions, they cant all be the perfect words of a god. Its far more likely that none of them are.
@@somerandom3247 THE GOD OF ABRAHAM,……..IZAAC,…….AND JACOB,……. AMEN
@@somerandom3247 definitely not a KJV
@@kevinclint7588
Right..... so which version of the bible is supposed to be the right one? and how did you determine that it is the word of a god and not the words of the human men that wrote it?
When he said the Catholic Church added the deuterocanon at Trent my jaw dropped. He’s not misinformed, he is straight up lying. I am not catholic btw
I mean, he did say, "as I understand it" and "I'm not an expert" and "even I can't remember all these things keep them all straight". People can make mistakes and not be trying to be deceptive.
@@Baconbeerify true but in the context of his other content I think he knows better. It’s just my suspicion but I think he is being underhanded and using those qualifiers as a get out of jail free card
@@Baconbeerify what’s more, he claims the deuterocanon was added after the reformation to combat Protestantism. What about the East who never experienced a reformation? What reason would they have for including it if that is the case? The truth is that it was REMOVED from the Jewish canon post-Christ, because it supports Christianity, prophecies the messiah, and because Christ and His apostles literally quote it in the New Testament. Yet Frank claims it’s uninspired?!
That too, when he knows that as early as the councils of Carthage and Hippo 300 - 400 years after Christ, the modern catholic list of books was declared to be the authoritative list... Even the Orthodox, who split off in the 10th century (far before Luther) hold the deuterocanon to be Scripture... He makes it seem as though Maccabees was added in the 16th century, while they were declared canonical in the 3rd or 4th centuries ... I can't tell whether mr. Turek is either ignorant or just flat out lying to undermine the strong catholic position
@@Peter-jo6yu I find it very hard to believe he could be that misinformed about something so pertinent to the Protestant/catholic debate which he involved himself in so heavily. It really comes off as intentional straw manning, and it does not create long lasting Protestant converts. If anything it drives more people to Rome
I praise God that this topic popped up on my mind early on (since as days go by there is more and more clarity and we can easily distinguish between the questions prompted by the Holy Spirit and the evil one).
That's when I was keen towards the book of Enoch. But something struggled within me that I couldn't read it but was diverted more into reading the Bible.
When the Holy Spirit speaks - it's gentle but very sharp and mainly 'spot on', like literally 'every single cell freezes to listen to Him'.
That's how I understood when He made realize with a gentle question - "Have I read and understood the mysteries of the Bible in its entirety? And is God so less powerful even if I'm less learned to teach/show me everything by Himself?".
Immediately my mind became 'crystal clear and peaceful'.
Bro you need urgent psychiatric atettention xD
Just because a book is not included in the Canon does not mean that the book is not important. Plenty of books give insight into the world that the writers of the Bible lived in. Some extra Biblical books are very important to understanding what was written, for example 1st Enoch ch:6-11 is critical to understanding 1 Peter 3.
The book of Enoch's prophetic verses are confirmed by Jewish history (exodus) and prophesy matching Revelation's prophesy. So, there appears to be at least some inspiration on part of the book. Some of the other stuff causes doubt because it's so far from what science teaches today. An intellectually honest open mind is open to the truth no matter how inconvenient it is. How much have we been deceived? I don't know. Time will tell.
I disagree slightly… sure , reading the other books can help in understanding the background of the people etc but they are not to be considered as divinely inspired books. Many could have wrong philosophies in them
@@nathanvarghese. exactly right, we’ll said sir
@@sonnyh9774 Hi,
What you were saying about Science being far from what 1 Enoch teaches, are you referring to above confirming a flat earth & the sun & moon being in the firmament, if so, 1 Enoch is correct & science is wrong.
We live in a flat earth & the ☀️ & moon 🌚 are in our atmosphere within the firmament.
Why would we need anything else when we have the most important words ever spoken, the words of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Everything else is insignificant after the Word.
How do you know that the Bible is Jesus' infallible Word, and how do you know that the books of the Bible are both complete and inerrant?
Exactly. As Christians we should always be careful about what we read and take in, never forgetting this Satan is the god of this world and goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. We have to be diligent and strong in the word and strong in our faith.
Because you shall live by "every" (as in all of it) word that comes out of the mouth of God.
Secondly having a whole picture can help us understand the Bible better and perhaps not have so many disagreemrs and demimations.
@@MONKEYSCHANNEL327 except you cannot prove the apocrypha came from the "mouth of God."
@@steveparks8168 I didn't say it did, and prove it to who? I wouldn't recommend for anyone to read those books other than for study purposes. We have enough gospel now for salvation and right living. God will reveal the rest of the mysterys to those whom he deems fit. Us for us normal Christians are duty is to simply seek the kingdom of God and have a relationship with him. But it's obvious that there are some information s missing in the Bible, hence why people belivevso many different things
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."- Deuteronomy 4:2, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."- Deuteronomy 12:32, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."- Proverbs 30:6, & "18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."- Revelation 22:18-19
Technically, the apocryphal books fall under the category of words being taken away from scripture because they were found in the Qumram caves by the Dead Sea alongside the Torah/Law, the prophets, the books of Wisdom, etc.
If anything, we have been reading an incomplete bible (AKA God's collection of scrolls and letters) for centuries. But this was all prophecied by the Lord because He said to some of the prophets that certain words would be "sealed until the time of the end."
