Who Decided the Books of the Bible? (Biblical Canon Explained) 

"They weren't accepted by Jews of Jesus' time". My brother in Christ, Jesus wasn't accepted by the Jews either.

“They weren’t accepted by the Jews of Jesus’ time.” Septuagint is the most quoted canon of Old Testament in the New Testament. Jesus is also seen celebrating the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah celebrated by the Jews), something that is straight out of the Maccabees.

this is a high-quality video, but I don’t feel that you investigated the manner without your own protestant bias. this is borderline propaganda as it’s very misleading because you’re twisting facts to bend to your protestant views. you left out that when the new testament quotes the Old Testament, that the vast majority of the quotes are specifically from the septuagent and not the masoretic. there are enough differences between the two on specific verses that it’s very clear which version is in the New Testament. this indicates that the Greek version of the Old Testament was considered sacred scripture at the time that the new testament was written.

I honestly learnt more from the comments than the video. According to the video you weren't searching for truth but a way to prove your friend wrong "I wouldn't stop at anything to prove my friend wrong" - that meant you'll even deny or intentionally leave somethings out just to prove your friend wrong (I'm not saying you did but I'm just saying you could). But I love the comments as i see people argue for both sides. I also did learn from the video though and the illustration and animation is beautiful. You got yourself a new subscriber. But i can't really trust your word because of the quote above as you researched not for the truth but for claims that support your beliefs... Peace

Did you purposely forget to mention that Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, Revelation, and called the epistles of John epistles of straws because they too contradicted his own theology? Why do you not mention that Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28? He basically did what Jehova witnesses do today to try to make the Bible teach what he wanted to teach.

Should i mention that the ethiopian bible has 81 books?

10:13 1) The Church Fathers and the early christians does NOT use the Tanakh but the Septuagint. 2) The only passage we can find the phrase "faith alone" is in James 2,24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone". Faith alone doctrine is unbiblical. That's why Luther added the word "alone" in Rom 3,28 (says 'by faith', NOT 'by faith alone') and tried to remove James and other "disputed books" (deuterocanonicals of the New Testament). 3) The Tanakh as a closed canon actually was established after the Church closed the Christian canon. 4) Also the books of Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Judges, etc., are never mentioned nor quoted in the New Testament, so are we authorized to remove them too? The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Koine Greek Septuagint (LXX), editions of which include the deuterocanonical books. Jerome (347-420) translator of the Vulgate in his Prologue to Judith says that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council (325 AD) to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scripture". All Christian bibles had all 73 inspired books until the 1820s when the British and Foreign Biblical Society just decided to REMOVE the deuterocanonical books (because paper and printing were expensive and early publishers were able to hold down costs by eliminating those books) That is the ultimate reason today Protestants only have 66 books in their bibles and not 73.

The 4 reason fail, when you find out that the Deuterocanonical Books have been found in Hebrew in the Caves of Qumran, Faith alone is not a belief held before Luther and is denied in James, and the more you read the Deuterocanon the more the wordings in there match better with many quotes from Jesus in the NT

I was going to comment, but I see my brothers and sisters in Christ have this covered. Well done my friends!

To say that the church only made those 7 books canon just to make money is a big accusation. You should’ve provided a proof that the early christian church never used the septuagint version of the scripture. To say that because the Jews accepted only the 66 books and that makes it scripture is a very weak argument. Most early christians were Greek speaker thats why they use the septuagint and that’s missing in your video. Jewish convert to christianity may have used the masoretic text but the septuagint was definitely more accessible. Catholic church never made it canon just to make money. For all we know maybe for Luther that’s the only way he can fight the church but eventually failed. So here are your reasons why deuterocanonical were excluded 1. They weren’t the Tanach - not all Jews became followers of Jesus, it is safe to say that they will continue to reject the septuagint. Plus, language barrier made the christians to use septuagint. 2. Contradicted faith alone - faith alone is unbiblical 3. Weaker historical basis - I don’t know about this but why would early christians and the apostles use the septuagint if it were in fact weak historically 4. Not affirmed in the NT - that’s not true. If you will do some deeper research. You would know that some from deuterocanonicals were mentioned in the new testament. Plus, not all the 66 books you accept were affirmed in the New Testament.

