5 REASONS Why the Apocrypha is NOT INSPIRED (REBUTTED) 

I'm praying for you and your journey and hoping you are continuing your research of God's Church! Even tho I was born into the Catholic Church, I went through a similar journey as you. Your best asset is learning the history of tradition and Church. Learning from the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and what traditions that were passed on from Christ. God bless!

​@@ratatoskr9366 amen brother

1. 8:00 allen talks about inconsistencies in doctrine but you reply in 8:21 or 8:16. That there are errors (you don't specify what kind which is important Numerical or doctrine ). 8:28 that's actually false atheists will argue that the bible is false because it seems to have inconsistencies (which it doesn't) or it has Numerical errors (which can be explained and are understandable when you know how the bible came together. (Scribes) 8:40 which errors? What kind of errors? 2. 9:20 wonderful question. The answer is simple the Jews that believed in christ either did not want to add those books or didn't add those books into their scriptures. Even the Jewish tanahk doesn't have any of the apocrypha books. Josephus actually believed that they shouldn't be considered scripture. Not that they shouldn't be read or studied or anything like that bit that they were not scripture. 10:17 that's because there is an argument that those books should have never been in the bible. Or considered scripture. There is a difference between scripture inspired by God and writings from men of god. 11:14 that is false because the errors in the apocrypha are of biblical doctrine and the errors in just the bible are minor mistakes that can be ascribed to Scribes, who were tasked to make copies of the bible. Your really reaching with this point it is very clear the apocrypha should have never been considered scripture. 11:30 that's the problem with you. The opposite can also be said. You have already considered the apocrypha as scripture so your trying to defend it. Instead of going into a discussion like this get to the point. Why do you think the apocrypha is divinely inspired message of god? 3. 12:59 answer this does the apocrypha books showcase people praying for the dead sins to be forgiven (essentially for their salvation). 1. and 2. Does the pope or Catholic Church have this teaching in the Catholic Church for those prayers. That they help in some way. You can talk about born this and that but is it a teaching that existed or exists in Catholic churches? If yes. Then that's the point and the problem with these books. If no. Then we disagree. 13:20-13:35 this is not taught in the new testament or books outside the apocrypha. Which is obviously the problem. 13:47 I'm sorry you accused allen of coming into this assuming the apocrypha is not scripture but you have done the same in the opposite direction. 14:14 you haven't watched the whole video first he gives the errors and then why they aren't to be considered scripture. 17:01 personally I think your explanation is stupid. Truly. Its safe to assume they were idol worshipping because they'll brought those idols when they went to war. Any explanation against this is most certainly stupid. 4. 19:24 question did the 12 Apostles accept Jesus as their Lord and personal saviour? If they did we have at least 12. Not to mention the book of acts. This proves 19:40 to be false.(the point you made) 21:20 the point that you cleverly skipped was that it was for salvation which is not found in the OT (OLD TESTAMENT). Not that this practise for the living did not exist. But for the dead this did not exist. 5. I skipped to this part because there was no further need to talk on this. 41:20 - 42:06 First and foremost your right about your point but it does not consider what the early Church and the Jews of note said. So someone who I can look up just some random some Jews. Plus the main point is what is in the tanahk today. Not a random jew. 6. Josephus 42:44 The problem when you make your point is that you go straight to the samaritains. Were talking about Jews not samaritians I know they are related but there is at least a separation thats why one is jew and the other is samaritain. Invalid point. Bring up Jews to argue that josephus was exaggerating in this point. Someone of note like josephus not a random. 45:10 again the problem with you. You refer to translations as changes to the text abd taking away and adding to them, which is false. 47:00 - 47:30 The point still stands they believed in 22. The ones they believe till today. Some believe 24 or more is not the point we are talking about most Jews not the obscure or smaller sects. 50:10 you could be right about this. That does not mean the apocrypha should be accepted. I have to do more research. 51:50 you say prophecy and not prophets or least prophets who had done inspiration to write scripture. (The latter is what I'm arguing). Why? Allen said prophets not prophecy. 7. Jesus not affirming apocrypha 1:05:40 - 1:06:24 Your wrong. If Jesus affirmed those books then we accept it as scripture. Full stop don't make assumptions of what protestants would do. It's not necessarily and shows your bias. Don't talk on something you don't know but admit that that Jesus did not affirm this. 1:07:20 - he isn't cutting out the old testament he is giving examples of how it should be done. It doesn't necessarily need to be in that way. But it does need to happen which is the point. Your arguing something pointless. 1:08:50 this is your answer. Jesus did not affirm these books. Plus the roman catholics scholars wanted to remove them from the beginning of the church history. 8. Roman Catholic scholars (Council of trent) 1:09:31 1:10:30- 1:11:30 your gonna have to prove this. It seems from research that Jerome just didn't think they were cannon because of Jews. That translation thing you mentioned could be true but he did not believe they were cannon because of Jews. 1:12:40 actually he affirms the church as an authority in making this choice and believed they were scripture jus not part of cannon. There is a small difference. 1:14:48 maybe he wanted to remove James because of how catholics and many other Christians misinterpret it. He is talking about a dead faith. And in context you understand James by reading the whole chapter. Fortunately he didn't. So discussing that at this time again is pointless.

