I reckon it's because these questions being asked are quite common.. It's the same thing people ask over and over. Dr. Turek has been doing this for a long time and is obviously diligent enough to be ready with a well prepared answer
@@Starblazer27correct. Atheists are like parrots, they all say the same things and go down the same logical fallacy rabbit holes in an effort to evade God. Whatever sound bites they hear from Matt Dillahunty (a failed atheist), Aron-Ra (laughably embarrassing) and the late Christopher Hitchens (an anti-theist who died bitter and angry), they regurgitate without actually trying to understand what they're saying.
Don't worry about God's word. That is God's problem and He has always kept His word safe and secure and it will endure when this old earth has passed away.
This! So many people arguing over what was put in, what was taken out, this copy is correct and this copy is not... Do they not have true faith in Him, that He keeps His word secure?
The question was how can we be sure that the books in the bible belong... it’s actually not exactly Gods problem but for us to figure out. That’s why we had the church fathers for example
Love you on atheist apologetics Frank, but you're off on the P vs C stuff. So the Church added the Deuterocanonical books after Luther rejected them? How does that make sense? The Church *reaffirmed* what had been there for 15 centuries only after the Protestants started throwing them out 30 years before Trent. Note that Luther tried mightily to toss James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as well. He was tossing books that disagreed with his novel theology. You won't find a Bible before 1517 that doesn't have the 'apocrypha," a derogatory term by the way. And by the way, the councils this young man mentions (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) also affirmed the canon of the Septuagint OT along with the canon of the NT. This should go without saying but these councils were Councils of the Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Damasus. I mean one was in Rome after all. If you accept the NT canon then you accept the infallible decision of a Pope.
the apocryphal books have some weird things in them that are more paganistic in rituals, spirit beings somehow managing to have sex with humans and producing children (how does a spirit being created by God produce sperm or impart DNA and start the cell division process?) when Christ said that the children of the resurrection are to be as the angels are, spirit-composed, and not marrying nor given into marriage, etc
@@bobbrockway453 Where does the Gospel of Jesus teach that all men sin? Romans 3:23 for one. Maybe you don't know the meaning of Infallible? All men FALL. Able to Fall. Make Mistakes, Sin. That is why God is God, and Men are men.
Exactly. I feel bad for all the people that believe these well dressed and well spoken wolves. That young man in the video had a humble heart and was seeking the truth. Too bad this imposter tricked him and everyone else who liked this video.
The problem with the concept of "canon" is that there is not one instruction from God in any of the scriptures to create one thus, the act of creating a canon was entirely a man-made endeavor. Dr. Turek is right that the canon doesn't have to be accurate for the gospel to be. And when it comes to the Old testament canon, there wasn't one during the time of Christ and He didn't command or prophesy that man develop one. Yet, one was developed but by the PHARISEES at the Council of Jamnia. That begs the question, though, of how could a group of scholars that Christ always disputed recognize what writings were "inspired by God" when they couldn't recognize the living God in front of them? I think it idiotic that Christians use the findings of the Pharisees as an authoritative one. Another issue is the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts. Shouldn't a council be called to see if any of those were inspired? An obvious problem to call such a council is who has the authority to call such a council? Another is whom would they select to sit on the council. And still another is why would any of us accept their findings and on what authority? Basically, one has to believe that the council members wqere as led by the spirit as the writers themselves. Otherwise, everyone is really just putting their faith in intellectualism.
Excellent arguement. So many bible versions.. so many christian denominations. Its difficult to arrive at the absolute truth about God's revelation from moses through Jesus's time. So many traditions and interpretations. The young man is genuine in his concern for knowing which bible is the right one. Should i be a catholic or protestant? Pray to mary or not? Papal authority or not? Its a real concern
Andrew Cyrus - As a Catholic, I’m happy to direct you to resources to help inform you on the Catholic perspective on these issues when I was struggling with these exact same questions. No worries if you’re not interested. Regardless, I find Dr. Turek’s videos very interesting, especially the ones regarding atheism.
As always, the issue regarding the canon of scripture is the Achilles' heel of the Protestants when it comes in determining which books should belong in the Bible. They believe in Sola Scriptura but nowhere in using scripture alone can we determine what are the inspired books. There is no inspired "table of contents." There's no way around it; Protestants have to go outside of scripture to determine what constitutes scripture. Whether Protestants realize it or not, they are ultimately agreeing to the decisions of the Catholic councils of Carthage and Hippo in finally codifying the canon of scripture. Tragically, Luther came along and removed the deuterocanonical books even though Christians have been using the Catholic canon for over 1,500 years. His decision to remove the deuterocanonical books is because they are missing from the Hebrew Old Testament canon and there are teaching in these books that contradicts his theology. What Luther failed to realize is that Jesus and his apostles quoted from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and it includes the deuterocanonical books! If Jesus uses the Septuagint and it includes the deuterocanonical, then it's quite obvious that Christians should be using this Old Testament version too. I highly recommend Gary Michuta's book "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" for a comprehensive explanation on this issue.
I disagree (which is not surprising since I'm a Protestant). You are correct in that we must go outside the Bible to determine exactly which books belong in the Bible. But so what? God didn't promise to give us an inerrant canon, much as we wish He had. We must do the best we can, trusting in the Holy Spirit to aid us, and ascertain which books qualify as canon. It really isn't as difficult a job as all that, if we are allowed to assume the testimony of the early church as a guide. And what do we find? That nearly all the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were accepted by every early Christian leader/scholar/writer. The "extra" books (including the Apocrypha) did not enjoy that sort of unanimity. The councils of Carthage and Hippo, I posit, were only local councils, so their opinions are not conclusive. Slowly, over the Medieval Period, the Apocrypha grew in favor, but it never gained the level of support granted the rest of the Bible until Protestants drew a line in the sand and the RCC retaliated by codifying (for the first time) all of the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture. Yes, Protestants favor the list of OT books accepted by Jerusalem Jews (and by MANY early church fathers) in the first century, while disregarding any extra books that appear in Septuagint versions (there are differing versions of the Septuagint with different Apocryphal books, after all). In doing so we return the canon to a more pristine state and are avoid the danger of putting trust in the writings of mere men. The Septuagint is a wonderful resource, and the fact that Jesus quoted from it is a big point in its favor, but not a conclusive one. At least that's my assessment.