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
@@mylifeforthelord5535 thank you so much,i hear people say Catholics added books and removes books all typa nonsense
@@LowHandStriker It truly is nonsense. Luther was nothing as a deceiver. Just look at his fruits: 30.000 protestant churches, all with different believes.... Such confusion can NOT com from GOD.
While we have the ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH that will persist until the Day of Judgement!
GOD bless!
Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha nor recognized it as Scripture, neither did His apostles. Jesus and His apostles only quoted the Old Testament and recognized it as Scripture.
We(protestants) accept the Old Testament according to the people who rejected Jesus. Goes on to lie about when the “apocrypha” was “added”. Uses the “Church Fathers” as a reference, yet will deny the other things the “Church Fathers” did and said. Says he grew up Catholic, so that somehow gives him foresight as an authority to discredit the Church. This sums up the video
Folks, read Justin Martyr. I’m just saying.
Absolutely! But they wont!
the earliest protestent bible the geneva bible had the apocrypha in it so I dont know what this guy is talking about.
Based
To be fair, the Jews are the people chosen by God. If they reject Jesus or not, it doesn’t really matter here.
What matters is that The inspired word of God that consists the Old Testament was given to Israel, so this nation holds the books we should rely on for this part of the Bible.
Great topic!
You're a gem from GOD Frank, never stop 🙏🏻
Based upon what?
Frank and his ministry have blessed millions
@@jeffphelps1355
But he can’t be from god because he’s wrong about me having faith.
I agree. I truly enjoy this ministry and love hearing what he has to say. Especially seeing as he is a conservative christian in his teachings.
@@lbj2642 based upon my experience of being blessed by GOD through Frank about 100 times.
St. Jerome translated all 73 books of the Bible into Latin in the third century AD; this translation is referred to as the Vulgate. The Council of Trent only affirmed that the Vulgate was the correct and full translation of the Bible in response to moves within the Protestant Reformation to remove seven books from the Bible as being non-canonical due to the period in which the books were written or due to the language the source document was written. The Council did not add books; the books were already there.
If anything, it's more accurate to say Protestants were removing books from the Bible.
Thank you. But good luck casting pearls before swine.
The Bible of 66 books is unequivocally, unambiguously, plainly and clearly sufficient in what God has intended before the foundation of the world, which is those words that bring salvific truth.
Amen and Amen !
If the books of the Bible are unequivocally, unambiguously, plainly and clearly sufficient for what God intended then how come there are now 30 000 plus protestant denominations who all have varying and contradictory interpretations of those books? How are those differing interpretations to be resolved? It is clear from Chapter 16 of the Gospel according to Matthew that Christ intended to build only one church, not many.
According to who?
@@thelimatheou according to us. Christians.
@@JT-by9ki Ah, I see - the 'me and my Bible under a tree' crowd 😜
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
for leisure, not for faith. If they way so pivotal, they would have been included by God's will
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
Amen!
Near the end of the video, Frank mentions Dr. Michael Heiser. This man is awesome and his book "The Unseen Realm" is fascinating. I highly recommend it to any Christian who is ready to grow in their understanding. I would warn that it probably isn't for the newbie Christian unless they are really on fire for God.
And you need Polo shirt guy from the guys to be the authority on truth? This guys isn’t anything special. Why don’t you ask God for discernment.
@@bluwng I’m completely at a loss to your reply. Would you mind rephrasing it? And what does discernment have to do with a book?
@@ryannoe86 I can’t understand for you.
@@bluwng haha ok dude. I’ll just ignore your initial question then.
@@ryannoe86 I’m about to lose my job and fighting through lawyers, ethics, hr none of which care. My apologies for being sharp, right now I can’t remember what I was thinking at the time.
First bible printed by Gutenberg was a 73 book Latin Vulgate. First protestant bible developed by Martin Luther contained 73 books. First edition of King James version of bible (1611)contained 73 books. It even had saints feast days.
All the oldest available copies like Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniticus have 73 books.
Thank you! I like Mr Turek but he is wrong on this one. The “apocrypha” was not added to counter Luther, Luther specifically took out those books from the existing Bible to justify his own personal theology. I don’t see why Protestants are so blinded about this and don’t consider this heresy.
@@rainbowplayzoffical12745 Turek is definitely on the low rung in discussions on the history of Christianity.
The idea that Maccabees was added at the Council of Trent is false. The Books of Maccabees are contained in the Codex Amiatinus, the earliest known copy of the Vulgate Bible and it dates to approximately 700ad. So Maccabees was not "added" to the Catholic Bible to defeat Luther - it was without a doubt part of the Bible at least as far back as 700ad.
Maccabees includes support for the notion of Purgatory, which is why Luther was so determined to s-can it.
Not to mention the original Vulgate text was much older, and the decision of canon would've predated even that. Maccabees would've been considered scripture by the 300s AD at the latest.
I don’t think I can watch this guy anymore after hearing him say that. He’s so blatantly lying. And I assume he’s lying because he seems decently educated, it is his career.
They were in as early as 300 AD
@@EagleRiderStudios I think I'd have to agree with you. He is so good with apologetics that this seems like a very gaping hole in his knowledge to end up that misguided in church history. Definitely strike 1 in my book, and I'm proceeding with caution now.