I encourage you to look at some the parts of this video that I pointed out to be bias, also not accurate. As a protestant I believe the apocrypha isn't part of the cannon although we can still read and gain something from it.

Presenting as the most perfect fit to description of the Beast of Revelation and Daniel, adorning with representations of Ba' al, Mithra, and Pan, deifying Mary, exchanging the Law of YHWH for the traditions of men, accountable for the greatest atrocities known to mankind. It all depends on what you are looking for in a religion. Catholicism has a role to play, just not a path to redemption through Yeshua HaMashiach.

Wow... Keith 🤗

See ya at the rosary prayer group 🙏🏽

Keith, you are going to be an idol worshiping pagan no matter what the truth says because you are not an honest man of truth. In the face of Holy Scripture, you worship idols and are not born again. Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:3,7

@@johnm.1069 John, all Catholics are born again at baptism. That's what baptism is. www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/our-second-birthday-7445 www.catholic.com/tract/born-again-in-baptism www.catholic.com/tract/are-catholics-born-again What you're describing is that Catholics are not Born Again(tm) the way that a particular set of influential Europeans in the 16th century demand they be, contrary to the understanding of the earliest apostles and the plain word of the bible. As a Catholic, there's no reason to go along with a man-made fad when the 2000 year teaching of the church has been and continues to be fully sufficient.

@YAJUN YUAN but an exact line of succession on the seat of Moses does, as seen that Moses handed his seat to Joshua and to the Sanhedrin, the same way Jesus handed his authority on earth to bind and loose to the apostles and Peter, and Peter to the pope and the apostles to the bishops

How silly and ignorant you are my friend. You said, "our protestant brothers and sisters." Don't you know that your own religion condemns anyone who does not agree with Catholic dogma? Read the canons of the Council of Trent. This is the very name that Trent Horn goes by.

My roommate (currently deployed) is Prot and he takes pride in saying he's anti-science. It boggles my mind how prots make historical and logical stupidity something to be proud of.

How To Be Christian You two are like the friendliest, most downbeat rivalry on the internet.

@howtobechristian we need more videos!!!!! It’s been like two weeks!! Lol

JESUS HIMSELF QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE "APOCRYPHA" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mParOC-So4k.html

​@@soystudios2778 Good try, but Rome does not hold 2Esdras as being scripture. Neither do us Christians, none of the apocrypha is scripture. 2 Esdras was written after Jesus came to the earth and said the words in Mathew. Esdras quotes Jesus not the other way around.

Love hearing from both of you. God bless from Malaysia.

Hdae Dsa well done

Lol

HAHAHAH

lol

I love this comment!! Lol!

Did Jesus consider it “scripture.” Did he ever quote from ANY apocryphal books? The apocryphal books do in fact contradict the other books. I don’t see why you believe they are cannon.

@@Sapientiaa I saw a quote in Matthew that quoted Esdras from the Apocrypha.

@@jew_world_order It didn’t quote Esdras. Esdras was written after Matthew. Esdras was written between 70 - 218 CE. It’s very unlikely that Esdras was ever written before Matthew. Even if it were it was simply quoting Jesus from another work.

@@Sapientiaaso Esther and many other old testament books in your bible aren't scripture then because they too aren't quoted?

@@MasterKeyMagic That wasn’t my full argument. That is an oversimplification of my argument, and a blatant straw man. Reread my statements.

Yeah according to their logic Jesus must not have been The Word Incarnate

So because they killed Christ they must inherently also be wrong about the apocrypha? The Hebrew fathers, called the “oracles of God” in scripture rejected the deuterocanonical works long before Christ ever walked the face of the earth.

@@user-jy5ff3zo3u Who cares what the "Hebrew Fathers" of the Masoretic text believed? The Church Fathers are what matters.

@@theeternalinquirer5462 who cares ? The Bible says they are the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 God’s Faithfulness 3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. Are the people you speak of written about as the oracles of God? If not than how do they matter over the men who are called the oracles of God, and Who rejected the apocrypha as divinely inspired.

@@rudya.hernandez7238 how so🤔 what logic are you referring to?

vaticancatholic.com

Fr Mike Schmitz has a good one

“Simply” speaking, purgatory is the name given to the process of purification after death so that those destined for heaven can be made clean before entering.

Kara Triolo 🙏👌yes he does ❤️

@@petarcosic2781 can a heretic be a pope?

Who decided the canon? God did. The canon was determined by God and discovered by man. There were certain divine earmarks that all inspired books have that they discovered. There are five of them. The gnostic gospels fail the test and the apocrypha fails the test. In the same way that Aristotle discovered logic- but did not invent. Man discovered which books were inspired by God. The Church did not create the canon. It discovered which books were inspired by God.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PKMn2S9imD0.html

@@rosschenault4227 Your post is based on logical fallacies: Circular reasoning and non-sequiter. With basic philosophical training you can begin to reason correctly.