If you only count the books that Jesus explicitly endorsed then you end up with 12 books, counting the gospels. If you move beyond that to the books affirmed by the apostles you still come short of the protestant canon, but arguably could end up with 2 Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon since there is a case Hebrews and Matthew respectively affirm those books, Maccabees is a stronger case. If you move to what the early Church leaders affirmed on their own and at councils then you end up with the Catholic canon.😮
Argues as if the present configuration is automatically authoritative while ignoring the extraordinary diversity of early Christianity, the doctrinal infighting,(most of the arguments he levels toward atheists were originally directed by church fathers toward other Christians) and sheer length of time involved in the formation of the Canon.. In implying a divinely inspired process of discrimination he deliberately leaves out problems of translation, the discovery of older manuscripts(and obvious later additions) and placating the Roman Empire to become the state religion.
Sir with due respect the Old Testament Dueterocanonical books that you describe as “apocryphal “were not added to the Bible by the Roman Catholics at Trent . They were part of the Septuagint Old Testament that the Orthodox Church has used since 33AD . And when Jesus quoted anything from the scriptures he quoted the Septuagint.
The Septuagint has all 17 of these books. This is what the Orthodox Churches accept. Anglicans accept 14 of the books and Catholics accept 7. Protestants accept none. Catholics didn't add books, Protestants threw out books.
Reverend? Mr. J Roger Allen sir, are you not aware that wearing religious titles is expressly condemned? Jesus forbids the practice when He said, Matthew 23:8-10 ("But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your Master, even Christ.") This practice of elevating one brother above another is contrary to the spirit of Christianity that "ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." In the old testament Job new that exalting man displeased God, when he said, Job 32:21-22("Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, neither let me give FLATTERING TITLES unto man. For I know not to give FLATTERING TITLES; in so doing my maker would soon TAKE ME AWAY.") Gods Word does not teach we are to form a clergy- laity in doing so we violate Matthew 23:8-10 Gods Word teaches that All christians are priests. 1Peter 2:5 ("you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy PRIESTHOOD...") And 1Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen generation, a royal PRIESTHOOD,...") 1 Corinthians 4:6 ("....Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be PUFFED UP in being a follower of one of us OVER AGAINST THE OTHER.")
@Dd S James 1:21 "if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is USELESS." You mentioned 1 Corinthians 4:15 ..."I became your Father..." Now show me just one verse in the Inspired Word of God where the Apostle Paul is referred to as Father by a fellow brother in Christ. This is what Paul really thought of being exalted above his brother's and sisters in Christ, 1Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have FIGURATIVELY transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you be PUFFED UP on behalf of one AGAINST the OTHER."
@@Eisho.G As a Catholic I sadly agree with the Orthodox Church about the Papacy. Because in reality the Papacy is what CAUSED the Protestant Reformation.
This guy got so many things wrong that it would take a 45 minute video to explain it all. But a huge sticking point is Jesus and the apostles quoted and referenced the writings of Enoch more than 100 times. They also taught from the apocryphal and 2 Esdras. Jesus even quotes a Dead Sea Scroll passage that isn't found anywhere else. And since Jesus is the Living Word, it makes sense that he would only teach from his inspired word and no one else's. So as it turns out the OT is lacking many inspired books. And if Protestants are wrong about the OT, what makes anyone think they got it right when it comes to the NT.
Yeah there's a difference between the Catholic church old testament and the protestant old testament. I was invited to a Catholic church to sit in on an R.C.I.A.class and there were married couples and single people there, the only bibles that were there were the Catholic church bible. Being brought up in the church of christ since my youth. My dad was a minister so we had a lot of teachings and scripture reading along with studying. The priest was talking about the commandments and what it relates to us. I noticed that 2 and 10 were taken completely out of their bibles. So i asked him what happened to these laws he couldn't answer my question. So later that night i went to my king james bible to compare scriptures. And lo and behold theyve taken 2 out to accommodate their maki g images and worship of people places and things. Took 10 out to accommodate coveted objects claimed that they have a right to these objects.
Old comment, but they didn’t remove any commandments. They just split up the verses differently. Now the first commandment also includes what Protestants consider the second commandment.
Oh by the way, Jesus DID quote the Duoteralcanonical books, the books protestants (aka "Christians") reject, and the apostles also quoted from the book of Maccabees, etc.
WAIT a minute, hi's premise begs the question; WHO AUTHORIZED the Canon? there was close to 200 false gospels (Apocryphal) and Frank does not answer WHO authorized them, and this student knows the Truth, there was a CONSENSUS, Carthrige, Hippo and Rome, they were all Catholic bishops, one of them involve the Pope, and they came through prayer and illumination of the Holy Spirit to discern which books are divinely inspired.
At the end of the day that Catholics are the ones that decided what goes in the Bible. That's why the Book of Enoch is not in it even though Yeshua study the Book of Enoch. Don't forget canons come from Roman law
I'd say a good way to confirm scripture is to (like the doctor was saying with paul and luke) compare scripture with scripture as it wouldn't contradict itself, for instance: if the new testament (which we are saved upon) teaches that christ is the only name, that it is the name above all names, than it would contradict with the old testament's several versions referring to other names (YHWH, JHVH and also El, Elohim, Eloah, Elohai, El Shaddai, and Tzevaot). Now further research would show that the vowels of those names are unknown and the names themselves are gotten from the tetragrammaton. God told moses "I am. Jesus quotes "I am" in the new testament and not any other names, therefore you can conclude (If not with the new testament alone) that we are saved on Jesus' name alone. you can go even further, according to hebrew transliteration essentially Lord means Baal in hebrew which again, directly contradicts itself in line with the new testament. Jeremiah 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for baal. Phillippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Psalms 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
Go through the ones you have and before you finish studying, you will get your answer. This word is alive, quick and powerful. Warning: the word kills the living and quickens the dead- but never leaves anyone who encounters it the same. The reason you ask this question is you have never even opened the pages of the bible, and if you have, you never used the help of the Decoder- the Holy Spirit. Without Him its just an Isaiah 29, especially vs. 10-13.
King James Version. it's very difficult to translate the Holy Bible in the ever changing English language. The KJV is the most accurate English Holy Bible in my opinion.
The KJV renders three different words as "Hell". Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. They are three different words, with separate meanings and connotations. This confused translation has resulted in many non-Biblical views of Hell.
