The "extra books" were not adopted at the council of Trent, the canon was confirmed at Trent as the Canon already in use for the last at least 1300 years. Protestants removed these books from their bibles over the next 100 years after Trent.
The extra books were not in the original Hebrew canon. They were added to the Greek Septuagint with a status of secondary, thus the name "deuterocanonical." The canon confirmed in whole at Trent was gradually built by Rome with a clear agenda. Anyone who cares to research the subject further should start at the commission of the Greek Septuagint & try to answer the question: were these books considered to be inspired by Jerome? The answer is demonstrated clearly by the very name given to them.
Great stuff. I would ask the brother on the left, though, what he admires about the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, it has done some good in the area of academics, and even the staving off "barbarian" attacks in the Middle Ages, but theologically it preaches another "gospel."
@@johnsteila6049 If by "Catholic," you mean the universal Church, then it is true that the universal (Catholic) Church preserved the N.T. Canon. As regards deciding the Canon, are you referring to the Council of Rome, which supposedly issued the “Decretum Gelasianum”?
@@LeeBartoletti I’m not attempting to point to any particular date or council. I’m simply trying to emphasize the importance that The Early Church had in forming “The NT Canon”. I’m assuming that you are educated on this subject. It can be frustrating to debate this topic with some who are not.
I would argue that the theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, are matters of interpretation that cannot be ultimately proven by one side or the other. I do however, hold much respect and gratitude to The Catholic and Orthodox Churches for their roles in forming the foundations of the principles that all Christians accept today and also the preservation of The Holy Bible.
Question: Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ? Answer: No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired. The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon. If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren’t in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
I know how to answer this argument but in the first minutes he said something that was wrong. None of the apostles mention the apocrypha, but Jude does?
Re: translation, this raises the question of who has the authority to translate considering exegesis is part of all translations as you point out. Is this exegesis by the translators infallible? I sure hope so, otherwise sola scriptura is rendered meaningless. But it’s also rendered meaningless if your hold that the translations are infallible- which is why so many Protestants hold that only the *original* scriptures are infallible… which we don’t have. So, in reality, we don’t know if the scriptures we have are infallible… unless they came from an infallible body empowered by God with the authority to “bind and loose.” In other words, no infallible church = no infallible text.
Came here looking for answers, got served a heaping helping of WORD SALAD. Kruger says, regarding Hebrews, "You don't have to actually know the name of the author in order to know that they're positioned in a way to speak for God." Please explain how you can know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an anonymous writer is "positioned to speak for God." What does that even mean? Seems like the more I hear about how we got the Bible, the sketchier it becomes -- like it is just an arbitrary selection of books, chosen by men who used their best judgement to assemble a "canon" that, to my knowledge, was never even commanded to be assembled in the writings it contains. And you’re not even allowed to question its legitimacy? As a wise man once said, "I'd rather have a question that can't be answered, than an answer that can't be questioned." I think I now understand why there are "presuppositional apologetics." Those who believe the Bible is perfect in every way, including its completeness, fear that such a belief can't stand up to rational scrutiny. The closest they can get by sound reasoning is that it "could" be true, without knowing for certain. So, they invented "presuppositional" apologetics to avoid ever allowing doubt to enter the conversation, which would inevitably enter their minds if they just followed sound reasoning. They cannot allow themselves to ever question the faith, as it would (ironically) be an act of doubting. Tradition has taught them what the Bible is supposed to be, and they will not allow any argumentation -- no matter how logically sound -- to interfere with their belief. Meanwhile, I would LOVE to be able to be at peace accepting that the Bible is what they claim it is -- the complete, inerrant revelation of God to man -- if only someone could make me logically understand, step-by-step, how we got the Bible and that it would be unreasonable to entertain otherwise. So, would love for someone -- anyone -- to give a succinct explanation of this. The guy in this video certainly does NOT.
While Jesus Peter Paul John etc… never cite the apocrypha books as scripture, it does seem like Jude does, at least with 1 Enoch. In Jude 14-15 Jude says ”But Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, also prophesied about these men, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Jude here quotes directly from 1 Enoch 1:9 and says that Enoch prophesied this, meaning Jude thought the writer of Enoch was under the influence of the Holy Spirit when he said this. Now I don’t think that 1 Enoch is inspired but i think Jude clearly thought it was. So if Jude that an uninspired book was inspired, I think that raises serious questions of whether Jude was inspired.
You are correct, and Jude , Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews are believed to have done the same. However, those authors never refer to those apocryphal "books" as inspired, or God-breathed. As regards the Septuagint, that was simply the Old Testament translated into Greek, the language of many of 1st century Jews.
Why is Hebrews “scripture?” You just said that Hebrews would be considered scripture because it purports to contain teaching by an Apostle. But how do you know this? Moreover, there are other books which could claim the same thing which are not in the NT canon… like the Didache or I Clement. I would even add Ignatius’ epistles consisting he was ordained and taught by the apostles.
I'm sad we didn't get to hear the other guy's fun questions. The q&a kinda ended on an awkward note instead. Thanks for making making this available very helpful. Thankful for your ministry.
If we found a letter of Paul today this guy doesn’t know if it’d be canon or not? What a scholar, doesn’t even understand God’s promise of preservation. If it wasn’t preserved to every generation then it isn’t inspired.
Why are there no Women writing letters? It's because letters are written from Elders/Apostles to churches or people - which are only men. Simple as that. Otherwise, the authority of the letter wouldn't be there and people from that time knew it.
The English word BIBLE came from the Latin word "BIBLIA" which means BOOK or Collection of Books... the Roman Catholic Church under Emperor Constantine commanded/ordered the Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D. to collect/gather all the scriptures, gospel, and epistles from O.T to N.T. and put them all together into One Book called BIBLE in English... Since all O.T. Scriptures were written in Hebrew-Aramaic by the Israelite Jews and 2/3 of the N.T. gospels/epistles were written in Greek, and Emperor Constantine was a Roman whose language is LATIN, he also commanded the Council to TRANSLATE and TRANSLITERATE both Hebrew-Aramic and Greek into LATIN language called VULGATE for the Vast Roman Citizen at that time...
This was pretty shallow, to be honest. Did these guys even read any of the apocryphal books or did they just read about them... It seems like they're naive children who are afraid of and offended by extra-canonical writings...
@@victorrene3852 So where does the Bible or any other historical document say "Protestant churches". Nowhere! Except for 1500 years after Christ and his aposltes.
@@victorrene3852 "Catholic Church" was first used in 100AD to differentiate the Church from those groups that broke from it. And it was used at Antioch, where the believers were first known as Christians.
