@@lcringo3498 The Protestants erased them from their Bibles. The point is that these books were not added. They were subtracted by the Jews and by the Protestants.
You are mistaken in stating Luther “removed” those books. They are found in the Bible Luther translated to German. Because they are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text, they were placed between the Old and New Testaments. (1534) Do the research! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of FACT, when Jerome, commissioned by Pope Damasus and the Roman Church in 382, completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405, he specifically stated; “just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, BUT DOES NOT receive them among the CANONICAL Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, BUT NOT FOR CONFIRMING the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was the roman church that first “ERASED” those books! Until the Vulgate was “Revised” by Clement VIII in 1592, again in 1593, and again in 1598. The Clementine Vulgate of 1598 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church until 1979, then it was the Nova Vulgata. To this day there are more than 20 “catholic” VERSIONS of the Bible. All differ in one way or another. Which one is correct? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:2
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) and the Nevi'im - (Prophets) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
Brought up in the Anglican Church in England. Actually up until the about the 1830’s The King James Bible had those 7 extra books in the Old Testament. My dear grandmother had this very old bible that had these extra books in her old bible. She was born in 1877. Wish I had that bible I was living in Northeastern Pa. when she died. Did not have the money to fly back to England when she died. I converted to the Catholic Church living in the U.S.
Most Protestants had the deuterocanon until early 1800’s when the British and Foreign Bible Society dropped them from the Bible’s they were printing. The KJV began excluding them in the 1700’s but continued to include references to them in the footnotes.
This was the King James Bible that my grandmother Grace's father, Joseph Johnson might have read, being an Anglican Episcopalian. His father, who emigrated from London, may have read this earlier version of the King James containing the Deuterocanicals as well.
Thanks Dr. Marshall. I really do appreciate these videos. I'm eager to know more about my faith so that I'm able to defend my positions when occasions arise. I admire your love for mother church. Godspeed!
Protestant versions are too late to convince us about these books 1500 years to long a time for correction it's protestants who are wrong Martin 6letters, Luther 6 letters, Calvin 6 so this is 666 check what it means
Where are the “notes” that show the 70 places the apostles use the deuterocanonical books? That would be very handy to have saved for Protestants who challenge me.
Maybe others have already mentioned this, but it's not exactly accurate to say that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible. He included the Deuterocanonical books in his German translation. So did the early Calvinists and even the Anabaptists. The issue is how we regard these books. Informed Protestants find these books helpful and, like Luther, encourage their continued reading. In some Protestant churches they are still read along with the Old Testament lessons (mostly Anglican and Lutheran). Protestant churches will also use canticles sourced from these books. To this day you will still find them included in the modern version of Luther's Bible and Bible translations in other predominantly Lutheran countries. Granted, many American Protestants are unfamiliar with the Deuterocanonical books, but this is a more recent phenomena due largely to publishers omitting these books from modern American translations. The issue, then, is whether or not these books should be utilized as a source for establishing doctrine. That's where the Protestant/Catholic divide on these 7 books is more evident. Protestants look at the "Deutero-" nature of the books and say they should not be used to establish doctrine. Catholics look more to the "-canonical" side of the equation and say yes they should. Thanks for a well done video, Dr. Marshall.
Luther inserted the Deuterocanonical books between the Old and New Testament. He added a cover page stating that these books are helpful and edifying for the reader but they should not be considered Scripture. Many modern protestant bibles don't carry this section in any form.
@@anthonylogiudice9215 Yes. It's significant, though, that many Protestants do still use bibles that include the deuterocanonical books. In the United States, German Lutherans continued to use bibles that included the deuterocanonical books well into the 20th century. These books only began to go out of usage as they transitioned from German to English. I'm not sure Scandinavian Lutherans ever stopped using the deuterocanonical books. I have a Swedish bible from the early 20th century published in Chicago that includes these books. I also have a modern Swedish bible published by Verbum AB in Stockholm. It includes the deuterocanonical books too. Among Episcopalians/Anglicans it's easy to find bibles that include them, usually published by Oxford or Cambridge. So the idea that there is a "Catholic" bible and a "Protestant" bible that divide sharply on the issue of the deuterocanonical books is overstated. Granted, there are differences in usage that can be noted. And, of course, there are groups of Protestants who do not use these books at all.