@@marccrotty8447 My faith is informed by the canon that Christ Himself affirmed: The Law, the prophets and the writings. The three fold division

Post was cut off. The three fold division of the Old Testament that Christ affirmed is the source of truth for true Christians. They are also affirmed by Jewish scholars. The Law, the Prophets and the writings. Did not include the apocrypha. If you think it did then go ahead and read them. Knock yourself out. I’m planning to read them myself. But they are not holy Scripture. They don’t claim to be Inspired and Christ and the disciples did not quite from them or refer to them for teaching or doctrine. If they affirm the truth taught in the universally agreed Conan of the Bible - then fine. But if they contradict scripture those parts should be rejected for faith and practice. There was no prophet between Malachi and John the Baptist.

Eisegesis taken to its logical extreme

JESUS HIMSELF QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE "APOCRYPHA" (DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mParOC-So4k.html

@aaron_gerrard what scripture did he say was not scripture?

They always do it

I pray that God may give you strength and guide you into the truth, My the grace of our lord Jesus christ the love of God and the fellowship of the holy spirit be with you.

They dont know the difference.

They know. They lie.

I used to be an anti catholic. It takes humility to understand the catholic faith. Now(actually last week), I’m fully pledged catholic until death.

@@qitzpaquitojr.reston2337 God bless, welcome home.

@David Ortiz Amen bro, One Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one Gospel (Epesians 4:5; Galatians 1)

As being Eastern Orthodox, you are still very much Catholic in doctrine.

Oh great! Now you pray to saints and graven images and think Mary is more than human basically. You REALLY need to research the pagan roots of the Catholic "church".

Have you read these books? I have.

@Matt Blaise is that... a mar Thoma sliva 😎😎😎

Matt Blaise hahaha there are number of catholics in pakistan.

Hey what do you as a Pakistani think of Trent's beard? 😂

@samran_khokhar You should watch this debate, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-72TRODe8BdA.html

Hang in there! Tough place to be a Catholic!!!

God bless you. I found God in college and found catholicism to be the truth 2 years ago. I will pray for you

Nonsense. Trent Horn is an amateur! Why doesn't the Pope debate?

@@approvedofGodwhy does the pope need to debate? Not every pastor debates. It’s irrelevant

@@theticoboy The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. He needs to prove to the world that he isn't just some puppet. How intelligent is he? How well versed is he in the bible?

@@approvedofGod it’s ridiculous. He’s a pastor not a debater. No reputable Protestant insists on this. And if Trent Horn is an amateur what does that make you?

I found it funny that allan par would say this this unbiblical and a lie from the pit of hell and then trent horn is just there chilling and sipping on a drink from McDonald's before making his comment

Have you ever heard of common sense? The books that Trent is defending are not inspired as the bible is. When you compare the books, the Apocrypha always stand out as contrary to biblical truth.

So common sense was not practiced before the 19th century? That's when these books were removed from protestant bibles.

​@@approvedofGodCircular argument. Next...

@@ricardomescouto6954 So, do you claim to be an expert with the Apocrypha, or just speaking outloud?

Exact

@YAJUN YUAN there is a recorded line of church leaders (popes) from the time of the Apostle Peter. There is also the historical records and writings of the Church to back that up. If you want to check if Catholicism today retains the same teaching and beliefs as it did in the 1st century church. You have to read the primary source writings of that era and make your own mind up?

@YAJUN YUAN The Bible has shown itself to be open to interpretation. Even the core of Christianity, "the route to salvation" is hotly contested by different groups. Some say belief is all you need, no need for good deeds lest you should boast. Others say you need faith which includes good deeds. So in this instance self interpretation of the Bible is not actually enough to determine the truth of the matter. What does Paul the Apostle say on the truth: "the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth".1 Tim 3:15 What does Peter say on self interpretation of scripture, especially Paul's dificult writings: "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."NIV 2Peter 3:15

@YAJUN YUAN thank you for your reply, you see here we cannot agree already on scripture! That's one of the reasons why Christ founded a Church, to have a living authority on earth to decide these matters. "Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven". The Church father's dealt with a lot of heresies similar to what we have today and won out over them.

@YAJUN YUAN if the Apostles believed they can all go off by themselves and work out their own salvation, then why did they need a Church? Surely a Bible was all they needed?

The amount of chaos and confusion he caused.. .... Uff. Hell is hot.

What do you call a heretic that is not terrible?

I think you'll find he was an excellent heretic

@Catholic Verity True we don't know. But.. he's the biggest religious chaos agent since Lucifer himself sooo...

Catholic Verity the chaos that tMatt talks about, though, was even evident in the fact that by the time Martin Luther died, his “church” had split 200 different times! So many others did to him what he did to the Catholic Church.

Yes, I agree it does take a lot of hubris

@David Ortiz how do you know that?

JESUS HIMSELF QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE "APOCRYPHA" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mParOC-So4k.html

Some copies of the Septuagint include 3rd and 4th Maccabees, which don't belong in the Catholic canon, so the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books depends on factors other than just being in the Septuagint.