Frank has wisdom and and a lot of knowledge about many things. Is a pitty that he ignores de history of the Holy Bible. Here it goes: 382 AD Pope Saint Damasus I compiles all the books of the Bible (the same ones that today are in all Catholic bibles) 392 AD Saint Jerome translate the Bible from the greek to latin and gets confirmation by the catholic bishops 397 AD The Bible of San Jerome is once again ratified by the catholic bishops at the council of Cartage 1226 AD The Bible is divided in the current chapters by the Catholic Bishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton 1527 AD A Catholic priest, Santos Pagnino divides de Bible in numbered versicles 1552 AD a catholic printer, Robert Estienne again divides de Bible in versicles 1560 AD A catholic printer (Gutemberg) prints de Bible with the chapters of Bishop Langton and vesicles of R. Estienne 1592 AD Pope Clement VIII prints a new version of the Bible with the same chapters and verscicles currently used by Christians 1534 AD Martin Luther sends 7 books of the Bible to an appendix, but remain in the Bible 1534 AD Martin Luther adds the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to justify his own dogma of "faith alone". 1534-1546 AD Luther tries to get reed of James letter because it contradics his dogma, but fails in the effort 1825 AD The protestant British Biblical society TAKES OUT 7 books of the Bible (This is why current protestan Bibles are missing 7 books that were in the Bible for 1,443 years
Completely wrong. Catholics didn't add crap. The deuterocanonical books have always been debated. He lies when he says Jews all agreed with Protestant old testament. You had a plethora of Jews who included the deuterocanonical, for example the Ethiopian Jews. To characterize the deuterocanonical books as book Catholics added is completely and totally false. I'll admit these books were debated. The main reason they were not included by Luther was because after the Romans invaded they couldn't find the books in their original Hebrew. However, we now have every book of the deuterocanonicals in Hebrew via the dead sea scrolls except Esther. This is typical anti-catholic lies. Even Martin Luther in the first KJV included the deuterocanonical books either wholly or via an appendix.
I agree with what you said EXCEPT about Martin Luther, he had nothing to do with the first KJV (printed in England, 1611). Martin Luther (1483-1546) was German and died 65 years before the first printing of the KJV.
Was doing good until you went into the Catholic Church adding books at Trent. I love these videos but I would think that Frank would be too educated to fall for that lie
clearly this is a one sided video, because to do otherwise would make this guy look like an idiot. still, there is no need to shout. maybe i should say that so you can hear. THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT.
@@TenTonNuke You would have to start out with an intellectually honest society. The only way you get to an intellectually honest society is by being brave enough to be intellectually honest. That takes faith in the first place: you cannot enter an intellectually honest society at all without being brave in the first place.
The Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the same canonical books that Florance later did in the 15th century and then Trent again in the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not add the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. If the Deuterocanon was added at Trent then why would the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches also both include them when they broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior to Trent? No, Trent did not add them, Luther and the protestants removed them. As far as Protestants having the Jewish canon, that depends which Jewish sects we are talking about. Some Jews had a similar canon, but the Jewish canon was not set. The Essenes for example included most of the Deuterocanon, the Saducees only included the Torah, the Pharisees seemed to accept at least Wisdom of Solomon since they cite it while Jesus was on the cross. The Jews did not have a set canon. The current and most common Jewish Canon today is the same as the Protestants, but even to this day many Jews accept the Deuterocanons and some sects of Judaism have less books than the Protestants. But even if the Jews did and still entirely reject the Deuterocanon, which they neither entirely did nor do, that would still not disprove these books as scripture since the Jews are not the standard setters any longer, the Church is. The Jews also reject the New Testament and Jesus, so them rejecting the Deuterocanons is hardly a good argument against those books.
Historically Herot is right. Also early Christians did not entirely agree on the books of the New Testament but the Universal (Catholic) Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided. Christ established a Church not a book. That is why we can have confidence that the cannon used by the Christians around the 4th century is right. "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." St. Augustine . Like it or not historically we would not have the Old and New Testament Canon we use today if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. All you would have to do, to prove this right or wrong is to read history and historical facts are not opinions but are documented events in human history established by multiple references that is unchanging and can be objectively verified.
@@javierreyes623 I've seen Dr. Turek speak in person many times and have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with him two or three. Read most of his books too, more than once for some. He is a very reasonable person and has a lot of willingness and ability to have reasonable dialogue with Christians who disagree with him. The trouble is that the "mere Christian" apologists often have a mindset of wanting to focus more on converting non-Christians than entering into debates between Christian groups, so they rarely end up in settings where they can engage in these kind of discussions by nature of their focus. The nature of their focus also means they don't seem to spend a lot of time looking into this kind of thing outside of the random question they might get about it at their talks on other topics. I do hope one day both him and other great evangelists like him, such as Dr. William Lane Craig, take the time to look into the evidence for the Catholic faith and convert. They both have had a major impact on my life and I likely wouldn't be Christian, let alone Catholic, if it hadn't been for them. So I hope and pray they do take the time to look into it and give the evidence an honest evaluation one day, I could see them converting if they did. Very few reasonable and good willed people can look into these matters and remain protestant, hence why so many of the best protestants become Catholic.
Thanks Herot. I was aware of much of what you shared but you gave me a few more pieces of the puzzle I had not considered eg. what books the Essenes accepted and the Jewish quote while Jesus was on the cross. I'll save your post and look further into that. thanks again and God bless.
Came here to say this. The Deuterocanon being added in Trent is a common lie spread among protestants to slander the Catholic Church, and it's obvious Frank hasn't taken the time to verify that little "fact" that he was taught in Sunday School.
They for get to mention that the Holy spirit who inspired the scriptures also helps us decide what were the book to put together. Dont forget the Holy spirt was and is with us till the end of times
That kid is right. And that man is wrong. He mentioned the 4th century cannons that determined scripture. And he totally ignored it and lied that the council of Trent in 1,500’s added books. When I’m reality Martin Luther removed books. The council of Trent affirmed the already cannon in response to the removal of books. The Old Testament used by Jesus and the disciples were the Septuagint that has the deuterocanonical books. And the Jews never had a closed cannon by the time Jesus was born. Anyone can look this up.
I have to give my respect and gratitude to the Catholics and Non Catholics in the comment section for clearing up the error made by Dr. Turek. God Bless you all.
@Artur False. Protestants adopted a later Jewish cannon (from about the turn of the 1st century) that was adapted, because certain books they rejected were too close for comfort for supporting the new Christian movement. The Jews never really had an official cannon, but just used “commonly accepted” books. The Catholic Church solidified the cannon, and included the deuterocanonical books, which simply mean “2nd cannon,” which means they included the ones that were rejected by anti-Christian Jews of the 1st century. “Once you study history, you cease to be anything but Catholic.” (Paraphrased from St. John Newman, former Protestant)
@Artur I’m sorry if that was unclear. I meant that the Jews up to that point had never adopted an official cannon, but when they ADAPTED their collection of accepted books, they took out the deuterocanonical books, which were later REestablished as cannon (hence the “secondary” part of it).