@@justaguy328 As I said, there are Protestant groups that don’t use the Deuterocanonical books at all. Don’t misunderstand me. Those that don’t use these books is a sizable group of American Protestantism. My point, though, is that some do and we shouldn’t ignore that fact.
A lot of End Times students like to study these books for historical knowledge. If we read all these books then we will have great wisdom and knowledge in Jesus name
william cloud I notice you have three followers. Did you call your dad Father? You are not only wrong you are completely ignoring that Martin Luther created your faith 1517 years after Jesus rose from dead. And the other 40,000 + protesting faiths were created in the past 500 years. Some even in our lifetime. This is just as bad as Joseph Smith creating mormonism circa 1820. Mohamed created Islam only 600 years after Jesus Christ walked the earth. I know our history and I know you are wrong. Pax. Via Veritas Vita
william cloud here’s what I think. You mention you have a few assignments here on earth and I came up, and that you wanted me to watch your film. If you were truly here sent by God you wouldn’t try to influence me on the internet you would have appeared to me face to face. AND if you were truly doing God’s work you wouldn’t have made a low budget film in Canada (because it’s cheaper to film there than in Hollywood) that you are now hawking online for your worldly benefit. You are a fraud and a cheat. You are doing the work of the devil not of God. You are sewing division just like these bad bishops cardinals and priests. I say to you, get behind me satan. Stay off my page you deceitful troll. I don’t believe you and there is nothing you can sling that will turn me away from Jesus Christ. Piss off devil.
william cloud YOU ARE DELUSIONAL! And you are preying on people who need healing! You sir are NOT a Godsend. You are a mental case! Stay off my comments! If you were real you wouldn’t be trolling the internet you moron! You would meet people face to face. Hmmm. Maybe you are Joseph Smith reincarnated and still influenced by beelzebub? Go away! Get behind me satan! If there is any hope for you may the Lord Jesus Christ drive all the unclean spirits from your body and send them to the deep. Until then please, Stay off my page! TY
God bless you, great explanation and representation. I love the book of Daniel and the story of Susan. We can learn much from these accounts and storys of biblical times.
Excellent explanation! Many thanks! I love these books especially Sirach but recently Tobit. I love the Catholic Church and that we can trace the history of the things in the way you described.
No, he did not. They are all in the German Luther bible. The books weren't removed until printers/publishers decided to try to save money by taking them out of protestant bibles since protestants don't use them for theology.
@@shellieperreault6262 The Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ. the Roman Church only refers to one Rite. I happen to be from the Byzantine Catholic Church.
“Now, the complete canon of Scripture, under which we render this judgment that is to be practiced, consists of the following books: Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, one book of Joshua, son of Nun, one of the judges, a small book called Ruth, which seems quite to belong to the beginning of the Kings; then, four books by Kings, and two by Chronicles - the latter do not follow each other, but run in parallel, so to speak, and take place in the same land. The books mentioned are now stories, which contain a connected narrative of the times, and follow the order of events. There are other books that do not seem to follow any regular order, and are not connected either with the order of the previous books, nor with each other, such as Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which seem to continue the story that ends with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the prophets, in which there is a book of the Psalms of David, and three books of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiastical, they are attributed to Solomon in a certain similarity of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus, son of Sirac. They are placed among the prophetic books, since they obtained recognition as being authority. The rest are the books that are strictly called the Prophets: twelve books separate from the prophets that are connected with each other, and having never been removed, are counted as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and then there are the four greatest prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The Old Man's authority is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. The New Testament, again, is present in the following: Four books of the Gospels, a second Matthew, a second Mark, a second Luke, a second John, fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul - one for the Romans, two for the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews; two from Peter, three from John, one from Judas, and one from James; a book of the Acts of the Apostles, and one of the Apocalypse of John. ” SAINT AUGUSTINE, 397 AC
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
I’d like to bring up questions I’ve had asked of me as a Catholic. 1. The book of Jude and many Church Father site books like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, which are not canonical. Why aren’t they canonical? 2. The Septuagint also contained other books not found in the canon (like the prayer of Manasseh and psalm 151). Why aren’t they canonical? 3. Many Church Fathers give canon lists that do not match the Catholic canon (like Jerome rejecting Maccabees and Athansius rejecting Sirach as well as Esther). Why not their lists? To be clear, I am a catholic and have found responses to contemplate when these questions come. But maybe you can do a follow up video to clarify info like this!