@David Ortiz The Jews had the OT as Scripture and did not accept the Books of the Apochrypha as Scripture. They were removed from the Setuagint in the 3rd century I believe

It was removed from the Septuagint in 3rd century I believe

@Matt Blaise Thanks brother, glad to be here!

God bless you. His mercies are abundant! Thank you for your testimony! May all find Him in Truth.

@David Ortiz it certainly did!

@Dylan Christian Armour I'll pray your eyes will be open and that you may find the truth and come home.

Now you need to realize that you are still wrong and drop all that stupid god crap all together

Me too

@Paul_Dallimore Have you been born again Paul? What is the strong argument laid out for books which are not scripture being called scripture? If you are in Christ then don't go to Rome it teaches falsehood the apocrypha is not scripture. let me ask you two particular questions 1) Do you have assurance of salvation? 2) How can an unbeliever be saved?

@@gavin_hill Have you been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Gavin?

@@sterlingteall3462 Most certainly friend, how about yourself? Are you a christian, have you been born again?

@@gavin_hill If you have been baptised and have broken the ten commandments after your baptism then you must go to the sacrament of confession in order to renew your baptismal vows. And to answer your question about being born again, I'm not sure what type of "again" you are referring to.. fire of the Holy Spirit or have I recieved specific Grace's by God in order to fulfill my state in life. Everyone is granted the grace they need to fulfill the duties of their state in life as a christian after baptism, those are called the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The first and main thing we are to be worried about is remaining in a state of sacramental grace(or sanctifying grace).. otherwise everything is lost when you die... no one gets to Heaven without sanctifying grace.

@@sterlingteall3462 That is a lot of assertions, I prefer to deal with what the scripture actually teaches. If you don't know what I speak of about being born again how will you understand heavenly things? (As Jesus put it) 1)To be born again is to be born not of the flesh but of the spirit, unless you are born again you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. John3:3-8 2) we are saved by grace through faith, there is no such thing as sacraments. That is an invention of Rome that teaches contrary to scripture. Ephesians 2:8 3) your teaching of everything being lost is contrary to what Jesus said John10:27-30 So please let me know in response; have you been born again? and how can an unbeliever be saved?

kinda sounds like Martin Luther, who gave him his Protestant cannon.

spiritual pride is incredibly dangerous, when you see a protestant go off on evil Catholics or evil popes... consider if this protestant is following the new commandment of Jesus in the Gospels, and if those actions of criticism and PUBLIC judgement are conducive to healing Christians or to the promulgation of continued division amongst the sheep...I bet the enemy is laughing it up

You are wrong my dear. Allen's explanations are just some of the many that can be raised against these false books.

Yea, after that it is hard to take him seriously.

No actually I feel he is to the point on all his points he made He’s technically right. Purgatory or paying or praying your way to heaven The list goes on Sirach on the other hand is foolish to take out

Jordon. It sounds like you are on the "high road". Continue to read the Church Fathers, Augustine, Acquinas, Cardinal Newman, Chesterton, Belloc, Waugh and many others. Scott Hahn "read" his way into the Catholic Church.

@@marccrotty8447 Working on it! Thanks!

@@riverjao Hi again. Thought to provide a well stated extract on Catholic belief. You should find this thought provoking. Merry Christmas. "Jesus Christ, when upon earth, offered a perfect canticle of praise to His Father; His soul unceasingly contemplated the Divine perfections, and from this contemplation came forth his continual praise and adoration to the glory of His Father. By His Incarnation, Christ associated entire humanity, in principle, with this work of praise. When He left us, He gave to His Church the charge of perpetuating, in His Name, this praise due to the Father. Around the Mass, the centre of all our religion, the Church organizes the worship she alone has the right to offer in the name of Christ, Her Spouse. She weaves a garland of prayers, formulas and canticles which surround the Divine Sacrifice. All her worship relates to Christ. It is in leaning upon the infinite merits of Jesus upon His quality of universal and ever-living Mediator, that the Church ends all her supplications: Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who Liveth and reigneth with Thee; and in the same way, it is in passing through Christ that all the praise and adoration of the Church ascends to the Eternal Father and is accepted in the sanctuary of the Trinity: Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory. [Ordinary of the Mass] Such then is the manner in which the Church, founded by Jesus, continues His Divine work here below. The Church is the authentic depositary of the doctrine and law of Christ, and the distributor of His Graces among men. Lastly, she is the Bride of Christ who, in Christ's name, offers perfect praise to God for all her children. Christ came upon earth, not only for those who lived at that time in Palestine, but for men of all times. When He deprived men of His sensible presence, He gave them the Church with her doctrine, jurisdiction, Sacraments and worship, to be as another Christ; it is in the Church that we can find Him. No one goes to the Father--and to go the Father is all salvation and all sanctity--except through Christ: No man cometh to the Father, but by me (John 14:6). But remember well this no less important truth: no one goes to Christ except through the Church; we only belong to Christ if we belong in fact or in desire to the Church. It is only in the unity of the Church that we can live the life of Christ. Since the Incarnation, God has (normally) chosen to act through men. God could directly reveal to us what we must do to come to Him, but that is not his way. He sends us to a man like ourselves from whom we must hold all doctrine. When someone sins, they must submit to the humiliation of making known their sin to this man, who fills the place of Christ. From eternity, God beheld the Incarnation. His Son united Himself to humanity and saved the world by becoming Incarnate. God thus wills that it should be through the intermediary of men (weak like ourselves) that grace be poured out upon the world. This is an extension of the Incarnation. God has drawn near to us in the Person of His Son made man and, since then, it is through the members of His Son that he continues to enter into communication with our souls. God wills this to exalt His Son by referring all to His Incarnation. This visible manner attaches to the Incarnation the whole economy of our salvation and sanctification, until the end of time. The Church has a double element - the human and Divine. Frail men hold the power of Christ in order to direct us. He could have made his Priests sinless, but has not so willed. Rather, we are to exercise faith. We have great confidence in the Church that Jesus left to us. Let us give our obedience to those who have jurisdiction over us, which Christ demands of us. The intellect and will must be given to God in the person of a man, otherwise God does not accept it. The Church is the Bride of Christ, our Mother. She brings us to Jesus and unites us with Him. The Church is a visible society, "built upon the foundation of the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:19-22)." Quoted from Abbot Marmion The Structure of God's Plan [edited for brevity]