Frank, if the Catholic church added books to her canon at Trent please explain to your audience which books she added that were not in her canon prior to Trent? Answer: there wasn't any because they didn’t add any!
As a Protestant, I also confirm this. The main reason why we removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament is because we wanted to be more in line with the initial Jewish canon. It’s actually a point of contention within both the Catholic and Protestant churches if whether the Apocrypha should be taught in the churches.
@@paulnash6944 Then you should also remove the entire NT for the same reason. The Jews did not accept either of them for the same “Christian” reasons. Using a reason to keep the Jewish canon and keep the Christian NT makes no sense when the church brought ALL of them, both the NT and the “Apocrypha” together at the same time at Carthage 397. If she was wrong on the “Apocrypha” she was wrong on the NT also.
@@srich7503 Indeed, also to add there were several Jewish sects besides the Pharisees and Sadducees, such as the Essenes who were likely the custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have a much larger library of books they considered authoritative. Also fun note - it is heavily implicated that the Essenes were the monastic order of Jews that John the Baptist was part of - worth looking into.
I watched a video yesterday of a girl who was a catholic and listened to her reasoning why and she was giving all this information and everything. I have grown up a Christian, non-denominational. I believe in the Word of God and I believe that Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. As I’ve gotten older I really love learning different ppls beliefs and their reasonings why. When I heard why that young girl was catholic I was shocked. In a 20 minute video she mentioned Jesus’ name twice and neither time talked about what He did. She focused on the saints and praying to them and books that were added to the Bible. I was a little angry and sad when listening to her because I was like why pray to the saints when Christ came and died and tore the veil so that way we could speak directly to God. We didn’t have to go through others anymore. I prayed last night and I said God if I am getting this wrong please show me the right way. Then I came across this channel today and I just happened to see this video and it has helped me to confirm my beliefs even more so! So thank you for having this channel and teaching and letting God use you!! It helps so much!!
Btw. Protestants took away books from the Bible. Catholics didn't add them:) Even Dr Turek would lose the Sola Scriptura debate. It is not a debate Protestants can win. Sola Scriptura and Apocrypha are losing points.
@@mattybla6274 False statement. The Apocrypha is pure contradictory towards the New Testament itself, yet you claim that Protestants would lose the debate? Highly doubtful. Also, if the creator of the original comment sees this, I absolutely know how terrible it is. Catholics seems to worship Mary and the Saints far more than they do with Yeshua. Whenever I hear anything about Catholicism, watch videos, and etc, it’s always about Mary Mary Mary, saints saints saints. It’s just wild.
@@thomas7571 You’re lying. As a Catholic, I’m offended by how ignorant that statement is. The Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Christ. It’s so easy to show why Protestantism shouldn’t exist, and how WRONG it’s been since the 16th century, it’s still shocking to me that they still exist after 500 years.
@@dinopad10 No, the Catholic Church is not the “first and only church.” Started by Christ. You can not find one biblical scripture to support your claim which you base on the teachings of your Catholic doctrine. Fun fact, Christ wouldn’t have His first church Catholic because of many problems within the Catholic doctrine itself. One of them would be how Catholics teach Mary is sinless. As for someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox and did some study, I tried to find biblical scripture to support Mary being sinless, however, I only found scripture which teaches otherwise. The fundamental basis of her being sinless is taught from the ideology of man, not by biblical scripture itself. Another problem would be praying to Saints in heaven. Again, I’ve looked into Orthodox and tried to find biblical scripture to support this. I find scripture which goes against it, or in short, it’s just not taught anywhere throughout the Bible. All, and I mean literally all throughout the Bible we are told to make our prayers known to the Father. Not once will you ever find a verse in the New Testament which teaches to make your prayers known to the Father and Saints in heaven. We are taught to pray for each other, but as for someone who stays as biblical as he can, no scripture seems to support the ideology doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven (or asking them to pray for you, and so on.) Don’t assume I’m Protestant, because I’m not. Im not a follower of any denomination nor am I interested in being assumed into labels. The Bible itself teaches there are Christians (Christ followers) nothing else. Denominations are made to separate the Word of God. And within most denominations man’s thoughts, feelings, and/or ideas are thrown into scripture and twisted into man’s understanding, instead of biblical understanding. So in short, the Catholic doctrine itself was not started by Jesus. Not one place in the original Greek/Hebrew text will you even find such a church being supported. The first Catholic Church movement (doctrine) seemed to have gotten rebuked by Yeshua (Jesus) in Luke 11:27-28. And if you’re going to refer to “Peter being the first pope” and him having the keys and etc. This entire thing seems to be based on the confession of peter’s faith. Yes, I’m aware that Peter means rock, however scripture says “upon this rock I will build my church” I don’t think there’s a way of understanding what the “rock” is truly referring to. But in my opinion it’s most likely referring to Christ. In the Old Testament God was known as “the rock” in the New Testament Jesus is God Himself. He then says “upon this rock I will build my church.” Now one can put two and two together at this point and see how “the rock” could be referring towards Jesus. Having Peter at such a role makes no sense. Peter even got rebuked by Jesus in scripture I believe. And to even think Peter was a “pope” (which he was not) is just wild. John himself was the greatest disciple of them all. There’s just so much wrong and so much that could be said about this. Be biblically correct. Not denominationally correct. God bless.
@@thomas7571 You’re a liar and a heretic. Nothing you said is based on scripture, and absolutely not based on anything scholarly or intellectual. I’m not having yet another online debate that will go nowhere with a person who thinks they know more than me, based on bigotry and beliefs from ignorance. Know at least this: once you become aware of church history, you cease to be anything but CATHOLIC. (Paraphrased from Saint John Newman, former Protestant) And for the record, if you’re not Catholic, you’re Protestant. Even if you think you’re non-denominational, you’re still following non-Catholic heresy, and a “church” founded at least 1500 years AFTER Christ founded His Church. Your ignorance is extreme.
Quick correction the council did not add books, when the church has meeting they usually do them when there is a movement against a belief and they meet and discuss the issue, and at the end they affirm the teaching or not. What the council did during the reformation was affirm that those 7 books were scripture, they did not add them
Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
That just proves that the popes were fallible all men are fallible The reason we do not believe in the apocryphal books is because they are contradictory to scripture
The Catholic Bible had had those seven books from the Concil of Rome 382 and Hippo 395 and were RE-AFFIRMED at the Council of Trent 1563. They were NOT added at Trent.