Yep....agree wholeheartedly with several below. The real question you need to address is why the Protestants put the kibosh on the 7+. We don't have 7 extra......they have 7 missing.
@@shellieperreault6262 How Interesting! I just looked them up and look forward to reading them. I found this list: 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh in Chronicles, and 1 Esdras; which I assume is 2 full books and parts of 3 more. I knew that at least one of the Eastern Rite Churches that's in communion with Rome uses The Book of Enoch, but didn't know about the Orthodox. The history of that canonical difference will also be intriguing to read about. Thanks for pointing it out.
There is nothing the protestant has missed! writing the same thing over and over can't make a book🤷. Go and read the first 66 books before you added more and get confused.
I would consider myself a Protestant however I am interested in learning more about Catholics. I find both sides have very different accounts of these books throughout history. I guess I will have to continue to search.
My main takeaway? When the apostles quoted the Old Testament, 2/3 of the time it's a direct quote from the Greek Septuagint, which (shocking!) has the 7 deuterocanonical books that Martin Luther pulled out. Case closed for any reasonable reader, I think. Are there any credible counterarguments?
Actually that is inaccurate. Their quoting more often matched the dead sea scrolls than the septuigint. We didn't have the dead sea scrolls until 70 years ago to realize that they were quoting hebrew.
@@masterkeep See 3:34 and give a close listen. Dr. Marshall names 3 Books from the Deuterocanon that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Tobit, and Baruch. But the Gospels and Epistles quote from all 7 (plus the Book of Enoch). It may be more accurate to say that they were quoting Hebrew, but it's still the same canon found in the Septuagint, which is the point.
@@kimfleury No. His statement is that they quote the septuigint whereas we now know it was a Hebrew text. They weren't spreading Greek wherever they went unless the people there specifically used Greek. This fits with historical narrative of Aramaic use in Northern Africa and the near East and other languages as they went to India - both supported by the Orthodox tradition.
The Septuagint also translated books and writings not in the Catholic Bible such as 3rd Maccabees and 1st Esdras. If the basis of Canon is whatever the Septuagint translated (which seems to be the argument), then why are those extra books they translated not in the Catholic Canon?
Martin Luther never took any books out of the bible. He rearranged the order but never removed any. The full canon can be found in the German Luther bible and in all pre-19th century KJVs. Please stop with this ridiculous strawman about Luther, it makes you look even more ignorant and your argument weaker.
Antonius Rusticus because the orthodox bible has the most of the original books. Catholic bible doesn’t have the entire Septuagint. And that was due to no access to printing. It wasn’t intentional.
Great video overall, but there is 1 mistake. Dr. Taylor says that the first time the cannon was established was 382 ad, but Codex Vaticanus (the first full Bible) was written in 325 ad and holds the modern cannon. Since 325 ad, the Bible has included the deuterocanonical texts while rejecting gnostic texts like the “Gospel of Thomas.” That established the cannon until Martin Luther rejected these books in 1522 ad; he also rejected books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Epistles of James and Jude, but other reformers convinced him to keep those books in the Luther Bible.