Fine. Show him a video that comports to your standards. He will rip that to shreds to. There isn't always another side to every topic. Luther removed those books from the canon to undermine the sale of indulgences. We both know that. It was a noble goal, because it was corruption on the part of the church. But removing seven books to do it went too far. Luther threw out the baby with the bathwater. And since the Gutenberg Bible records the Bible with 73 books before the reformation, it's clear that Luther removed them. It's on him.

That was based on the myth of the Council of Jamnia, which never happened. Also, not all Jews have the same Cannon. If you're interested, Dr.Brant Pitre has a video about it

@@8dodger7 If what you say about adam is true then it is also true that you are a heretical follower of Rome rather than God. Since Rome teaches contrary to the word of God.

@@8dodger7 Dear Dodger, I think you jumped to a wrong conclusion. Adam was not saying that Verum was incorrect in but in the reason for the conclusion. There was no "Council of Jamnia" -- a rabbi in the 1800s theorized it into "existence". In point of fact, the Jewish Scriptures were not "closed" for centuries. So, @Verum is perfectly correct that the Jewish rabbis had no authority over what books the Christians should accept. And Adam is also correct that there are, to this day, Jews whose Scriptures are not the same as the Protestant Old Testament. And Brant Pitre is a Catholic Biblical scholar in high regard and absolute orthodoxy. My dear, we all make mistakes. Let's not use name-calling in the future, okay?

Adam Hovey I heard somewhere that many Jews in medieval times read from the book of Tobit during certain times of the year.

It’s not a matter of “removing the books” as you say. It’s a matter of whether they ever belonged in the canon at all

It isn't true that that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox use the exact same Bible as Catholics. They have more books in the Old Testament such as 1 Esdras and additons to Psalms.

@@MarvelGamer2023 That may be true in a limited basis but that doesn't mean that they don't also use the original Chirstian Bible with ALL the books. Martin Luther had an agenda that caused great damage to the Christian Church as a whole. Luther mutilating the Christian Bible to push his new manmade religion is just one example how he left the Christian Apostolic Church behind.

Thank you for writing this ..because this calmed my spirit...we all have to work out our own salvation..me.personally have only gained understanding from reading the apocrypha...but my father argues against it but some will receive and some won't ..God will help us all

If the bible is the culmination of thr inspired word of God then look up why The apocrypha set is considered the inspired word. don’t look up if it is, look up why it is.

You are in no way correct in your ideas. Some of these books teach the occult. How dare you say that they are scripture.

@@approvedofGod can you quote an example?

@@cloudx4541 I will give you two examples from memory. The book of Tobit has an interesting point. A certain individual is instructed by an angel to carry in a pouch, "fish eyes, liver, and gull." Upon coming across a demon possessed individual, he hurls or cast the fish' eyes, liver, and gull at the person. This of course, brings deliverance. This is total hogwash and witchcraft. Bel and the Dragon (second book of Daniel) has Daniel making a concoction and feeding it to a dragon, which explodes. This is fiction, not word of God.

Read this comment RIGHT after he took a sip 😂🤣

I pray for my loved ones because I love and remember them , I don't pay anything. I just remember with love and thanks.

He didn't demolish anything but keep you brainwashed to the same catholic lies

@@dieselcowboy777 and what is the truth? Your comment which contains no reasonable argument at all, just mere insult? Or maybe your own personal interpretation of the Bible? Not so convincing. Maybe try doing what Trent does, splicing through your position's strongest arguments and demolishing them point by point by KNOWING the Bible, not just memorizing and interpreting its passages, but also knowing its true historical context. Then we might believe your 16th century "truth".