The Protestant view of history is absolutely amazing. the Septuagint was named after the 70 JEWISH scribes that compiled it. There were multiple jewish sects at the time on Christ, some liked the Septuagint, some liked the Tanakh, and some just the Torah/Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). The same argument for using just the Tanakh, can also be used for using just the Torah. And because Protestants officially only recognize the authority of the scripture, a protestant sect can come along and say "we only recognize the Torah because that what the Jews at Christ's time recognized" and no protestant could argue against him without having to contradict his own reasoning for using the Tanakh. The issue with the Protestant Bible is that it appealed to an outside authority (Luther) for its compilation. If Protestants want to remain consistent in their thought, they cannot hold the Bible that they currently hold because that Bible does not tell you which books belong and which books don't. The way you get to the Protestant Bible is by interpreting it under a certain theological lens. Luther was interpreting scripture in a certain way and concluded that certain books did not belong (they contradict the doctrine of sola fide) while also keeping a book that contradicts sola fide (the Epistle of James) But here's the thing: the Apostolic fathers (early christians who knew the Apostles personally, meaning much more accurate scriptural interpretation) read scripture in a certain way, and that reading of scripture was passed down. And that's how you get the Septuagint as the official Old Testament. So you have two choices: the Old Testament compiled by a guy living 1500 years after Christ. A guy through his own reading of scripture developed an alternate canon OR the Old Testament compiled by those guys who were taught by men who were taught by the Apostles, the very writers of the New Testament, with Jewish backgrounds, who lived at the same time and same place as all those other Jewish sects who had their own Old Testaments. The question of Biblical Canon has to do with history. are you going to trust the guy in the 1500s with the old testament of the Jews who rejected Christ? Or are you going to trust the Old Testament compiled by the first few generations of Christians, people who either knew the Apostles or their disciples, and even knew Christ before he ascended in Heaven.

One glaring thing was left out... Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuigint (more than 80% of old testament quotes), which includes the Catholic books. Are you following the canon that the Jews that rejected Jesus use, or the cannon that Jesus and the early christian church used? Interisting dilema for the protestant Canon.

always appreciate ur uploads always learn something new & ur so great job with the illustrations great work 👍🏽

Great video and well explained. Honestly i have faith that God will not lead me astray. The Bible is what I was lead to read and believe so that is what I have done. I hope my fellow brothers and sisters pray for more spiritual decrement and ask God to show you what’s true and what’s false. That’s the best advice I can give you all.

How do we determine which writing are Authorized? According to the Church, a consensus of Church Fathers who received apostolic succession and laid out a strict criteria. According to Protestants, Martin Luther.

The fact that he starts his whole premise with the sentiment of “how can I prove my friend wrong in front of all these people?” Just seems so weird to me tbh

The more I learn about Martin Luther the worse my opinion of him becomes.

Followers of Martin Lurther, adopted the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, and accepted the shorter Hebrew Canon instead of the original Christian canon and removed the books not in the shorter canon. Martin Luther assumed he was returning Christianity to its original canon but failed to realize he based it off a canon a 1000 years younger than what the Catholic church already was using.

I think this is a great video, and a job very well done 😁👍 thanks so much for your research and efforts!

Imagine the courage to say that the deuterocanonical books wasn't accepted by the early church fathers. lol

Soooo much is wrong here. Not only did Luther single-handedly decide to remove 7 books from the bible that were affirmed in countless councils before him, the dude added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. It doesn't say, "A man is justified through faith faith alone..." It says "A man is justified through faith..."

Nice video, thank you for creating it.