Well dome frank so such insightful explanation. God bless you
Yet a wrong one
@@mylifeforthelord5535 we shouldn't be belittling those who are misguided by laughing at them. We owe to them polite and mature explanations for things that are incorrect, so that they don't feel alienated.
@@beauty.of.the.struggle You are right brother, please forgive me. After dealing so much with the ever-same accusations of the protestants, it's my natural reaction to just laugh about it. But you're right, it's wrong.
I need a longer version of this
Very well put.
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
St. Jude, as we know, quotes from TWO non-biblical works - The Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses - so it’s perfectly licit to examine those works to see why St. Jude was inspired by the Holy Spirit to quote from them.
Lies they are referenced it does not mean there true
Yes, read with discernment to understand the context in which the Holy Scriptures were written.
That's right!!!
That true. Some books can be read but not take them as inspire or authoritative.
Read the book of enoch, you should take inspiration from every scripture you read on the judgement of the bible.
I don't care if you accept it or not but the book of Enoch was a part of the Bible before 68a.d or the 4th century
Even the Bible That Protestant Christians,Catholic Christians&Orthodox Christians agreed with ''the book of jude'' mentioned it by saying that the book was true
You can read jude 1:14-15 it say that
Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands of his holy ones
So Where does that word is found in the 66 Bible?How did jude know that Enoch prophecies that
Was he lying
No then Where is it found?
nowhere its only found in
Enoch 1:9
Jude mentioned Enoch 1:9
So if people's reject being arrogant and listen to the Bible They will sure accept the book of Enoch&the book of barok or second Jeremiah(which is mentioned in Matthew 27:9) but if you still reject and say that the Bible is only 66 i want you to answer me this questions
1st Where in Jeremiah did Jeremiah says this👉(read Matthew 27:9)
Have you found it in Jeremiah?
no
then the true answer is
many peoples might not know but its found in 2 Jeremiah not in
Jeremiah or 1st Jeremiah
(the only Jeremiah in the 66 Bible
Second)Where did Enoch say this
👉(jude 1:14)
Third) Where do we find the history that moses died & then the archangel Michael & the devil argued about his flesh in the 66 Bible እ
Jude 1:9
i have more than 13 questions that nobody answers it correct infact They just show me their arrogance&their 👅
so would you answer it
Can you Please 🙏 or you can't🙇♂️
@@BoulderBlockBrick I don't care if you accept it or not but the book of Enoch was a part of the Bible before 68a.d or the 4th century
Even the Bible That Protestant Christians,Catholic Christians&Orthodox Christians agreed with ''the book of jude'' mentioned it by saying that the book was true
You can read jude 1:14-15 it say that
Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands of his holy ones
So Where does that word is found in the 66 Bible?How did jude know that Enoch prophecies that
Was he lying
No then Where is it found?
nowhere its only found in
Enoch 1:9
Jude mentioned Enoch 1:9
So if people's reject being arrogant and listen to the Bible They will sure accept the book of Enoch&the book of barok or second Jeremiah(which is mentioned in Matthew 27:9) but if you still reject and say that the Bible is only 66 i want you to answer me this questions
1st Where in Jeremiah did Jeremiah says this👉(read Matthew 27:9)
Have you found it in Jeremiah?
no
then the true answer is
many peoples might not know but its found in 2 Jeremiah not in
Jeremiah or 1st Jeremiah
(the only Jeremiah in the 66 Bible
Second)Where did Enoch say this
👉(jude 1:14)
Third) Where do we find the history that moses died & then the archangel Michael & the devil argued about his flesh in the 66 Bible እ
Jude 1:9
i have more than 13 questions that nobody answers it correct infact They just show me their arrogance&their 👅
so would you answer it
Can you Please 🙏 or you can't🙇♂️
I am just kidding but the book ok Enoch is part of the Bible believe me or check it by you're self nobody can answer this questions biblically like 0%
@@SPDALL
I think Is because it was written too early and that why some Christians remove it from the bible but still a good reading if you can interpret what the prophesy is a bout and don't take them literally.
There is a lot of symbolism and you have to understand the mind set of the Jewish people when it was written.
I also think that the apocryphal writing is dangerous for people without wisdom.
I don't believe that Mary was pregnant just for one second and don't believe Jesus started talking when He was one day old.
For me, Mary was pregnant for nine moth like any other woman and Jesus had a normal child life.
This stories are in the apocrypha.
@@BoulderBlockBrick
I read it many times and understand the why of the Jews of understanding it meaning.
Depending the church you go, they will interpret the way they want to interpret it.
Is like the book Ezekiel, every church has it own interpretation.
The books that were removed by Luther in the 1500s were used by Christians since the 1st century. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the Old Testament that the Apostles used. The Catholic Church did not add them. They were always there. Luther removed them.
Luther translated the Hebrew Bible which was before the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) which did not contain those books in the first place.
Matthew 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, and 1 Corinthians 2:9 as examples of the Apostles quoting scripture found in Hebrew texts but not in the Septuagint.
@@jaynekk1 hi, the masoretic text used by Luther did not predate the Septuagint, it was compiled in the 8-900s by the Jews of the time to exclude the apocrypha and adjust wording that Christians used to show Christ in the Old Testament. So it is incorrect to say he used an older version as the Septuagint predates the masoretic by nearly 1000 years.