@@heyman.712 the holy ghost came a 2nd time during the mass Pentecostal revivals of the 40s and 50s and 60s and restored all things or all truths..... And the holy ghost then found the espoused apostate catholic church corrupted by all her fornications and adulteries which she has made the whole world drunk with and has divorced her .....Confirming many things we had already probed at.... Plus the holy ghost came to fulfill the marriage of the lamb and bride and His choice for a bride is a small Pentecostal non trinitarian church that baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ...and i don't mean the UPC either....

Lutherans make a distinction between mortal and venial sin and consider private confession and holy absolution as the third sacrament.

@@Paul-el4zd True but honestly I feel Lutherans and Anglicans, for instance, are 'sane' Christians who still abide by Liturgical worship practices. The Evangelicals, like this man Allen Parr, are the problem believers.

@Victor_Morales Definitely his video was not a strong video, but he is on the right side of the truth. I would ask you these questions 1) Have you been born again 2) Do you have assurance of salvation 3) How can an unbeliever be saved

@@gavin_hill Have you been baptised in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Gavin?

@David Ortiz what do you mean by "we work our salvation with fear and trembling"? And I think he means "How can an unbeliever become saved in this life?" :)

Imagine if the protestant Bible had revelations removed. That would have taken a lot of steam out of the evangelical movement.

Bad move indeed, less you know about God's promises less you know about they were fulfilled in Christ. Admittedly I haven't quite acquired the time or the bible version suitable for such a dive, I can however suggest to you a channel that gets the meat of the OT well enough: Bible project. You might know em' but just in case...

David Ortiz It’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Protestants aren’t Christian.

JESUS HIMSELF QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE "APOCRYPHA" (DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mParOC-So4k.html

How are you a Christian when Christ said he came in the volume of the book, there was no new testament then. You can't watch a 2nd part of the movie without the first. To grasp the fullness of the gospel, you need to start with the foundation.

@@dawsonpark6819 absolutely correct! Catholics also ignore most of the Old Testament. That's such a wrong approach in modern Christian religion. The OT is the fundamental structure of the Bible to understand the need for the Messiah.

Christ be with you Protestants must make assumptions, their doctrines do not stand up to the light of Truth. God bless you

MrKev1664 Amen and God bless!

As a former anti catholic, they just want to attack the catholic church without even understanding the catholic faith. They babbles based on false assumptions and misunderstanding the true christian faith.

Reformed Reston Amen! Protestants like these made me run screaming away from anything Protestant! I don’t mind if they disagree with what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches, but they need to at the very least get their facts straight! 🙄

David Ortiz Indeed! I just have to shake my head sometimes and wonder where they come up with this stuff! At least the Catholic Church sticks to her guns and doesn’t try to say what they think people want to hear. The catechism is written out for anyone to read and all over the internet. If you have questions or don’t believe what someone says, read the Catechism and it’s supporting documents!

JESUS HIMSELF QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE "APOCRYPHA" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mParOC-So4k.html

@Matt What is the true faith? Can you tell me

@David Ortiz Thanks for your answer but I was not asking you. I did ask you a question on another thread so feel free to answer it friend.

@David Ortiz That is fine, but as I said I have also already asked you a question a few weeks ago; How can an unbeliever be saved?

@@soystudios2778 He did not quote from the apocryphal books.

@YAJUN YUAN I see little of what point your message has on the matter of my response to the original videos false presumption that the Catholic Church only codified the dueterocannonicals at Trent, when it's found considerably earlier. Secondly, Florence is steeped in a rich patristic tradition on the Filioque so it's a moot point.

Trent gavw 3-5 points backed with example or citations to the "assumptions and opinions " of Allen..........dude it wasnt even close.