As most protestants you ignore the orthodoxy, the true unchanged christianity. And removing those books makes Luther and his ilk anathema i.e. outside of church. There are reasons why those books were present even if deutorocanonical. The only one taht was argued over a lot was the Apocalipse. For instance Tobit shows that angels are servants that help us in our daily life and answer our prayers to God. It also establishes a 3rd angelic name, that of Raphael . As a note the four names existed for a long time on Judaism: Michael, Gabriel Raphael and Uriel. Other books are essenttial in prophecies about the Messiah and Manasseh exemplifies what Iona said : I knew that you are a merciful and patient God who feels sorry for the mistakes of humans and does not want for the sinner to die but repent.

GOD decided. It is up to us to ask him for guidance, despite the historical records or the competition between churches. "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it". Isaiah 55;11 😊

I seriously clicked on the video hoping that it would show me the true story of the bible but it's just another video showing the weak analogy of protestants and there self contradicting claims about the bible. among plenty of historical errors and jumping of significant events such as visiting of queen Sheba to Solomon (by the time which she translated most holy books of the Jews of the era on to local Ethiopian language),the destruction of the Jewish books in 722BC when they were invaded by the Assyrians ,the Levites version of the old testament, Septuagint (LXX),translation of Saint Jerome ,council of nicea, Dead Sea Scrolls the 4 reasons why Luther left the books is actually not that satisfactory at all,1there are several versions of the Hebrew old testament and the more ancient ones than TANACH(btw is not actually compiled in 450BC but rather had several centuries of editing and compiling lasting up to 10th century )which included the "deuterocanonical" books.2,the principle of "faith alone" is formulated by Luther and believed by his sub dominions (which is the real reason he left them out because they contradicted with the religion he wanted to create)only.3,weak and strong arises from the fact that you want to prove since you have left several important historical events.4,actually it does confirm them in several parts like 1st kings 15:31,matheiw 27:9 and many others ,but even if there were none the same logic applies for all parts of the bible books. many of them weren't written on the other books of the bible making this a ridiculous argument.

10:15 lets refute the arguments why a protestant think that the 7 books should not be included in the bible (as if their opinion has some authority 🤷) 1) "Weren't in the Tanack" - Rebuttal: There was no official jewish canon prior 90AD, Meaning no official canon in the time of Jesus. Sadducces used the Torah, Palestenian Jews used the a list of what would be later known as the masoretic texts (hebrew written scripptures), Alexandrian (Greek speaking) jews used the greek OT bible Septuagint. To argue the 7 books weren't in the tanack is entirely wrong when there was no official canon in the time of Jesus 2) "Contradicted faith alone" - Rebuttal: So Martin Luther invented faith alone and since these books contradicted his new man made doctrine of faith alone somehow it would justify why they should be removed from the bible 🤷 3) "Weaker historical basis" - Rebuttal: Jesus celebrated the festival of lights/hanuka (John10:22), the only explanation how that feast came to be can only be read in the book of the Macabees, historically speaking, the Macabees is historically accurate 4) "Not affimed in the NT" - Rebuttal, Heb11:35-37 was from Macabees, Jesus' words of "do unto others..." was a reversed paraphrase from Tobit, Jesus's words of "forgive us of our sins" was a paraphrased from Sirach, James' conclusion of Abraham being justified because of offering Isaac was again in Macabees. You did not research enough.

Great explanation, bro!

Thank you for your work brother. God be with you always

The Bible does not say, "Salvation comes by Faith Alone,". Martin Luther added the word ALONE at the end of that statement.

Also worth noting that in the epistle of Jude, the author mentions the Book of Enoch to be inspired yet is sadly absent altogether. As for the exclusion of certain epistles on account of them being pseudonymous is at odds with the inclusion of pseudo petrine epistolary writings. It was touch and go for a while as to whether John of Patmos's apocalyptic book should be included. I'm glad it was. It's his hellenistic answer to Daniel's mesopotanian literary style. Hebrews is the GOAT however. It's the Bible's magnum opus.

Thank you so much brother 😊

I needed this, thank u xD I wish it was more indepth but this is nice to digest

Great video, thanks for the effort brother. Keeping doing what you do.