Catholic Christian here. Dr Turek you are true inspiration and my role model as an apologist. I have couple of friends who are atheists and I'm preparing to bring them to the Lord by watching your videos. Thank you very much for your hard work. And I love how you ended here "it's the New Testament that all Christians agree upon" God bless
@@PInk77W1 I know that. It is also not as relevant to christians as New Testament, that's why Jews don't acknowledge it. So in the end the core teaching which is that of Jesus Christ is the same for Protestants and Catholics. Now the interpretation of said teachings is a whole different matter and source of schism between chrisrians.
use to be a Catholic and finally sat down read the bible studied it with Christians and that was that I was in shock that I never knew anything about God. It was amazing how I let myself believe in the traditions man made idols it was a HUGE wake up for me I thank God in Jesus name Amen.
Frank takes a little truth to spin his yarns. You don't need a bible to know a god. Just don't treat a bible as an idol. Compare the contradictions in the anonymous Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I hope you can learn how to think, not what to think. Good luck.
can you provide actual contradictions without recurring to a google search "contradictions in the bible"? if so, how did you find them and who told you so? just curious, since we are learning how to think
God is perfect, His Word therefore is perfect and complete... brothers & sisters, would God allow fault in His Word? NO ... if one word is off, it's all a lie and Christ is not who He is... thankful for ppl like Frank to break it down a bit, but in my viewpoint, if God is not fallible, His Word will not be either TRUST in Him FULLY, nothing more, nothing less, Christ is the Word
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
God actually gives us a litmus test for testing the validity of books for the Bible. Some of which is... ✝✌😇Has to agree with the rest of scripture.(there may be explanations for perceived differences, but those explanations still have to jive with the other books.)ie: no saying Jesus had a wife(or husband), without supporting scripture. ✝😇✌Generally has to either fulfill/reinforce/expand upon the specifics of earlier prophecies of Scripture, or make its own prophecies that later scripture then fulfilled.(many times both.) ✌😇✝Has to generally be historical.(Can't say that a major volcano erupted north of Jerusalem, and is still outgassing to this day. Or that it it kills Judas', so Jesus brings him back to life. As a Robot jackass. Etc.)
Actually, Frank Turek is wrong about the Old Testament. Jesus used the Septuagint, which is basically the Old Testament as the Catholic Church holds it to be. The Council of Trent has nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Ah no, the Septuagent was rejected and still is rejected by Torah Observant Jews due to where it was written and who the translators were. . The Septuagent was the Hebrew text translated into the Greek language , this took place in Egypt , that is the first violation , the location where that translation was made - Egypt . and the second violation was with the translatoors not being experienced Jewish scribes to supervise that the texts not contain any errors . Because of that , the Septuagent text is never read or quoted from in a synagogue or Messanic congregation is it is considered corrupt . the organial Hebrew text is. Reason(s): 1) the Septuagent was copied in Egypt around 360 BC . This is in violation of the requirements that the Tanaakh is to be only copied in Israel. 2) the copyists for the Septuagent, were not strictly supervised by noted and experienced Jewish scribes, nor their manuscripts checked for errors in the spelling of words , or text .
No, He did not. Neither Jesus nor any Jew with any measure of intelligence would ever use a corrupt mess like the Septuagint. Well into the New Testament era, while the Temple still existed, the Jews were still using the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apostle Paul addressed the Jews in Hebrew: "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence" (Acts 22:2, KJV).
Catholics refer to those apocryphal books as Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom + passages of Esther and Daniel excluded from Protestant Bibles). These books were part of the 1st C. Septuagint OT. Around 90% of the OT quoted by Jesus and the Apostles came from it with the other 10% quoted from the Hebrew OT the speaker mentioned. That's the reason the Catholic church chose the Septuagint OT canon that included those 7 OT books not found in modern Protestant Bibles. The church determined the OT Septuagint books in the late 4th C. and not at the Council of Trent in the 16th C. as the speaker claims. Read on for further evidence. There was no closed Jewish OT canon at the time of Christ. For example, the Pharisees used the Torah, Prophets and Law books while the Sadducees only used the Torah. The Septuagint was accepted as authoritative by the Jews in the Greek speaking countries and the Jews in Alexandria. The first known Christian canon was compiled by Marcion (an anti-semetic) in 140 AD. It included 10 Pauline epistles and 2/3 of Luke's Gospel and no OT. This prompted the Catholic Church to rule that the unofficial core canon included the 4 gospels and all Pauline epistles plus the Septuagint OT. The Muratorian Canon was compiled in 200AD in Rome. It included the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, 1&2 John, Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter plus OT. Each city-church had its own canon, which was the list of books approved for reading at Mass (Liturgy). The first complete list that remains the same today for the Catholic Church was compiled by Bishop Athanasus of Alexandria in 367AD. Under Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome in 382AD listed the NT books in the present modern day order. In 393AD, Pope Damasus sent Athanasus' list to the Council of Hippo, North Africa for debate. Interesting side note: Pope Damasus chose Hippo because the Eastern churches were responsible for the Arian heresy that taught Jesus was a creature. The Council of Carthage in 397AD refined the canon and sent it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. in 405AD, Innocent send a requested reply to Bishop Exsuperius in Toulouse listing all the current Catholic canon books. In 787AD the Council of Nicaea II adopted the 397AD canon of Carthage. In 1442, the Council of Florence confirmed the Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I published in 393AD. In 1536 the German Monk Martin Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them in the back of his Bible stating they were less than canonical. In 1546, the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 NT and all the OT Deuterocanonical books selecte4d in the 4th C. and this time dogmatizing the canon officially closing the canon for good. God's blessings to all.
"The Canon is list of authoritative books, NOT an authoritative list of books" So, the list is fallible, therefore the list can be in error... Poor guy, the speaker didn't even begin to answer the troubled young man's questions on the Canon. Speaker even seemed unaware of the early councils mentioned - Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Instead went off on a tangent with descriptive and prescriptive... smh. I had those same struggles decades ago, and finally concluded (from my research) that it was both "an authoritative list of authoritative books"
That's not accurate. Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin translation in 405 AD. It was also in the Septuagint which was translated mid 3rd century BC.