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
It's one thing to hold to unexamined bias or innocently accept mistaken information. But, Huax Xix, you take it to another level. Martin Luther didn't "reject" the deuterocanonical books. He found them useful and encouraged their reading to gain insight and context for the intertestamental period. He didn't regard them as equal with the Old Testament though. And, my goodness, he certainly didn't reject the synoptic gospels. Where did you get that idea? Regarding James, he wasn't a fan of it because he felt that it didn't proclaim the gospel with the same clarity as other books like Romans or Galatians - hence, his famous "book of straw" statement. Nonetheless, he kept it in his German translation of the bible and so do all subsequent Protestants.
@YAJUN YUAN The term pope was not exclusive to the Bishop of Rome himself. Rather, in the very ancient Church, there were three regional patriarchal bishops (1) Rome, (2) Alexandria (in Egypt), and (3) Antioch (in Syria) in that order of primacy. All three of these bishops derived their authority from St. Peter and from ties of discipleship between Peter (in Rome) and his disciples Mark (in Alexandria) and Evodius (in Antioch). It was necessary to have patriarchs in different parts of the world when fast communication and transportation systems did not exist. Here's how Pope St. Damasus I describes the Tradition, writing in A.D. 382. He says: "Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.) So, there were three patriarchal bishops, each in charge of directly managing the churches on the three known continents; Rome managed Europe and the West, Alexandria managed eastern Africa, and Antioch managed Asia. Yet, Rome itself held the primacy and was the final court of appeal among the three patriarchies. And, since each of these three bishops were patriarchs, all three of them were called "Popes." ...that is, the "Pope of Rome," the "Pope of Alexandria," and the "Pope of Antioch." Rome did not hold primacy because its bishop was a "Pope/patriarch," but because the Bishop of Rome happened to be the actual successor of St. Peter.
The Bible Is A Catholic Book - Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being? 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 debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God. The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decision was upheld 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. As a side note, 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 these 7 books.
First of all, Catholic history up to the 1500's is also Protestant history, so you don't own the copywrite on the Bible. Second, Martin Luther NEVER took any book out of the bible. The full canon is there in the German Luther bible today, just as it was 500 years ago. I don't know why Catholics have that one basic fact so wrong.
@@shellieperreault6262 No heretics don't have right to tradition . Heretics can go and make their own rules . Divorce is the first rule they ever make lol . And he took them out of the Canon showing stupid claims as to why he believed it was not canonical . And made up stuff like Sola scriptura , Sola fide and other retarded stuff . Loony Luther and turd Calvin were a disaster . That is the truth .
No he does not. Luther never removed them from his bible or the German translation of the bible. He simply repeated JEROME'S opinion that they are good for edification but not for supporting theology.
@@shellieperreault6262 difference without a distinction. His opinion helped lead to those 7 books eventually being dropped from the protestant bible. Remember you could always dig up some religious expert to support any idea. No one forced Luther to make that statement. And in any case he said they were not canon. I.e. not relevant for settling religious disputes like 2 maccabees and purgatory, on and on.
I have an old King James Bible with Apocrypha from the 1950s and it has 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, which are not in my Catholic Bible.
I think all humans are ignorant in the amount of books and the translation with meanings as a lot of translations and writings were lost in time. Kind of like playing the game of telephone. By the time the message gets to the end it’s been completely changed. I am sure as time goes on the message will continue to change. Calling one denomination of Christianity ignorant is ignorant in and of itself as no one can be 100% that they have the translation completely correct.
I finished reading those books and they're actually not that great. 1 Esdras is basically a corrupted version of Ezra and Prayer of Manasses says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not sin. "Thou therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner:" That whole verse seems false.
I am so confused about the differences in Christianity, different Bibles, which books of the Bible are valid, and I must say that the trinity has me really really confused. I've been working on trying to be a good Christian for over twenty years now, but this is so complicated and I am so confused
The Protestants removed the 7 books because it doesn't agree with their teachings. In the book of Maccabees praying for souls does not go with the teachings of the Protestants. For me the book of Maccabees actually made the way for Jesus' coming.
The Catholic NAB annotation on the death of Antiochus IV in 2 Macc. 1:14-17 actually tells us that _"A different account of the death of Antiochus IV is given in 2 Macc 9:1-29, and another variant account in 1 Macc 6:1-16."_ Thats 3 different deaths in 3 different places... Blessings.