Thx for sharing this video ‼️it takes alot of work to research and then create the video itself. I appreciate all the videos you make to draw us closer to the MOST HIGH.

Very informative and well presented. Thank you. Have you considered doing a similar video on the Gospel of and Acts of Thomas? As for the Gospel, most of it is the same as the Synoptic Gospels with a few new bits.

You should have mentioned that Jerome (4th century) coined the name Apocrypha and grudgingly included the books in the canon. There is no widely agreed upon list of books in the Apocrypha. Furthermore, the Apocrypha includes folklore, use of magic, worship of angels, and major historical errors such as identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the king of the Assyrians (he was the king of Babylon). The Apocrypha is beautiful and contain hidden secrets but require a discerning reader. This is why Jerome said that many of its books read like "the crazy wanderings of a man whose senses have taken leave of him," and they deserve to be "hidden" or separated from the canon of sacred scriptures.

Thanks for the well presented video. However, the Canon of the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) was affirmed in AD100, prior to which the “books” or scrolls were translated as you correctly indicate as the Septuigent (Gk) around 100-130 BC for the Jews in the diaspora. Therefore , the early Church, known as The Way, before the use of the word Christian in Antioch (Acts) already had Gospels and Letters to the Churches in circulation, yet not as a formal codex. Council of Hippo and Carthage was correct. Unlike today, literacy was limited to nobility/aristocracy/church and the Bible was painstakingly hand copied and books were rare and expensive to the overwhelming population. Thus the Church either read from the Greek or Latin (translation by St Jerome). The other error was to show that “indulgences” were sold over the centuries. While it is acknowledged that the Church erred especially in the 15th century in monetising indulgences or remission of sins, the Reformation did bring about changes in the Council of Trent AD1545-1565. The Church self corrected, and while corruption at various levels is acknowledged, Churches were build to the Glory of God. A period of the Renaissance. What many modern Christians fail to recognise is how history repeats itself. The “prosperity gospel” is used to enrich individuals personally, with palatial homes, private airplanes, massive auditoriums and obscene salaries. Nevertheless, the Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) were printed in the earliest Protestant Bibles, and finally “removed “ around 1850. Therein may be another video you may wish to research. +Pax Christi

Such an amazing video! Helped me so much because I have been trying to help out my Catholic buddies.

This video comes across as very misinformed, I would not take these statements for granted. Here is my response to the “4 reasons why” they weren’t included: 1. Who’s Tanakh? It is known by scholars both secular and Christian that the Hebrew Bible didn’t have a “universal” canon of scripture among the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes until at least a few decades after the Church was established. To say they “weren’t in the tanakh” doesn’t really hold weight here. We know the Essenes collected the deuterocanonical books, we know the Pharisees seemingly had a more strict canon, and we know the Sadducees certainly had a more strict canon perhaps not including the Ketuvim at all. 2. So the reason why Reformers removed these books is because they contradicted their arguments? Lol what. 3. This doesn’t make sense, we have portions of these books older than the oldest sections of Esther. What do the reformers mean “historical basis”? 4. Neither are Song of Songs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, I could go on. A reference does not affirm or deny a books canonicity. This is a incredibly weak argument. What counts as a reference also matters. Hebrews makes a clear mention to Maccabees, Romans and Ephesians have clear influences from Wisdom for example. In conclusion, the Protestant polemics against the deuterocanon makes no sense to me, and often relies on misinformation and deceptive criteria that fail to produce their own biblical canon.

The first mistake in the video that jumped at me was incorrectly dating Marcion. He was not alive in 85 BCE. He traveled to Rome around 140 BCE. His canon was circulating between 140 BCE and 150 BCE. Marcion was the first Christian to develop a Christian canon which all future canons are based on. You are correct, he a proto-Luke gospel and 10 letters attributed to Paul. Another mistake was listing the final Jewish canon in 450 BCE. That is way too early. By the first century CE, only the Torah and Nevi’im was canonized. The Ketuvim was not completely canonized either in the late first century or second century CE.