I do hope and pray that he knows about the 81 books and not just the 66 the R.C.C.Roman Catholic church had given out. Because all of the books are inspired by God. Prior to the king James authorizing men to put in a single volume the books of the old and new testament. But what many don't know is that before even the Tyndale bible version there's the Ethiopian bible long before either of these were pit together. Within the Catholic archives exist the original Ethiopian bible which they get the complete scriptures. Every time something that is related to the Scriptures, an artifact of some sorts is found or come across it's the Catholic church that somehow gets this information way longer before anyone else hears or even gets wind of. But soon as people find out what they've done they do their best to get the information on what location and area in the Catholic archives to search for it. I believe that they did this to keep the truth from others because once others find out then their dark secrets and lies become apparent. One of the things that I love about God is that you can not show him up. When men decide to say what can and what can not be put in or used. God whose wisdom is greater than man always pit him on the chopping block hanging himself. God opens the understanding of the mind and heart. So what was and is hidden from oir eyes He reveals to let you know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.
Well, and not to state the obvious, those books of the Ethiopian Bible are not "hidden" or anything. They have been and continue to be part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian tradition. Ethiopian Christians are still around---they never left.
Frank has wisdom and and a lot of knowledge about many things. Is a pitty that he ignores de history of the Holy Bible. Here it goes: 382 AD Pope Saint Damasus I compiles all the books of the Bible (the same ones that today are in all Catholic bibles) 392 AD Saint Jerome translate the Bible from the greek to latin and gets confirmation by the catholic bishops 397 AD The Bible of San Jerome is once again ratified by the catholic bishops at the council of Cartage 1226 AD The Bible is divided in the current chapters by the Catholic Bishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton 1527 AD A Catholic priest, Santos Pagnino divides de Bible in numbered versicles 1552 AD a catholic printer, Robert Estienne again divides de Bible in versicles 1560 AD A catholic printer (Gutemberg) prints de Bible with the chapters of Bishop Langton and vesicles of R. Estienne 1592 AD Pope Clement VIII prints a new version of the Bible with the same chapters and verscicles currently used by Christians 1534 AD Martin Luther sends 7 books of the Bible to an appendix, but remain in the Bible 1534 AD Martin Luther adds the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to justify his own dogma of "faith alone". 1534-1546 AD Luther tries to get reed of James letter because it contradics his dogma, but fails in the effort 1825 AD The protestant British Biblical society TAKES OUT 7 books of the Bible (This is why current protestan Bibles are missing 7 books that were in the Bible for 1,443 years
This is false information. The OT is just as relevant today. This is the heresey of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic canon is the only canon. The amount of blind sheep in the comment section and their man- made churches only makes my Catholic faith stronger. Jesus warned us about others who preach a different gospel and this video is what he warned about.
Bull. The Catholic Church didn't add books; Protestants deleted books. Don't believe me? Go read the list from the Council of Carthage 397 and tell me whose canon matches that list
Frank Turek, I just recently discovered you on RU-vid and have been enjoying your videos. Saying that the Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent has a negative impact on your credibility. It was a reaffirmation of the original canon in response to the deformation that removed 7 books.
@@l.t.1305 "ROMAN" Catholic church. Hmm. Wasn't Roman Empire the one leading the persecution of the disciples and first and second generations of Christians? Roman Empire absorbed Christianity when the movement became too big to contain, but brought their Roman paganism into it as well. That's why you see elements of the goddess worship (Mary), sun god worship (just google for the mountain of evidence), and blatant blasphemy of calling man-appointed men "holy father," vicar of Christ (acting in place of real Jesus Christ), etc. By 16th century, Roman Catholic Church so perverted and abused the Word of God that they were afraid of laymen reading the Scripture themselves, that they prohibited it and maintained exclusivity by restricting translation from Greek/Latin. Reformes protestant movement began when some people began to read the Scripture. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christus (Christ alone), Soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).
@@l.t.1305 Satan can be traced back much further and was actually with God at one time... I am sure, despite that, he isn't approved of by Christ either.
Frank, without an appeal to tradition, tell us who wrote the book of Hebrews. BTW, it’s historically false to say the Catholic Church added books at Trent. It listed those books at Florence 100 years earlier and the great codices of the 4th and 5th centuries listed 46 books of the OT i.e. the Catholic canon.
I really like Frank's videos, but this is wrong. The Catholics didn't add books, and the clear to anyone who has studied this. I'm not even Catholic and I know this. Luther also tried to remove books from the NT as well.
@@aibelzoe No. The Bible was completed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation in 95 A.D. Roman Catholicism was begun by the heretic Constantine around 325 A.D. Roman Catholics are not real Christians.
@@davidlafleche1142, sorry for contradicted your version friend, but when Constantine allow the freedom of religion, the Church it was in the 32 Pope already. The incredible part it's that you have internet and you not used to find the truth, it's so easy, just google ; " The first 10 the Popes of the Catholic Church and what year." Then finally you are going to see the truth.
@@aibelzoe So what? There is no "pope" in the Bible. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@Peter Cho Jesus never said that, and He has no "vicar." The 9th Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." You are a liar, and you shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Establish the Kingdom in Jerusalem, and keep the world safe from Democracy!
@ManSon Rising Figures. My Dad (who is now burning in Hell, but probably thinks he's in "purgatory") followed a lady liar named Dr. Mary Jane Even. She called herself "The secretary of Jesus Christ," but she was a servant of Satan, and I told her so. That's what happens when you have female pastors: heresy is inevitable!
Turek cannot answer the question. And his is historically incorrect about the bible. The old testimate the protestants use follow the traditions of the Pharisees who killed the Incarnate Word of God. Why would u follow that tradition? Have fun with that.
That is demonstrably false. Luther took the 7 books out because they mentioned purgatory and he was about to take out James, Jude and Revelation when fellow protestants stopped him. Those books had been in the bible since the 4th century.
@@aaronsahipakka3224 Martin Luther hated Jews, and he did not believe the book of James belonged in the Bible. Worst of all, his cult (Lutherans) practices the heresy of infant baptism, because it did not make a clean break from the Roman Catholic "ho" of Babylon.
@@davidlafleche1142 what would you say to someone who claims to be Christian but says the bible is corrupt? thankyou and God bless. Im dealing with a family member who believes in Martin Luther and such. Thankyou again
@@nanazbound "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:9, KJV). Those liars claim, "The Bible is corrupt," simply because the Bible doesn't tell them what they want to hear. And how do they know "the Bible is corrupt"? Because some unsaved person told them! They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, but they'll take the word of an unrepentant heretic? How typical. If you have any questions, feel free to ask anytime.
1 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, 3 And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. 4 For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. 5 And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. 6 As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. 7 And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. 8 They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. 9 They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect. 10 But the ungodly shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken the Lord. Got this from the Bibles that the Vatican banned tell me what you think....