If he truly felt that way, why is it still there? He simply didn't understand it, or have the resources we have now. If you read st. Jerome's notes, you'll find he questioned whether some books were inspired or not. Yet, he kept them because the higher ups said so. They would have weakened support for certain beliefs if removed.
@@tophatt5706 I believe I read that they wouldn't let him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon Re: St. Jerome. He simply had an opinion. The Church Councils didn't agree with him, obviously. In the end, he accepted the Canon that the Catholic Church declared "inspired!" This is excellent: www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm I hope it helps Jerome is down a ways, but the entire article is great.
The Didache does not have a 4:31 and none of the sources you mentioned explicitly cite these books as scripture as far as I could find. They did cite the Deuterocanon, but that no more proves they were citing it as scripture than that Jude citing Enoch would prove he was citing it as Scripture. I do believe these books belong in the Bible, but either you are leaving something out in why you think they were citing these passages as Scripture or this comes off as a little dishonest in how it's presented and could come back to bite our side if a Protestant fact checks you. Hopefully you can elaborate.
@@angelicdoctor8016 It would seem here they should be treated with at least as much respect as items like the Didache or the Protevangelium of James. I would love to have a Catholic-approved Bible which includes sources like this listed under "Of ancient and venerable origin, worthy of reading, deeply respected by many Christians within the Church, not necessarily infallible." But that would be my take. I don't know what the "right" take is.
@@joangnarlwode4176 I agree with you and hate toting around like minimum 3 Bibles, a book of the lost Gospels (Protoevangelion being my first, plus 3rd Esdras and Henoch which were in the earlier Bibles.
The apocryphal books were removed long before Luther if you do your research , they were kept as historical reference and not considered scripture by St. Jerome in the 4th century and not part of the Jewish Canon during Jesus's life or before
St. Jerome took the seven books out as he felt they had no doctrinal value but were good for historical reference only . Jerome was overruled by the roman Catholic church and the books were put back into the canon. However what all Ctholics will tell you is Luther , Luther , and Luther and completely ignore St. Jerome as they are taught only Luther the bad guy.
The original King James Bible also had at least a dozen footnote references to the 7 books. Those books where not totaled removed from Protestant Bibles until the 19th century. With some notable protest from some of there leaders. Also the famous Gothenburg Bilble 1400’s is identical to current Catholic Bibles
Those books were considered apocrypha by the Protestants and put, at best, on the level we give the Shepherd of Hermes. I think the Septuagint were placed in the back of the KJV for some time, but later removed.
We are so blessed to have so many documents and manuscripts of God’s word. There are more than 35,000 manuscripts in Greek alone. We as Christians are better to stick with the books that Jesus mentioned and all the the books of the New Testament starting from Matthew and ending in the last book of revelation where we are told how things will end up.Jesus said man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the word of God. It is great for believers to start reading from the book of John 14 as this was written for believers.St Peter gives the keys to the kingdom in Acts 2:38. Baptism always followed immediately after believing and is always full immersion.
The 1611 Version of the King James Bible, which the Protestants make so much of, also had the Deutero-Canonical texts, and those texts are read in Anglican Churches to this day.
The Luther Church (Missouri Synod) in the US has their study bible on the full canon, but since they used the ESV, Crossway made CPH publish the deutercanonicals separately.
I have a very heavy heart towards all Protestants in the world and I pity them so much because they were deceived and lied upon. I can't imagine Martin Luther can do such a horrible act of removing these 7 books. He thinks that he was smarter than the early fathers of the church. It is such an unbelievable act. Such an arrogant man. He deceived millions of people throughout history.
To remember the Catholic Bible got 73 books. 7 - the seven sacraments and 3 - the holy trinity = 73 books. To remember the Protestants bible got 66, think of 666, remove one 6 =66 books. There we go folks, that's how to remember the Catholic bible and the Protetant bible.😃😃
So you have numbers that add or subtract from a belief but don;t bother to read them and see if the books are indeed presenting Christ as the new testament does?