James 2:20 implies that faith + works = salvation, rather than only faith without works

This was a great video! I'm currently studying and putting some information together! This is a helpful resource

Im confused by something here. We can see in the Deuteronomy passage that "when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken" , but then also we see in Mark 13:26,30, Jesus says: "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory…Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." This did not come true. Before that generation died, the things prophesied didnt happen. Does this mean that the bible is directly calling Jesus a false prophet? I am relatively new to the faith, and hadn't come across this reading from Deuteronomy before, and now I'm quite confused. Thanks for any clarification

If God is Sovereign, Then whatever happens, he has ordained it, or allows it. Concerning his WORD, if he allows it I am okay with it. Nothing is beyond his control. End.

Thank you so much! I’m a devout Christian who volunteers 3-4 days a week at my home church while visiting other churches. And this has been something I’ve been struggling with understanding in the past couple days. Thank you.

Thank You ❤

Hello, I still have two questions though, 1. Why was the « apocalypse of Peter » not included in the end ? You mention it at 4:06 but then you don't say why or when it was removed. 2. What about the books of Enoch, I know they were not included in the Tanakh but the books where considered as true by the jews at Jesus's time.

‭‭II Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV‬‬ [16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Can you please do one on the outline of the bible books, you do such good work!!!

Thank you SOOO MUCH for explaining it with animation, I know how much effort it is to put together.

Really love this video.... Thanks for the new knowledge added.

I used to accept answers like this, but I just kept asking questions and there seems to be no good answer.

Thank you :)

This video has some striking errors and omissions: - The apostles were all Hellenized Jews and quoted from the Deuterocanon pretty extensively. - The author skips over the Council of Rome and the Galasian Decree in 382 that established the western canon. Because Rome, Carthage and Hippo were regional, not ecumenical councils, the canon was never actually closed for what would become the the Eastern and Oriental Churches. - In the 9th Century, a group of Jews in the Holy Land called the Masoretes wanted to purge Judaism of Greek influence and that meant adopting only the scriptures that were originally in Hebrew. This was about 500 years after three Christian councils had recognized the scriptures as divinely inspired. - Vernacular bible translations were never banned. The Septuagint and new testaments were in Greek. They were translated first to Latin because at the time, Latin was the vernacular language. As the Church spread, the bible was translated into German, Romanian, Polish, French, Old English, Gaelic, Arabic etc. It is true that in 1408, the Church in England banned unsanctioned translations into English because John Wycliffe purposely mistranslated words to protest both the Church and the Crown. It wasn't a ban on English translations, just unsanctioned translations. Lay people were allowed to have their own bibles but illuminated transcripts cost the equivalent of $15,000 so people had to A)be literate and B) be affluent. - It was really John Calvin more than Luther that advocated the truncated Bible. He used the Masorete's as his reasoning. Most protestant bible remained 73 books long until the late 19th century when Bible publishers in England removed the Deuterocanon as a cost saving measure. Protestant bibles are a product of shrinkflation. - "As soon as a coin..." was not a widespread slogan. It is attributed to one man. Fr. Johan Tetzel. He was disciplined by the Church for his abuses. Was there other clerical abuses? Yes. They were addressed by the Church during the counter-reformation. But the presenter owes his viewers a correction for overstating the abuse.

Awesome video brother❤ very informative✝️

you said the 4 reasons those books were removed was bacause of 1) they werent accepted by the jews. But they were, the Septuigint, which the early church used as their scripture, included them. Early church fathers even argue that the reson some Jews rejected them was because they prophesied about the Christ. 2) They contradicted faith alone. Duh, faith alone is a reformation doctrine that was never taught until 1500 years after His resurrection. The only place where the bible says "faith alone" is in James 2, where it literally says "a man is not justified by faith alone." So deal with that please. 3)It has a weak historical basis, but it doesnt. They were accepted by the early church and even jesus and the Apostles almost always quoted from the septuigint, not the Hebrew text. 4) You said they werent affirmed in the NT but they were. Paul gets the armor of God from the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus celebrates Hanuuka in John 10 which was from the Maccabeees.