@@jaynekk1 and to this, the writers being Jews likely also knew Hebrew and read available Hebrew texts in addition to the Septuagint, also your point of showing only a few verses points to the fact that the Septuagint contains nearly all of the quotations in the New Testament.
Very interesting
Very well said Frank. Thank you.
Except the parts he got wrong, of course
Except the lies he mixed in, ofcourse
@@mylifeforthelord5535 like which lies?
@@troywright359 I have already supplied a link above.
@@troywright359 Such as claiming that the Holy Church did not authoritatively decide which books belong in the Bible. For that is exactly what the Holy Church did, by virtue of her Magisterium at the Council of Rome in 393AD.
Pastor Mike Winger does and excellent breakdown on the OLD TESTAMENT canon and NEW TESTAMENT canon
The apocrypha was included in protestant Bibles (1566 and 1599 Geneva Bible as well as the King James Bible) until the 1880's, it was considered profitable reading but not canonical. I have an old King James Bible that has some center column references to apocryphal books even though it does not contain the apocrypha.
Yeah I've heard of all these bibles having these books though just to get sine new info on certain things but definitely not canonical.
@@freddhernanadez2230The Book of the Maccabees gives some insight on the intertestamental period and the messianic fervor of the Jews at the time of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
but it was considered canonical long before the council of Trent, including by some groups of Jews in the time of Jesus?
@@nebulis6509 As far as I know, the apocryphal books were never considered canonical by the Jews at any time, I could be wrong though. The main purpose of the Council of Trent was to condemn the Reformers and Protestantism, not to determine the canonicity of any scriptures, however, it did declare that the scriptures were equal to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
The New Testament letters were written between 45(ish) and 90(ish) AD and most if not all of them were considered canon before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
@@kenneth11158 This is what I've found looking it up that is easily cited.
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
Apparently the apocryphal book 1 Maccabees mentions the 400 years of silence when there wasn't a prophet (1 Maccabees 4:46, 1 Maccabees 9:27, 1 Maccabees 14:41)
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
I would post links to the Book by Phillip Schaff and Against Apion, but IDK if my comment will be blocked. They are easily found through google however. Hope this helps.
That was the literally the best way I've heard this subject to be explained.
He did fudge up the narrative on how he chose to connect certain facts, however
It's wrong what he said
@@mylifeforthelord5535 no it really is not
@@mylifeforthelord5535 only wrong to someone who has been deceived by the catholic church.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
"The church discovered the canon"
Frank has some good jokes
Of course. Different early Christian societies knew only one Gospel. Some knew only the Gospel of Matthew, others the Gospels of John, and others the Gospel of Luke. The apostles walked, taught, and wrote this Gospels that Christians could learn from them. Only later, in the times of the Fathers of the Church, were all completed
thanks to that we have 4 of them in our bible. In this sense, we can call it a discovery.
@@mattearl8213 amen!
@@mattearl8213 May I point out an error here. The Gospels were not written by the apostles themselves. We don't even know who composed the Gospels on paper. (But it is possible that the apostles dictated the events to literate writers.) I am a fellow Christian, by the way, so you know I am not mocking or trolling.
@@ElliottWong2024 And we'll never know because we don't have the original, only the copies. Even if Matthew did not write the Gospel but someone else, it does not change anything. It might as well be written by a person who heard Matthew teaching the Gospel, or from people who heard Matthew teaching, therefore it is called the Gospel of Matthew. It can still present the Gospel from Matthew's perspective. But the most important thing is that these 4 gospels were popular in the first Christian communities to which the apostles themselves went.
Yes, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide is the best way to connect to God
“Was it accepted by the people of God?”
In the Catholic Church, we call that Tradition
Well said
Our Lord Jesus commanded us to seek the kingdom of God. Once we do that, we will have a spiritual relationship with the father. Then we will know the truth about everything.
The book of Enoch is awesome and fills in the gaps found in Genesis.
Sure but it also says that Enoch is the Son of Man, which is he isn’t. Jesus is.
@@daylightsober6138 Except the author of Ezekiel is referred to as "Son of man" several times in that book.
So it has more than one application. Indeed, you and I both can called that (ben-'adam) as well.
@@selderane No in 3rd Enoch it says that the prophet Enoch is the actual Messiah who is later transformed into Metatron, becoming the second person of the godhead.
So yeah, don’t trust everything that’s written in those books.
100% brother! at the moment my bible consists of 135 books
@@randomango2789 2nd and 3rd Enoch are bogus
Who gave the counsels authority to “discover” what was canon and what was not?
The book of enoch was honestly amazing to me, it truly made my imagination dwell into what it is heaven possibly looks like.
I agree. The book of Enoch only deepened my faith.
@@michael.waddellhonestly just be quiet what a completely useless comment
The Enoch book was a fraud
Nice, Frank is referring to Mike Heiser. Hopefully more people will discover and understand Heiser's work and get a better understanding of the Bible and the stories of Jesus in the Gospels.
I thought you shouldn’t rely on the words of men.
@@frankcardano4142
Who you thing wrote the gospel?
We are not like Muslims that believe Allah wrote the Torah by his own hand and give them to Moshe in stone tablets from heaven.