The Proteastant bible, composed of 66 books implies the number of man, while the Ethiopian bible contains the 76 books of the Catholic bible plus the book of Enoch to make the God number 77.
Selam, for the correct information of the books included in our church, please follow the link below :www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html
@Mr. No Name There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate; 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, and 3 books in the Apocrypha.
@Mr. No Name The Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate is composed of 76 books; 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, and 3 books in the Apocrypha.
Love this! Wondering why you skipped over Athanasius in 367 AD, he called it in his Festal Letters. “There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39:4,7 (A.D. 367).
Athanasius played a major role in the development. Especially since his successor Peter, took refuge with Pope Damasus. Who declared the closed books. But Athanasius’s Old Testament list has different books
Melito undermines your position ("Wisdom" is probably a reference to Proverbs). He excludes the Apocrypha and he would undermine the position that the Septuagint gives you a particular canon.
Luther was determined to make the Bible fit his theology, even if that removing books. From the New Testament, he decided to take out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because they didn't fit his teaching of saved by faith alone without works.
@@shellieperreault6262 Martin Luther wanted to also take out the books of James, Jude, and Revelation. He did not because he would have lost his congregation. Those 7 were taken out because he did not like certain passages very much. If someone were to ask you to name a divine and perfect number, what would it be?
@@myfivestarrealty Yes, they've always been there and they are still there today. The full canon was in the KJV until the 1850's, and Concordia Publishing House here in the US wanted to publish a study bible using the ESV translation, but Crossway (protestant bible publishers) wouldn't allow them to publish the deutercanonicals in the same volume. So, CPH had to publish the English study bible in two volumes....
@YAJUN YUAN what do you mean removed . The Church put together the first Bible . The Bible is the OT +NT . How can you remove something before it exists ?
When the 7 books are analyzed they do not have consistent truth of established scripture. You will not find Tobit 6:7-9 anywhere else. You will not find 2 Maccabee's 12 anywhere else to provide the doctrine of praying for the dead! However of all the roman Catholics I have spoken too they have adamantly said the 7 books are scripture but have never read them. So have you read them and compared what is taught in them to the rest of scripture?
6:49 - Bishop Melito is cited in Eusebius's History of Church as having listed the Old Testament books minus the deuterocanonical books in his letter to a fellow Christian. In this video, he seems to advocate the inclusion of these books.
Constantine was the Roman emperor famous for ending the persecution of Christians. He is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Churches, but the Western Church honors him as an important figure in the history of the faith with the title Constantine the Great. He perceived Arianism as a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire and wanted the matter resolved. His principal contribution to the Council of Nicea was using his authority and influence as emperor to facilitate safe travel, living accommodations, and meeting facilities for the participants (i.e., the pope, bishops, and advisors). This was a significant logistical challenge because approximately 300 bishops attended from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts.