Bro, the early fathers of the church of Writers of the new testament take 18 quotations from these seven books of the Septuagint. That proves that there's no lack of holiness to those books

So what can you say about the 7 books of Moses and especially the book of Enoch?... I'd really want to see or hear your review on that

Jude definantly references Apocryphal writings. Why would that not give authority to Enoch?

such a great and straight to the point video. God is good and may He bless you to keep working hard and sharing His Word! continue to plant the seeds 🌱

Great video

I love that they became born again i need people to pray for my family members and friends to believe in Jesus i need them to believe i want them to be born agian so i can spend forever with them in heaven please pray 😭

Real simple common sense… there are only 2 covenants; thus the Old & New Testament… the apocrypha was NEVER in either of the testaments… they were placed in between both of the testaments in the KJV 1611… Also, the rhythm of them books are different from the books in the Bible. Also, the “extra” books have contradictions to basic Bible belief & even have contradictions within themselves…

He never mentioned the book of Enoch but Enoch is mentioned in the scriptures.

It may be worth adding that the Eastern and Oriental Othrodox also have their own cannons and beliefs about what books belong in the Bible. Also, that while the Deuterocanonical books have long been part of the Catholic canon, their status as co-equally inspired scripture has been disputed within the church; including by Saint Jerome, who translated the canon into Latin.

Love it

The 7 books were removed for Luther’s own ideology. No matter what way you try to twist or bend it. He didn’t agree with something that has been agreed upon since the 4th century.

Actually the Bible is missing more than 7 books. Curious fact, Roman Empire “converted to Christianity” with Constantine, wether it was for political reasons or true conversion thereafter, the Roman church took upon themselves to set a pope while in the meantime persecuted and almost got rid of the Christian Orthodox Church while pretending to be on the same page with them. TIL this day the Christian orthodox faith has the most books in their Bible. Though the Roman asserts that they are the one true faith since Jesus, the truth is that they converted Roman pagan holidays into Christian (with the excuse of getting rid of the paganism), they suppressed God’s Word until they no longer could. They can say that they had good intentions all along but the facts of history prove otherwise

A good re-writing and editing out of history in this video. I don't blame the poster, as he has been given a history which is filled with holes. First the assumption that the Hebrew Text is the text accepted by ALL Jews. I was raised in a Sephardic Jewish home. We held all the books in the LXX to be scriptural. When our forefathers returned to Israel from Babylon most Jews no longer spoke or read Hebrew, Jews within Israel spoke primarily Aramaic and outside of Israel Greek. So the LXX was the standard text for most Jews, and within Israel and the surrounding area the Targum was used. If someone in a Synagogue could read Hebrew, the Torah and Haftorah readings were done in Hebrew, and after were re-read in Aramaic from the Targum. This way all could understand what was read. The Targum included all the books that are in the Catholic version of the OT, just like in the LXX. Jews in Ethiopia also have a few additional texts like Maccabees 3 and 4 and an additional book which covers more stories of the life of Moses. The removal by Jews in Jerusalem of the books not found in Protestant Bibles was done after Christians had already established the Canon reflected in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, as those books not written in Hebrew pointed to Jesus as Messiah. Now about Luther, Indulgences and works (etc) Luther did not just return the seven NT books to the Bible, and remove his addition of ALONE to change the text to we are saved by Faith Alone, he was pressured to do so by some of his fellow Protestant theologians. Even though he did so, he still protested and wrote that if anyone asks you why Dr. Luther had changed the text, it was because Dr. Luther would have it that way. Luther also gave permission to Phillip the prince of Saxony to take a second wife and live with both his first and second wife, as long as he did not make it public. He started his new religion by supporting the peasants against the princes of Germany and supporting the Jews who he thought would side with him against the Pope. When the peasants started following other Protestant teachings and rejecting him, he called on the princes of Germany to exterminate the peasants, and when the Jews did not want to get involved in squabbles between the Pope and Luther, he called to have them thrown out of the villages, towns and cities of Germany and wander homeless and without employment to support themselves. He used very pornographic language in his curses against other Protestant leaders who did not follow his new teachings. As to Indulgences. When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory is freed, was indeed a tag line of the day. The problem with the poster's story is it was a selling point used by Johann Tetzel, a Dominican priest who made it up and used it to get donations. He was tied by a Catholic Church court for his false teachings that Indulgences and the money given for them released someone from Purgatory and forgave sins. Something contrary to Catholic teachings. As to Works saving you, the Council of Trent which was cited in the video did indeed discuss this issue. But what the Council of Trent did determine in the Sixth Session, was something different than the lie the poster of the video was taught. The Council of Trent officially taught that Salvation was a free gift of God's grace which we could not merit for ourselves or earn. In another session it discussed works (as does the NT) and explained that these works are not something that saves us, but consistent with what the NT teaches when we do works united with our desire to follow God's will it brings us closer to God, and brings spiritual growth to our soul and our Love of God. I don't blame the poster of the video for breaking the Commandment against bearing false witness, as he was simply relating the false accusations against the Catholic Church and the bad history his protestant sources have repeated without checking to see if they were correct or not.