You can read commentaries of knowledgeable people and get your own conclusion if is not contradicting what was written by the ancient.
@@LuisVazquez-hx3bk
So what do those verses mean then?
@@frankcardano4142
What it means to you or you don't understand?
Tell me the chapter and the verse and I will tray to explain.
@@LuisVazquez-hx3bk let me tell you something I like to know about the the Old Testament you know who wrote the book of Genesis it was Noah all the Joshua that's a Noah passed away the Torah and I'll Bible it's the Old Testament of Jesus Christ we don't believe in the book of Allah book of Allah is Muslim this guy is a fault teacher because God put 66 books together in the old Testament and the New Testament who can I add a takeaway Scriptures it says so in the Book of Revelations this guy is a bunch of hogwash
I'm really glad that the Letter of James is in the Bible. I believe it contains the most concise Godly instruction on how to live our lives in the world. What was true in the first century is just as true today in every way! Full marks to James who, just like his older Brother Jesus, didn't pull any punches!
I often give new Christians who ask which books in the New Testament should they read first, my prescribed reading guide.
The Gospel of John is often given to new converts because it emphasises Jesus' Divinity more concisely that the Synoptic Gospels do. I encourage people to read all four Gospels. But after that . . where to next? Maybe Acts, yeah OK. But after that? I point them to Peter's Epistles. Then I encourage them to read the letter of James.
Why these, rather than Pauls many letters? Glad you asked. Here's why:
Peter is also a no nonsense writer. It's his very personality to be a no nonsense guy. He accurately sums up all the basic Christian concepts of theology in just a few chapters. All you basically need to know theologically, Peter gives you in his letters.
And for the practical application of Peter's theology, read James' letter. Faith without works is dead, keep a reign over your tongue, true religion that God accepts as true, it's all spelt out by James. Healing? Go to chapter five and do what it says.
These two early Christian Church leaders were not highly educated men. Peter was a fisherman and James was most likely a carpenter, like his big brother, in the family business. Even John was merely a fisherman. You can tell that John's Gospel wasn't written in a highly schooled way. He was a nuts and bolts guy as well.
After reading my prescribed list, go for your life into Paul's many letters. You should be ready then to come to grips with Paul's lofty concepts and his highly educated writing style.
Thank you for that very insightful
Except the part where he lied though
All scripture is for you but not always directed at you .
That’s why the Apostle Paul Meant by "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.
2 Timothy 2:15
Thank God for Frank. I watch you with the holy ghost for a few years. God is love, forever, always is as well as was. Our sacred lord Jesus came to educate us in man's form. God formed our galaxy why? Only god knows. GOD IS LOVE AND STRONG. Satin fears God. Satin is filling man in his favorite style to man "FEAR" this is a last ditch effort to survive the punishment. We will survive and experience true Godly love very soon. Stay strong. God bless all
Satan*
Thanks your rational insight on Biblical truth
Thanks.
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
@Dalton Dyson your being dishonest the Bible never gives us a date for creation, as far as flat earth if your willing to be open minded check out Inspiring Philosophy video on flat earth could it be God is using language our primative minds can understand? Like "go to the four corners of the earth" we know the earth is not square right ?
@Dalton Dyson I have studied the Bible and I have listen to skeptics like Sam Harris and I have concluded that I should never trust thier conclusions and if I come across something in the Bible I can't explain I give it the benefit of the doubt
@Dalton Dyson my logical conclusion is the human brain is too feeble and depraved to make such a book up
Even though Jude quotes Enoch (probably as an ancient source for the return of Christ), there are very good reasons it is not in the old testament canon. It speaks of events that had not even occurred at the time of Enoch, and it speaks of them in language that did not exist until much closer to New Testament times . .
The Church did not determine the cannon, but discovered the cannon. That's a good point. If i were the devil, confusing people, but thrownng in a bunch of religious stuff is exactly what I'd do.
Good video
Another way to discern which of the extra biblical books you should read is if they are mentioned more than once in the Bible or are paraphrased, an example being the book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua and elsewhere while the book of Jude paraphrased a verse in the book of Enoch.
Enoch is mentioned many times in both old and new. Even by jesus.
@@dfggf9885 The book of enoch is scripture
Except that you can only use that so far, because Song of Songs wouldn’t be considered canon.
Kinda a dumb rule. Yeah Enoch’s literature, but it being mentioned isn’t enough to classify it as worthwhile.
Hammurabi is also quoted in Exodus, but unless you’re interested in biblical law code then he’s not worth reading.
@@richardbug3094 no it isn't
This gentleman says Enoch is far-fetched, but my reading of it is that it is the only thing that makes sense of much of Genesis.
praise the only true living Lord and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️
Thanks Dr. Turek. But I think you have the historical timeline incorrectly presented. The Old testament books were removed by protestants and it is not historically correct to say that the catholic Church added new books in the Old testament at the council of Trent, given that Trent reaffirmed the same previous council bible list in both Old and New Testament. The 4th century council you quoted to affirm the New Testament also affirm the Old testament list which is similar to the Catholic canon with Old testament, if you see the list for yourself, and it is dissimilar to the proposed list by protestant which lacks some Old testament books. Dr. Geisler works, respectfully, need to be revised and updated on this point since it is the source you seem to use. May I suggest also that in addition to looking at the primary document of the earlier council for yourself, i recommend that you consider interacting with Gary Michuta work on the canon also (from a popular level). Blessings to you.