Anybody who believes the same Catholic Church who was burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English, torturing people in dungeons who didn't agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures and hacking entire villages to death because they didn't attend the churches they built in their towns is just being willfully ignorant if they believe the Catholic Church wasn't making edits to the Bible THEY decided on.
Here is a question: what was the bible made for? The church functioned without a new testimate for 7 years with out any new testimate scripture. Also this point of discovery is absolutely nonsense.
There are other books..Macabees, jasher,Enoch, Jubilees etc. 1. Does it agree with Torah? 2. Does it build on other books 3. Was book used by the early church.?
Anglican here (I hope the gentleman who asked the question in the video reads this). The fact is that Anglicanism does accept the Deuterocanon, just not as on the same level as the rest of Scripture. The 39 Articles talk about this.
We can prove which Bible is reliable (Catholic or Protestant) if we compare it to the Orthodox Bible. Certainly you are wrong Frank to say that some books were added on the council of Trent to counter reformation... Catholic church didn't add on it! Luther removed some books.
I just scratch my head as to why most Protestant denominations would accept the lie that the Catholic Church "added" to the books of the Bible rather than accept that Luther "removed" it.
We can prove which bible is reliable buy putting the apocryphal books up against the rest of scripture and seeing if they are actually confirmed or not.
The Bible written by about 40 most unrelated people, lived 1600 years, and still has a Common Thread, carries common message. Most authors martyred. Willing to die for what they witnessed.
So what if an extra canonical book (Enoch) IS quoted in the new testament, by Jude and Peter directly, and by Christ himself through several comments he made directly relating to passages in Enoch. How is this book not included in our version of the Bible today? For me this opens questions of what may we be missing? For me Enoch opens several possibilities to end times deceptions mentioned by New Testament authors.
Ive learned from a video some time ago on youtube, that the book of Enoch, although very insightful and intriguing, has some contradictions from the Bible. So maybe its not the same Book of Enoch that Jesus was referring to and it is apocryphal. I believe the book of Enoch is a mixture of truth and fiction. And its difficult to separate the two. Its not inspired or edifying for salvation. So be cautious in your quest for truth. But this is just my humble opinion. Godspeed
Yes, scholar Michael Heiser covers this subject extensively. Google him and be prepared to be amazed at his scholarship. The author of the Book of Enoch had no Apostolic connection and so it was not considered to not have the authority of scripture. Just as modern writers may refer to present day popular readings in their works (that everyone of our culture would be very familiar with), so too the ancient writers. We have to remember that the writings of the Bible were written for us but not to us.
Paul makes many Greco-Roman references. In one of his epistles, he has a poetic portion that mimics the famous epic poem of Pericles. These were real people who lived in a cultural setting that affected how they wrote and what they referred to.
The Hebrew Roots movement has really confused a lot of believers. Videos like these can help refute the whole “Don’t trust the KJV other versions, because they have been corrupted” movement…
i find it amazing that catholics love to argue over the OT . Dr. Turek being the gentleman he is . brought the discussion to a conclusion that the NT is the most important section ...that being Christs death and resurrection ...period . Which Jews totally deny
Not all Christians agree on the NT canon either, though. Ask Syrian Orthodox Chrisitians, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, etc. And yes, they also disagree on the Old Testament.
Not true about the Catholic Church adding books in the council of Trent. The 73 books in a Catholic Bible have been there is 382 AD at the Council of Rome, ratified at the following Councils Hippo, in 397 AD Carthage in 419 AD Florence in 1442 AD The Bible that Gutenberg printed was the Catholic Bible that St Jerome translated into Latin (commonly known as the Vulgate) with 73 books in 1455 Council of Trent ratified the 73 books in the Bible. God bless you🙏🏻
Those 7 books have no bearing whatsoever on Christianity or Christianity doctrine. No where they ever considered Canon in OT times or in the time of Jesus.
@@azdairy2009 I have read them, it absolutely is true. If you disagree then point out the important Christian doctrine on salvation that are changed by them. Include chapter and verse.
The books Dr. Turek mentioned were not added at Trent. Florence affirmed them 100 years earlier, as did the council of Rome in the 4th century and other early Church fathers and synods. They are also cited as canonical in arguments made against the Arians at Nicea I. Not to mention that the earliest biblical list wenhave from Christians cited Wisdom as a book, but is a fragment so is missing the rest of the of the old and some of the NT. The Jews who also rejected the New Testament did later largely reject portions of the Catholic old testament, but not all. Ethiopian Jews for example and Jews of that Region as well as I believe Assyrians Jews largely accept the books from the Catholic canon. Prior to Rabbi Akiba, Jews had largely accepted the Deuterocanonical books and we see them used by the Essenes, Pharisees, and Josephus even pretty explicitly refers to some of them as Scripture. It is not so simple as the Jews having accepted or rejected them, their canon varied drastically by sect and some only had 5 books, some had 6, some had the protestant canon, some had the Catholic canon, some had books that protestants and Catholics alike reject like Enoch. Its just not mearly as black and white like Dr. Turek claims and I that is why we can't simply rely on what the Jews had, especially since they rejected the new testament. The Jews were indeed given the prophets and oracles ofnthe old testament, but they didn't always accept or believe them amd so we cant pick and choose what sect to believe, we have to look at what the Church founded by God accepted and rejected since they got their complete canon from God Himself and it includes the books protestants reject.
Dr. Turek seems to affirm a sort of semi Marcionism at the end there. While it's largely true what he said, like that that many of the OT laws are not binding on Christians today, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what books we have. These books tell us a lot about who God is and how He works. They also do a lot to setup the NT and what the New Covenant means. There are prophecies of Christ for example that Protestants are missing which are quotes in the NT. There are also things like prayer for souls of the dead affirmed, which was a Jewish practice back then and into the Christian era along with asking for prayer from the righteous which have gone with God. These practices were commonplace in the OT period, affirmed to one degree or another in the Catholic OT, and never condemned in the NT. And if Catholics really did add those books into the OT at Trent then why do Eastern Orthodox who broke off 500 years earlier have them in their Bible as far back as they can trace? And why to the Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox who broke off about a millennium before Trent have them in their Bible? And why do many Jews and even some Protestants accept them? Them simply being added in Trent does not account for how these other groups had and have always had them as far back as they can trace.