1. 8:00 allen talks about inconsistencies in doctrine but you reply in 8:21 or 8:16. That there are errors (you don't specify what kind which is important Numerical or doctrine ). 8:28 that's actually false atheists will argue that the bible is false because it seems to have inconsistencies (which it doesn't) or it has Numerical errors (which can be explained and are understandable when you know how the bible came together. (Scribes) 8:40 which errors? What kind of errors? 2. 9:20 wonderful question. The answer is simple the Jews that believed in christ either did not want to add those books or didn't add those books into their scriptures. Even the Jewish tanahk doesn't have any of the apocrypha books. Josephus actually believed that they shouldn't be considered scripture. Not that they shouldn't be read or studied or anything like that bit that they were not scripture. 10:17 that's because there is an argument that those books should have never been in the bible. Or considered scripture. There is a difference between scripture inspired by God and writings from men of god. 11:14 that is false because the errors in the apocrypha are of biblical doctrine and the errors in just the bible are minor mistakes that can be ascribed to Scribes, who were tasked to make copies of the bible. Your really reaching with this point it is very clear the apocrypha should have never been considered scripture. 11:30 that's the problem with you. The opposite can also be said. You have already considered the apocrypha as scripture so your trying to defend it. Instead of going into a discussion like this get to the point. Why do you think the apocrypha is divinely inspired message of god? 3. 12:59 answer this does the apocrypha books showcase people praying for the dead sins to be forgiven (essentially for their salvation). 1. and 2. Does the pope or Catholic Church have this teaching in the Catholic Church for those prayers. That they help in some way. You can talk about born this and that but is it a teaching that existed or exists in Catholic churches? If yes. Then that's the point and the problem with these books. If no. Then we disagree. 13:20-13:35 this is not taught in the new testament or books outside the apocrypha. Which is obviously the problem. 13:47 I'm sorry you accused allen of coming into this assuming the apocrypha is not scripture but you have done the same in the opposite direction. 14:14 you haven't watched the whole video first he gives the errors and then why they aren't to be considered scripture. 17:01 personally I think your explanation is stupid. Truly. Its safe to assume they were idol worshipping because they'll brought those idols when they went to war. Any explanation against this is most certainly stupid. 4. 19:24 question did the 12 Apostles accept Jesus as their Lord and personal saviour? If they did we have at least 12. Not to mention the book of acts. This proves 19:40 to be false.(the point you made) 21:20 the point that you cleverly skipped was that it was for salvation which is not found in the OT (OLD TESTAMENT). Not that this practise for the living did not exist. But for the dead this did not exist. 5. I skipped to this part because there was no further need to talk on this. 41:20 - 42:06 First and foremost your right about your point but it does not consider what the early Church and the Jews of note said. So someone who I can look up just some random some Jews. Plus the main point is what is in the tanahk today. Not a random jew. 6. Josephus 42:44 The problem when you make your point is that you go straight to the samaritains. Were talking about Jews not samaritians I know they are related but there is at least a separation thats why one is jew and the other is samaritain. Invalid point. Bring up Jews to argue that josephus was exaggerating in this point. Someone of note like josephus not a random. 45:10 again the problem with you. You refer to translations as changes to the text abd taking away and adding to them, which is false. 47:00 - 47:30 The point still stands they believed in 22. The ones they believe till today. Some believe 24 or more is not the point we are talking about most Jews not the obscure or smaller sects. 50:10 you could be right about this. That does not mean the apocrypha should be accepted. I have to do more research. 51:50 you say prophecy and not prophets or least prophets who had done inspiration to write scripture. (The latter is what I'm arguing). Why? Allen said prophets not prophecy. 7. Jesus not affirming apocrypha 1:05:40 - 1:06:24 Your wrong. If Jesus affirmed those books then we accept it as scripture. Full stop don't make assumptions of what protestants would do. It's not necessarily and shows your bias. Don't talk on something you don't know but admit that that Jesus did not affirm this. 1:07:20 - he isn't cutting out the old testament he is giving examples of how it should be done. It doesn't necessarily need to be in that way. But it does need to happen which is the point. Your arguing something pointless. 1:08:50 this is your answer. Jesus did not affirm these books. Plus the roman catholics scholars wanted to remove them from the beginning of the church history. 8. Roman Catholic scholars (Council of trent) 1:09:31 1:10:30- 1:11:30 your gonna have to prove this. It seems from research that Jerome just didn't think they were cannon because of Jews. That translation thing you mentioned could be true but he did not believe they were cannon because of Jews. 1:12:40 actually he affirms the church as an authority in making this choice and believed they were scripture jus not part of cannon. There is a small difference. 1:14:48 maybe he wanted to remove James because of how catholics and many other Christians misinterpret it. He is talking about a dead faith. And in context you understand James by reading the whole chapter. Fortunately he didn't. So discussing that at this time again is pointless.

@@CaryChilton I wasn't saying that their arguments were equally valid, just that this video showed both positions pretty well.

alray nice

Just look at genesis and the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old or that the earth is flat.

Saying that any books of the Bible contain error is heresy, as I understand. Limited inerrancy has been condemned by the Church, especially in papal encyclicals from the past couple centuries. The Bible may not be a science book, so you can't use it to teach things like flat earth or geocentrism, but it is objectively a history book among other things. To say that it has historical errors is to make God the author of error.

@@TheZeroSbr the Bible as a whole for transmitting in its purity the truth that leads to salvation, but it leaves open the possibility that individual authors may have erred, especially with regard to scientific and historical matters not connected with salvation. This does not mean that the Bible is a patchwork of errant and inerrant passages. As understood by the council, the whole Bible is authoritative and trustworthy in what it affirms about the revelation of God and the plan of salvation.

Holy Spirit telling you to pray for the dead? Bruh

Augustine? One of the early Church Fathers? Where is it in his writings? Provide Context

@@vladlucius6928 Yes, St Augustine of Hippo. The last third of his book called "Confessions" is dedicated to Genesis, particularly the formation of the world as presented. He has very enlightening thoughts on the matter.

its a job for him... lazy heretic

I don't think he has to read them. I believe a lot of these false teachers know the Truth, they just reject it. It's how they can quote the Early Church Fathers against us.

@2005wsoxfan Challenged him to read books by roman catholics? perhaps he was busy, I challenge you to read Scripture Alone by James R White www.amazon.com.au/Scripture-Alone-James-R-White/dp/0764220489 Remember if you refuse it will be judged to you as you judged others "to afraid to" & the same applies to you @8dodger7 its a job for you "lazy heretic"

@@gavin_hill I read it. Not impressed.