The early Christians read these books. Their Old Testament was the Septuagint (still used by the Orthodox Church in the original Greek translation), which includes books that were later rejected & excluded by the Rabbinic Jews; the Apostles also referred to extra-Biblical books like Enoch in their own writings, which eventually became the New Testament. If the Apostles & their early Christian disciples considered these books worth reading & studying, then they're definitely good enough for me.
I agree. If you're going to deny the viability of these works, then you also deny the divinity of christ because the ability of the messiah to cast out demons is not part of the old testament, so then Why was casting out demons part of the picture of the expected messiah if that didn't happen in the OT?
Without these works, the NT can fall apart easily.
Jubilees, 2Ezdras, 1Enoch should be considered Torah. If the pre hasmonian Temple priests used them as such, so should we
Were they considered God inspired canon, though? It is my understanding that the Septuagint had added books that were not in the Torah. If this is so, then why were those books added, and could they be considered to have the same authority as the rest of the Torah? (I could combine the Bible with the Chronicles of Narnia into one massive book, but that doesn't make Chronicles Scripture.) I am genuinely curious if you do have an explanation.
@@PhazonOmega I think that's a good question. I hope we see an answer come up here. Even using the word "considered" God inspired leaves an open door. I want to know what IS the God inspired canon even if it don't address certain subjects people are interested in.
@@XSimpleTruthX
They are included in
The Ethiopian Orthodox tewahido church(Acts 8:26-39)
&Eritrean Orthodox tewahido church because the 66 Bible can't answer tons of question let me give you 2 striking questions 1st its
Matthew 27:9 the prophecy is not found in Jeremiah
And in Matthew 2:23 Where in prophecies is that prophecy found
so does that mean the Bible lies or it had been corrupted?
because if the Bible is 66 only the answer is yes
But
The answer is no because the Bible is not only 66 sola scriptures is 100% incorrect
and
the prophecy
That Matthew mentioned in Matthew 27:9 is found in 2nd Jeremiah
Or the book of barok(Baruch)
And about Jesus being called a Nazarene
The Bible says in Matthew 2:23 as
he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.(A) So was fulfilled(B) what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Where in the 66 Bible is this prophecy found the answer is only found in
The Ethiopian Orthodox tewahido Church
&Eritrean Orthodox tewahido church
Its found in(2 sinoda) its found in Ethiopian Orthodox tewahido Church Bible in the 81 Bible
The Vulgate of Saint Jerome [342-420AD] and the listing of Saint Augustine [354-430AD] in 'On Christian Doctrine' include in the case of the former and approve in the case of the latter the inclusion of 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Canon of the Church.
Excellent question, excellent answer.
No spiritual concerns over reading books that contradict the Bible..?
How can they contradict 'the Bible' when they are part of it? 😆
So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
@@mylifeforthelord5535 ever seen a Luther Bible they are in there just like KJV clueless
What books contradict the Bible? And how so?
@@Sprachitektur Yes but he considered them as uninspired, due to their contradiction to his invented doctrines, and that cause the modern protestants to throw them out completely. Luther also didn't except Hebrews and James, but them in the end, just like he did with the "apokrypha"
If the bible (Logos) is the breathe of God (1 Timothy 3v16), then what else do we need again in order to stay right with God
The words that I speak they're spirit and they're alive... This is the nature of Scriptures; a living and active word
Psalms 119 throws much more light on the Logos
You got 5 chapters missing from Psalms, it’s supposed to be 155 not 150. Acts missing chapter 28 etc.
Amen brother Samuel. Good word. The word of God is all we need for doctrine. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@lbj2642 Got you buddy
@@christtheonlyhope4578 Appreciate that buddy
@@samuelsarbah3050 you are very welcome
Great vid
I have sat in Protestant nondenominational churches many times and heard these mistruths, like Constantine started the Catholic Church , etc. Once you look into for yourself, you realize you have been told a story, like when you were a child and your parents told you about the tooth fairy. He seems like a decent guy. I hope one day he will come back home to the one true church, Catholic Church. God Bless.
I have a copy of the book (books) of Enoch… I’ve gotten a crash course on how Ephesians works out, so I will say that my prayer time with Jesus has led me to a firm boundary to not read the book of watchers, because it lists actual names. I do believe this is why the book of Enoch isn’t included.
If I had not found the Book Of Enoch I never would've come back to Christ if I hadn't learned that vital detailed information coming from a person who was a medium in the New Age. I feel they removed it to keep people decieved. The Book of Enoch as well as many other information Biblical or not is found free on UA-cam.