Frank, I love you man, but you say things which are factually wrong on the issue of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles... The OT canon was *not* settled among the Jews at the time of Christ. To see this, simply compare the canons of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes - they're not the same. Protestants accept the canon decided upon by the Jews left alive *after* the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word? Although there was some disagreement over particular books by certain Early Church Fathers, you certainly find the Deuterocanon generally being quoted as Scripture in the Early Church. The Catholic OT aligns itself to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT which is the translation most quoted by the New Testament authors themselves. This is the canon declared by the early councils of the Church, as well as later ones such as Florence. You *don't* have to wait until Trent for this. Catholics did not *add* books to the Bible, Protestants *removed* them. If you want proof of this, ask a Coptic or Eastern Orthodox Christian (who split from the Catholic Church long before the Reformation and Trent) if they have the deuterocanonical books - they do. Some Reformers, such as Luther, tried to remove books from the New Testament as well, such as the Epistle of James because he couldn't reconcile it with his theology of Sola Fide...
Perfectly said (regarding 1st century Jews): "If these people didn't recognize the Word when he turned up and preached to them, why would we expect them to perfectly recognize God's written Word?" A most excellent point, Theology With An English Accent.
Jude practically cut and pasted sections of 1 Enoch in his short epistles. Jesus makes a direct reference to Enoch with regards to those taking part in the resurrection as being made like unto the angels (Jesus reprimands the Sadducees for not knowing this because they didn’t know the Scriptures - meaning Jesus called Enoch Scripture as that detail pertaining to our resurrection bodies being made like the angels is ONLY found in 1 Enoch).
Bingo. Jewish scripture was fluid at the time of Christ. You can see it in the DSS with alternative versions of the Isaac and Abraham, and David and Goliath, to name just a few. The Septuagint was by and large the Scripture of the 1st century Jew (and Christian). The LXX included the apocrypha, which Protestants today reject as being “fanciful” or “unorthodox”. To the modern mind, maybe it was a point of embarrassment to admit Jesus and his followers would have considered the apocrypha scripture, nonetheless, his answer is a whitewash of history.
Sorry but the septuigent included the books that you claimed were added. Whereas Luther was caught trying to change translation and was refuted by his supporters and cohort at the time when those books were removed to support his new theology. Even to the point where he wanted to remove part of James.
Luther called James the "apostle of straw' because he didn't understand the correlation between James & Paul's testimony. Turns out he didn't understand James was talking ab what genuine Christians do & should do & Paul taught how we're actually saved & become a child of God. James deals with how genuine Christian's act, Paul deals with the way in which we are genuinely saved. Luther had his own struggles, he's human. Noone cares ab that aspect in debate because of bias & lack of actual knowledge.
this seems like a very fallible method of determining which books are inspired by god(why there should be any question at all whether or not a book was written/inspired by god or is merely the writing of a human I don't get at all either.) he says some of the non-canonical books were attributed to authors that didn't really write them years after they were written, but this also applies to the gospels as well. he even says opponents agree the gospels were written by the authors the bible describes(unless I misunderstood him), but even most christians(at least those aware of the facts) admit that is not true. not to mention we know many of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul. that's why we divide them into genuine and non-genuine Pauline epistles.
@@stevecoyle1 most copies of the manuscript are not signed by the authors. The early church fathers decided to give authorship to the books. For an example, the book of Romans is not signed by Paul. Biblical scholars and church fathers made these decisions of authorship through meeting and a vote of hands. Go do some research and you will be amazed of how our faith was decided by individuals.
"The Bible is a Catholic book" A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was a debate about which scriptural writings were are inspired by God. The Canon of scripture was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. The decision was held at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today's Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God. Approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing 7 books.
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of the apocrypha I’ve ever heard. I had some excellent professors and seminary. But they weren’t this clear
@@sammisaylor2173 Apocrypha means writings or reports not considered genuine. Basically, the apocrypha are the books the Roman Catholic Church added to the Old Testament in 1545 AD. Protestants only include what Judaism considers canon in the TaNaK. In the video starting at 5:08 Dr. Turek talks about this. The apocryphal books have things worth reading, but are not authoritative. For example, Bel and the Dragon is a work of fiction not an actual account, which is why it is not included in the TaNaK. But it is the earliest known mystery story. Like many non-scriptural books today, it has some good things to teach like don’t just believe the explanation you’re given but look for the real causes and explanations. But that doesn’t make it scripture.
Protestants removed 7 books. Not the other way around. Anyone can look this up. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
@@CPATuttle Close, but not exactly. The Muratorian Canon, AD 170, is the earliest canon of the New Testament and included 24 books. Hebrews, James, and 3rd John were not included. However, a discussion of the NT canon is irrelevant to this subject. What is relevant is the OT, which you only mention in passing. The fact is that the Apocrypha were never included in the TaNaK in Judaism. These books and chapters were additions to the OT. Protestants did not remove them so much as return the OT to it's original canon.
@@cmdrdatayt I was copying and pasting historical facts. To say Catholics added books is straight up wrong. Let’s go with facts. There’s no way to spin it. There’s not one early Christian Bible that matches the Protestant bible today. The Jews 200 years before Jesus was born added the second cannon which means the deuterocanonical scrolls. The Jews added them in the translated Hebrew Bible to Greek called the Septuagint. They added those books. Not the Catholic Church. The eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. From conquering former land by Alexander the Great who spread the language there. Jesus and his apostles used the Septuagint. Many prophecies of Jesus are in the deuterocanonical scrolls. Jesus nor his disciples not one time ever said those books were “not scripture” or “apocrypha”, after Jesus was born, no other Jew that did not follow Jesus have any authority whatsoever on what the closed Old Testament should be. The Pope choose the books for the Old Testament because they were in the Septuagint used by Jesus. The Pope is the office established by Jesus to have this authority. That’s how we get a closed cannon. There’s no agreement with all Christians that make cannons. That’s impossible to all agree on it.
KingJames BibleBeliever the septuagint is older than the masoretic text. I read the KJV. Its my favorite bible. However the septuagint came before the masoretic. Even the kjv translators spoke of this in their introduction. Look it up. The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint for the most part. We need to use both the septuagint, and masoretic. I think the problem is we forget sometimes that each of the books of the bible were written on scrolls. They didn’t have books. So we get stuck on this idea that there has to be a perfect compilation of scripture. I believe it is achievable. However we haven’t gotten there yet. We need to be honest as use all the text families and use whichever is more reliable. We can’t accept a manuscript just because it’s much earlier. We also can’t deny a manuscript, because it’s much later. We need to compare scripture with scripture to come to a final conclusion.