For a more accurate portrayal of history see Joe Heschmeyer's video's "8 myths about Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation" and "How were the books books of the bible decided?", There's also Voice of reason's "the true story of how the bible was put together". Dr Brant Pitre also covers old testament canon in his video "The myth of the council of jamnia and the origin of the bible" Dr Brant actually shows in Jewish texts that even after 90ad through to around 300's Jewish scribes were still debating about old testament canon and were actually writing disagreements to scribes centuries prior to them. Even if by some miracle Jews had settled the canon in 90ad would you really accept the canon from those around the time period who crucified Christ considering as the church had already been established by this point.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Exactly what Scripture is Timothy referring to? Obviously the books of the New Testament did not yet exist. So that just leaves ; the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Christianity got into trouble the moment they elevated the New Testament above the Old. Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

What happened to Constantine and Nicea? Some faiths have more books and some less. The Ethiopian Bible has all three Enoch books. The Bible in orthodox Catholics have 70 apostles. Our Bible says that too. The history of how the Bible came to be depends on many opinions. Who didn’t allow the gospel of Thomas? Why? Who was Valentinus? Simon Magus? Some say that Acts was composed by many authors and some of the letters are credited to the wrong authors. You made an interesting video, good to start with but lacks so much information. But, the video would be a series of documentaries.

As christians we read a certain amount of books for something like 1,100 years. Then when 7 books don't alighn with luther's position so he tosses them out. That is rediculous. That and many many other reasons that i looked at from a point of logic made me start the process of becoming catholic

Appreciate the love expressed at the end. I hope Catholics and Protestants can both practice it! One question I'm left with is: you say in several spots that Jewish people and Christian people accepted X books as Scripture. How did that work practically? They probably weren't taking polls of people. It seems to me that it must have been the leadership (Jewish priests and Christian bishops) that God worked through to identify the correct faith held by the whole People of God (Old Testament and New).

Your friend continues to be right. The ones who agree are just praising, with no fact, logic or argument. The ones who contradict you, they are casting light to all misinformation in your video. I am not christian (or even religious), but I can't imagine butchering the holy book I believe just to follow a random monk with his on agenda.

i personally like the "Extra" books whether read as inspired or just good teaching and there are good things to get from them !! My Personal opinion !!! ❤

Theres some wild leaps here brother, the biggest of which is your assumption that the Tanakh was closed before the time of Jesus, theres no evidence that this was the case. Lee Martin Mcdonald, a Baptist scholar agrees to this. There certainly was the Torah and the prophets but the 3rd section known as the writings was not a closed third section, hence why its never refered to as such in the NT. The closest is the allusion to law, prophets, and psalms but that isnt the same construction that later Jews (Post Bar Kokbha) would talk of the scriptures as. As for early church father, 1 Clement written in the 60's speaks of Judith as blessed on the same level as esther

I was on board with you until you said that the only reason the Septuagint was included was because the catholic church wanted to sell indulgences. That’s just insane. The medieval indulgence abuse was happening like 800 years after the canon was closed. The Orthodox community never did anything like this and still has the septuagint canon, why? because it was the canon accepted by the early Christians.