@@gavin_hill James white is 1 of the most demonic anti Cathoiic heretics I've ever seen. Sola scriptura is not Biblical anyway you slice it... it is protestant tradition of men like the heretic James White. Maybe i will take your challenge, but the Truth can not be refuted and it lies within the Church God founded... not james whites. Vaticancatholic.com

I'm not sure if was in this rebutal or another one, but i've heard one Protestant using Jo 6, 66 as proof for a metaphoric interpretation of Jo 6, 22-69. Damn, that's really twisting the evidence... and very, very sad, also!

@YAJUN YUAN i'm not 100% sure, but i feel you're being ironic, right? I would say that most people will stop research once they have a couple of nice evidence to suport what they already believe. That would be a great example of a farfeched reasoning only acceptable to someone struggling for evidence.

@YAJUN YUAN Yahun, Catholics have the truth, just like St. Paul, inspired by The Holy Spirit, tells you in: 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 15. if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH. Therefore: We declare THE CHURCH, not the Bible, IS the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH. God bless.

@YAJUN YUAN Yahun, 90% of the population at the time of St. Paul was illiterate. The propagation of the Gospel was done orally by the one true Church, that is the Catholic Church located everywhere, through its representatives who were duly authorized via the imposition of hands by the Apostles and their successors. So St. Paul had people whom he instructed with the Gospel, who were educated and were able to teach others in their respective areas. However in those times there were certain ambitious individuals, such as the gnostics, who were spreading false teachings and were rebuked by St. Paul. Such activity did not stop, continuing to spread false teachings just as it's happening today with the advent of self-appointed preachers and pastors who create their own churches or sects, amalgamating their personal thinking and preferences to the Bible in their instructions. Remember these words you avoid to acknowledge Yajun: "If he, a sinning brother, refuses to listen even to THE CHURCH (not churches), let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Mt 18:17). And what happens when we listen to the Church? We listen to Jesus: "He who listens to you, LISTENS TO ME". (Luke 10:16) WHY? Because full authority is only given to Jesus' ONE Church: "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). Can you see? Yajun, as successors of Peter and the Apostles, The Pope and all the bishops together are the magisterium of the ONE true Church Jesus established and gave permission to NO ONE to found separate churches with varied "opinions" based on a man-made doctrine that a self appointed "wise man" named Luther would invent 1,500 years later. REMEMBER! JOHN 16, 13 13. When the SPIRIT of TRUTH comes, He WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. If you believe God as ONE Holy Trinity, then you should have no problem in accepting Jesus' demand for UNITY when He warned them that: "every kingdom DIVIDED against itself shall be made DESOLATE: and every city or house DIVIDED against itself SHALL NOT STAND" (Matthew 12:25). What does St. Paul tells you about unity? He declares that those guilty of "DISSENSION" and "SECTS" shall NOT obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). But, as you know, Luther, disregarding the Holy Spirit guidance of the Church, decided one day to "protest" against the Church to go on a separate journey through the invention of a new doctrine, absent in the Bible, which he named "Sola Scriptura", inspiring him to begin dividing the Body of Christ through personal Bible interpretations and opinions, against the clear will of Jesus who said in: JOHN 17:20-23 20. “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that THEY MAY BE ONE as WE ARE ONE - 23. I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to COMPLETE UNITY. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. I ask you: How could you continue to be part of the division of the Body of Christ, against His Will? LUTHER DID IT! Why do you want to imitate such wanton behavior? Do you see the result? More than 68,000 "protestant" churches and sects around the world today. Remember the clear warning expressed to you by our Lord: "If he, a sinning brother, refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector". (Mt 18:17) St. Paul believes Jesus and brands schism and disunion as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, declaring that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects", shall not obtain the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:20-21) Any doubts? May God bless your discernment.

@YAJUN YUAN Don't need to. I know my sources. By the way, I like Trent. Thanks and God bless.

Moat protestants are not as diplomatic as you are. Just check out the comments on various official protestant videos that rail against Catholics and call them demonic. I don't see any official Catholic videos that do the same with protestants. For myself I don't care if someone is Catholic or protestant. I'm just more comfortable being a Catholic.

Wow! Beautifully said. I was going to say the same thing. I'm just a person trying to live a holy life, which God calls us all to do, but I've noticed that people, especially Christians (protestant, catholic, whoever...) are so rude to each other. It's time to take a step back and get the planks put of our our eyes, and reflect on how we are talking to amd treating each other. It's ok to debate, but to be rude, sarcastic, and plain ungodly isn't called for. Reflect on yourselves.

Just come home to jesus church already

You are quoting that out of context. That doesn't mean what you are trying to use it for.

No that's wrong. We do. We also believe in the authority of the Jews when it comes to the books of the old testament. And the apocrypha is not there.

@@Jonathan-tw4xm if you truly did, you wouldn't be protestant. Catholicsm through a council established the biblical canon of the bible. The apocrypha was apart of the original canon of the bible. Even early protestants had it like Luther's Gutenberg bible and the early edition of the KJV.