I don’t believe it’s evil or wrong! My issue is I’m not a convert from witchcraft, but someone close to me is. That person contacted a dark spiritual entity through fallacious means. That ultimately had a major impact on my life. It can be used to bring people to Jesus! I agree!! My issue, is the kind of mind I have, if I dwell on those particular names, I might be filled with an unholy, self-righteous zeal to go wage a spiritual war in my flesh. Not acting out of the light burden, and immediately handing it over to Jesus. I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I don’t think the Books of Enoch are bad! They are valuable! Especially in witnessing to those coming out of witchcraft, which I believe that’s why it’s so readily referenced in the book of Jude! I’m on the other side of that coin, however
I don’t believe it’s evil or wrong! My issue is I’m not a convert from witchcraft, but someone close to me is. That person contacted a dark spiritual entity through fallacious means. That ultimately had a major impact on my life. It can be used to bring people to Jesus! I agree!! My issue, is the kind of mind I have, if I dwell on those particular names, I might be filled with an unholy, self-righteous zeal to go wage a spiritual war in my flesh. Not acting out of the light burden, and immediately handing it over to Jesus. I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I don’t think the Books of Enoch are bad! They are valuable! Especially in witnessing to those coming out of witchcraft, which I believe that’s why it’s so readily referenced in the book of Jude! I’m on the other side of that coin, however
I don’t believe it’s evil or wrong! My issue is I’m not a convert from witchcraft, but someone close to me is. That person contacted a dark spiritual entity through fallacious means. That ultimately had a major impact on my life. It can be used to bring people to Jesus! I agree!! My issue, is the kind of mind I have, if I dwell on those particular names, I might be filled with an unholy, self-righteous zeal to go wage a spiritual war in my flesh. Not acting out of the light burden, and immediately handing it over to Jesus. I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I don’t think the Books of Enoch are bad! They are valuable! Especially in witnessing to those coming out of witchcraft, which I believe that’s why it’s so readily referenced in the book of Jude! I’m on the other side of that coin, however
I don’t believe it’s evil or wrong! My issue is I’m not a convert from witchcraft, but someone close to me is. That person contacted a dark spiritual entity through fallacious means. That ultimately had a major impact on my life. It can be used to bring people to Jesus! I agree!! My issue, is the kind of mind I have, if I dwell on those particular names, I might be filled with an unholy, self-righteous zeal to go wage a spiritual war in my flesh. Not acting out of the light burden, and immediately handing it over to Jesus. I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I don’t think the Books of Enoch are bad! They are valuable! Especially in witnessing to those coming out of witchcraft, which I believe that’s why it’s so readily referenced in the book of Jude! I’m on the other side of that coin, however
More videos like this please
Ugh, please no. Dr Frank is so much better when he stays in his lane: apologetics geared towards atheists
@@beauty.of.the.struggle so what do u believe in
@@ambermichealshotkinkyjo15 I am a Christian who believes in God. Why?
@@beauty.of.the.struggle I just wanted to know that's all what do u think of apes to Homo erectus to humans i'm trying to believe Best I can
Bless you.
For what it’s worth, the Book of Enoch contains the Law of the Luminaries.
Nowhere else in the Bible does it contain nor go into explicit detail the great luminaries, sun, moon & stars.
I am sure that they could be interesting , I believe that the King James Bible has all a person needs to plan a road to salvation , a friend of mine was sharing with me some of his studies in the other so called books and it sounds as if he was very confused ? Not really sure bout them , but I feel the king James book is enough to plant my foundation of salvation .
I don't know why people exalt the KJ translation to be above all, as if newer or older translations are inferior
He's just straight up wrong here. The Reformation removed books that were already recognized as part of the Christian Canon (although most books weren't removed until much after the Reformation). The question should be "why were they removed", not why did the Catholic/Orthodox Churches "add" them. Also, Luther "appealing" to Jewish Canonization is a fallacy. He was an antisemite that wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies". If he wanted those books removed, it wasn't because he wanted to fit in with what the Jews chose after the destruction of the 2nd Temple
Wow I wondered about this .I still dont understand 100% but God will help me ,I know that.
Remember folks, Roman Catholics in the mid-centuries when added these books to the bible, Orthodox were against, we, Orthodox people are different from Roman Catholics, we have so many differences that these two are basically two different religions ! Orthodox and protestants ? Well, first you must attend Orthodox services yourself to see the differences, anyways, God bless this man.
Thing I always say is, do you really think God just fumbled and lost a few of the books?
Bible wasn't written by God
....well, with the exception of the Torah of course
@@beauty.of.the.struggle written by man.. inspired by God..nothing wrong with that..unless ..u r the muslim🤣
@@power279 what??
Dr. Turek, in your own book - I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST - you (or Geisler) stated "all of [the New Testament] was officially and finally recognized as authentic by the Council of Hippo in 393". At that same council, the deuterocanonical books were "officially and finally recognized" as well.
To turn your question around, why would any Christian accept the authoritative ruling of a council for only the NT while rejecting that authority for the OT which included the deuteros? Also, why accept a list of OT books by Jews well into the Christian era who were hostile to Christianity?
Boom!
The Jews who wrote those books were not hostile to Christian people as there were no Christians during the time of David and Isaiah, literally everyone else who penned a book in the old testament and the Jews around Jesus' time read those books not understanding and/or denying that Jesus was the messiah, not that there is no such thing as the messiah. They just disagreed (Christians and Jews) if the messiah was or was not Jesus. And those who penned the bible all sinned against God but we do not discredit them based on that now do we because it is the inspired word of God right? So discrediting the old testament based on some Jews (for many Jews turned to Christ) who didn't even pen those books and had hostility towards Christians is irrational. God bless
@@scouthart3062 you've clearly never read what's inside the Talmud. Take a drive into the council of Jamnia sometime, thanks.