Wrong, there are 81 books ☦️🗿

You still didn't answer by what authority can Martin Luther remove books? If he can, why can't we all?

10:40 These points are really good to remember

Don't forget the 21 books that the bible Mentions that we don't have. The Book of the Wars of Yahweh, The Book of Jasher, etc.

Argument 2 that these books dont belong in the canon because it contradicts "faith alone" is a fallacious argument. Thats like saying John shouldnt belong in the canon because it very explicitly says the Word was God, and that contradicts my presupposition that Christ is not God. This is not a well researched video unfortunately.

Thanks for affirming that the 73 catholic bible is the historical christian canon and that the 66 book bible was a result of Luther's OPINION.

Fun fact: I'm orthodox but in Serbia we had not translated other books for long time, so basicly even today we primarly use 66 books canon. ( Orthodox church confirm 2nd canon books).

If I recall correctly, Luther was influenced by a reformist movement in Judaism that removed the deuterocanonical books, but they were accepted by jews as scripture before that.

erm sir, please elaborate on the easy refutation of the Apostolic Succession and and Praying for intercession from mary, baptism, and grace and works

I feel your research was shallow, and only done in defence of 66 books, not with an open mind to understand.

There are more books "missing". 4 Esdras mentions that there are 204 books. Even within the "OT" there are "missing"books mentioned.

The Book of Enoch is Authentic Jewish Writings and for Hundreds of years it was part of the O.T. and it is part of the Dead Sea Scolls, it belongs in the Bible

"By works a man is justified and not by faith only" is the ONLY verse where the words "sola fide" appear in Latin. Luther personally wanted James removed from the Bible because that verse states the exact opposite of what he chose to believe. (Luther also added a word to Galatians to support his unbiblical idea.) Luther only tolerated keeping James in the Bible because resistance to removing it was too strong. Yet til this day it is positioned differently in German Bibles because Luther wanted to burn what he called "the gospel of straw".

What about the Book of Enoch, and the Ethiopian Bible? Because in my research, I've found an entirely DIFFERENT story that led me to believe the Ethiopian Bible is more complete.

You was doing a fair job until you implied at 8:15 that the 7 books Protestants dropped were only in the full Bible to support ‘a lot of money’ for the Church. That’s a really weak argument. 1. Tithing and giving atonement money is clearly ordained and required elsewhere in the Old Testament see Lev 27:30 and Ex 30:16. 2. Praying for the dead in Maccabees: Jews still say the El Malei Rachamim prayer for the soul of the dead. 3. Authority of the Jews to decide canon: the Jews reject the whole of the New Testament so this ‘authority’ is inconsistent 4. Authority of being quoted in the New Testament: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the New Testament so this justification is inconsistent I’m sure your colleague is eagerly awaiting the justification for why Protestants dropped sacred scripture from their Bibles.

The NT does not affirm salvation by faith alone it never has. To make claim go ahead and call Jesus a liar. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

Joe Heschmeyer in his Shameless Popery channel has some good commentary about this topic.

Short answer, the Holy Spirit.

He basically explained how the church made the bible lol

I wish the background music and sound effects were quieter and the narration was louder. This is good information.

The verdict to this is simple, one can't be accused of forging what existed before s/he ever was, even when it's used for dubious gains. The solution to that would be to change and conform to tradition or history but not trying to change or dismiss it all together.

Cept in reality you didn't win any debate, and no protestant ever has.