@@scouthart3062 Or how about St. Stephen, the first martyr, for that matter? You apparently haven't read the book of acts either
@@beauty.of.the.struggle I have read the whole Bible. Have not read the Talmud yet. God bless
Yes 🙌 Absolutely
Yes to a point, it is the only way to refute people, I read the Apocrypha and found that 1st and 2nd Maccabees give good insight into the inter-testamental period and should actually be an appendix to the OT. having said that it is important to be weary of what you feed your soul. A weak person should not.
When you read the books missing which is called the Apocrypha there is a great gap being filled. For instance Maccabees, because we all know the Children of Israel went into Greek captivity yet the Bible as we know it today doesn't really speak about what happened there yet it speaks about what happened in the other captives. Etc.
Like a pastor I heard (Dr. Gene Kim) He uses the scripture I’m going to recite it to the best of my abilities I do not know the exact verse and book but I know that God’s word says that his word will be preserved throughout the generations. Knowing that all these lost books haven’t been preserved like the gospel of Judas, etc etc. therefore if they haven’t been preserved then they are only going to be used by spiritual powers of darkness to mislead people away from the truth and to focus on and put their faith in these books.
Verse you're thinking if is Mark 13: 31 KJV. Gene Kim is awesome and being used mightily by the Lord God as a Bible teacher breaking everything down greatly. God bless you 2 brother.
Incredible How The Question In The Title Was Not Even Touched Upon
Does anyone know the source to back up the statement "opponents admitted Gospels were written by disciples"? I personally do not doubt the authorship of the Gospels but it would be helpful while evangilizing to skeptics
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19.)
The author was clearly talking about his own composition, Revelation
If the third question is if the people of God accepted the books, that means the deuterocanon belongs in the Bible. The deuterocanon was never called apocryphal in the early church. You can read any Church Fathers, and you will see they never called the deuterocanon apocryphal.
Bingo! Yes, I'm so disappointed in how badly Dr. Frank misconstrued this around just to forward his narrative... Blatant disregard of basic historical truth (his loyal followers in the rest of this comments section is even worse!)
@@beauty.of.the.struggle
I like Frank Turek when it comes to theism. He shows his lack of understanding when he starts discussing Catholicism and Christian history.
I understand if the canon is confusing when someone reads the Church Fathers. However, I don't understand how someone can call the deuterocanon apocryphal when they never called apocryphal.
Early Christians utilized the Greek Septuagint to form the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew 250 years before Christ. The Septuagint is the most ancient Old Testament translation, and we have references to it before, during, and immediately after the time of Christ on earth. Ultimately, just a few books were removed from what would become the first official Christian Bible.
The first 73-book bible was formalized during the Council of Rome in 382. It was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), as well as the ecumenical Councils of Florence (1442) and Trent (1546) after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther. Martin Luther defied the Catholic Church by arguing the Old Testament was wrong, and was ultimately excommunicated for going against Church doctrine.
That intro without context was the most confusing thing I've ever seen 😂
Being under the new covenant doesn't, in any way, make the old testament less important. It sounded like he was saying that we don't have to care about the old testament, because we are under the new covenant. The Old testament dispels a lot of faulty church understanding about the new testament. It would be great if people would understand both. Its not like God was going about the old testament and then said "oops" and started the new. God`s plan was the same in the beginning as it is now. The Torah never saved anyone and the OT prophets knew that there was going to be a new covenant, as Jeremiah proclaimed in ch 31. God bless.
“If you declare with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Now is the time to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Obey His commands and repent of your sins because Jesus is coming back soon. Tomorrow isn’t promised.
That’s taking scripture out of context to suit your own needs Paul said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling
& you must be born of water and spirit. (Baptism)
When forging a "sword" do all the pieces of the original stone make it in the final work? Would the sword be sharp if it had not been pounded hard into shape? Would it be able to cut through, dividing bone from marrow & soul from spirit without being tried by fire? The Word of God is as a sword, it's too bad we took this literal for so long.
Dr. Michael Heiser made a good argument as to the value of non-canonical works. The Enoch material is briefly mentioned and used in the Bible. The Bible writers knew of the document and to them it had value enough to put something of it the Bible. No crime in further reading the source material that the Biblical writers utilized.
Before Luther there was only 1 canon.
Example of false teaching in the apocrypha: the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).
Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin.
This of course would take away from the atonement of sin the Jesus paid on the cross. This is only one of many contradictions and the reason why it should not be accepted as inspired by God.
Very good point, if you can work your way to heaven with good works,Christ died in vain.
@@souzajustin19d Amen
1 Peter 4:8 KJV: And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
@@awordofwisdomwithcharlotte4670 great scripture! Amen
🤣🤣 So please explain to me why, if the Catholic Church only "added" the apocrypha at the Council of Trent, ALL apostolic churches, ALL orthodox churches ALSO consider them as part of the Canon?
Even in the first Bible translation (the Vulgata), by the Catholic Church, in 393AD are the apocrypha included!!
LUTHER AND THE PROTESTANTS TOOK THEM OUT, WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY WELL ASTEBLISHED VOR OVER 1000 YEARS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
How do you decide what books should be in the Bible?
The books that support the reality that I live in.
Don't let anyone tell you what is canon and what isn't. Or what you should or should not read. Read EVERYTHING. Inform yourself of everything in order to have sound opinions and judgements.
40,000+ denominations later..........