The reason Josephus cited a different number of OT books than modern-day Jews is because Jeremiah & Lamentations were originally one book, as were Judges & Ruth, to make 22 books instead of 24. Although the NT alludes to the Deuteros, they also alluded and even quoted from non-Deuteros too, like 1 Enoch & even called it "prophecy." But the Deuteros were never cited as Scripture with terms like, "It is written" or "Have you not read?" or "Scripture says" or "the Law & the Prophets." This latter term is what the apostle Paul used to refer to the OT canon (Romans 3:21). In the book of Acts, Paul refers to himself as "I am a Pharisee." As Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers admitted Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same OT books. As a Pharisee, Paul would have espoused to the exact same OT books as Protestants do today, which excludes the Deuteros. Jesus used this same phrase to describe the OT canon of the Pharisees who were listening to everything He said (Luke 16:14-16). A few verses later, Jesus stated, "They [the Pharisees] have [Greek: "echo" - to have possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the OT canon]." Like Paul, Jesus affirmed the Pharisaic OT canon, which is identical to Protestant OTs today, which excludes the Deuteros. As Catholic author Gary Michuta stated, "the Septuagint we have today is different than in Jesus' day. It was a liturgical text which kept getting added to. According to the "Letter of Aristeaus" which Philo of Alexandria read in A.D. 35, the first books translated into the Greek Septuagint was the Torah, not the Deuteros too, since they hadn't been written yet. And as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers stated, "The first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible," not the Deuteros too. Not all the ECFs espoused to all the Deuteros. Catholic canonized St. Irenaeus only had Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah in his OT canon, but had ALL of the Hebrew Bible in it. Western church fathers, like Hilary of Portier & Rufinus, also rejected the Deuteros in favor of the Hebrew Bible. So, did Epiphanius of Salamis (from the Council of Rome) and Cyril of Jerusalem, and even Doctors of the Church like St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Pope Gregory the Great, & Jerome, and others like Cardinal Cajetan & Ximenes, and even Erasmus preferred the Hebrew Bible. Many "citations" of the Deuteros are actually direct quotes from EARLY books from the Hebrew Bible that LATER Deuteros were referencing. The Didache also "cites" non-Deuteros too. Melito of Sardis actually didn't cite ANY of the Deuteros in his OT list, only the Hebrew Bible (minus Esther). It's not until the fourth century that you have "somewhat" of a consensus that includes the Deuteros in the fourth & fifth century church councils. But even then, they aren't all consistent. None of them included Baruch of the epistle of Jeremiah, and Carthage of 397 omitted Revelation too! After the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1441), Deuteros like Sirach were still questioned by Catholics. It wouldn't be until the Council of Trent (1546) that the Catholic OT canon was officially "defined" in response to the Protestant Reformation. Also, the fourth & fifth century councils included 1 & 2 Esdras, which were essentially Ezra-Nehemiah and additions to Esdras (sometimes called 3 Esdras). Trent did not accept the additions to Esdras, so the early councils did NOT have the exact same canon as produced later by Trent. For more information, see the book I just published: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller": www.amazon.com/WHY-PROTESTANT-BIBLES-ARE-SMALLER/dp/1097216993/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1559939185&sr=1-1
The extra books were added after the Reformation. The Catholic Apologists arguing these 7 books were in the original Bible early on is. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church inserting itself in as the first church. Who could provide proof one way or the other that couldn’t have been doctored ? While the Roman Catholic Church could be the earliest formation of a hierarchy and denomination. This doesn’t in anyway PROVE the Roman Catholic Church is the “1 true church” as Roman Catholics like to claim.
I'm curious why you mention Augustine but not Jerome? Jerome flat called your extra books apocryphal and went one step further and said they were not in the canon; Jerome, Prefaces Samuel and Kings. The fact is while they were included in the LXX and the vulgate they were never considered canonical. Luther didn't remove a thing. His n.t. had every book we have and his o.t. had every book found in a roman catholic bible. Its extremely poor scholarship and research to suggest he did.
The NT hardly, if it all, mentions the so called deutrocanonical books, while all the way making countless references to the Hebrew OT. This would indicate to me that the so called deutrocanonical books are not Canon.
Thank you for the information in this video. I recently overcame by Protestant bias against reading these omitted books and purchased a copy of the 1611 Apocrypha and the Orthodox edition of the NKJV study bible. These books were in the 1611 edition of the KJV then omitted. Is it possible that the omission of these books contributed to the constant fragmentation of Protestantism? BTW, thumbs up.
Yes, it did. The full canon was in the KJV until the 1850's when printer started catering to neo-"awakened" Protestants. The full canon is still the official bible of the Lutheran Church, and Luther's translation still has the full canon. Concordia Publishing House here in the US wanted to do a study bible with the full canon based on the ESV, but Crossway (Baptist owners of the ESV text) wouldn't allow CPH to do it. So now, Lutherans in America are stuck using two volumes for their bibles.
Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]). Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]). Council of Carthage III “[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
@@CybermanKing they not canon somehow, the problem with Western mindset that the see it as canon or not ,back or white no gray zone whatever they considered in early church to be in gery zone
Q. Who has the authority to decide which books go in the Bible and which ones not? A. The Catholic Church, with the authority Jesus gave her at Matthew 16:19. Q. Don't the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants have a say? A. No. Eastern Orthodoxy is a schism that split from the Church ten centuries after Jesus founded it and Protestantism is a heresy invented fifteen centuries after Jesus founded the Church. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Was JUST in library looking for these books 2 days ago! Am so sorry I missed the live chat. Very intriguing to say the least! Happy 4th🇺🇸 PLEASE pray for our President who is under constznt attack by his own country. Liberals have lost their minds. They are ruining US!! 🇺🇸
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) and the Nevi'im - (Prophets) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
While I am starting to read histories of the origins of the Roman Catholic Church from a purely historical perspective, it's still not clear to me about when the office of "pope" really started coming into existence or common usage, notwithstanding any claims that the Apostle Peter was the first one. Also, it's not clear around when the Rome bishop began coalescing or claiming power or authority over the other leading bishops. Any purely historical answers to those two questions? And please, no "it's always been this way and Protestants just dont accept it" rhetoric. Thank you.
The Deuterocanonical books are in the Lutheran Bible, he just includes them in a different section. The problem with them to the Protestants is that they were written after the death of the last recognized Jewish prophet, Malachi. If these books were not written by a prophet they were not inspired. Yes they were used by the Apostles but they were inspired. Remember there were very good reasons for the Reformation in the 1500's just as there are reasons why people of good Christian conscience can't settle with the Catholic Church now.
Granting your point that, "If these books were not written by a prophet they were not inspired," how do you treat the inspiration of the Apostles who quoted them in the New Testament?
@@kimfleury The Apostles were inspired. The Apostles would quote the Greeks too. Only after the Apostles quoted them do they have legitimacy. Luke 16: 16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God [c]has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." 2 Peter 3:2 "that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." This is what Protestants believe. the Apocrypha is important in that the Apostles referred to them but by themselves they are not to be used to form doctrine. Actually to form doctrine they only to go by the New Testament and it's interpretation of the OT. Now I am a Catholic and see reasons to include the in Canon, but I won't call Protestants heretics for saying if you want to read those books buy a separate volume. Even the word Deuterocanonical means "Second Canon". You don't include the NT with the OT. they are separate. You have the OT, the deuterocanonical, and the NT. We know exactly which writings are deuterocanonical. The Protestant want a lot more separation in that they were not written by the Prophets or Apostles than we Catholics.
What does it matter to Roman Catholics the inclusion or exclusion of the 7 books. Every Roman Catholic that I know, NEVER reads their Bible, and if you were to ask them to offer a presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from Scripture with a gun held to their head, they could not do it. Every Roman Catholic I know cannot quote one passage of scripture from the Bible. Every Roman Catholic I know can name the books of the Bible or their order. Every Roman Catholic I know is completely ignorant of the content of the books of the Bible and their themes. Every Roman Catholic I know, knows nothing of the 4 Gospels and the intricate details of Jesus' life. So. What does it matter about those 7 books. I know 3 Roman Catholic clergy, who are so ignorant of the scriptures when I have discussion with them simply about scripture, I've asked them to give me Gospel that would lead to salvation from scripture. None of them could do it. All the Reformation did was to get Bibles into the common man's hand so they could read it for themselves. Which by the way, the Roman Catholic Church killed anyone who made such attempts. Does not common sense cause a Roman Catholic to wonder about that? Why does the Roman Catholic institution of religion so vehemently protect its followers from reading and studying the Bible for themselves? I have listened to myriads of Roman Catholic "sermons", and never do they exposits from from the Scripture -- why is that? Again, why should Dr. Marshall make such a point about these 7 books, when no Roman Catholic reads nothing of Bible...period! There are so many anit-Biblical practices in the Catholic Church, it defies any theological sense to anyone who reads and knows what is in the Bible. Here are a few: 1. There is no such thing as Papal Succession from Peter. Down through the centuries there were gaps, anti-popes, men killing each other for that office. 2. The first time a man called a Pope was called the Vicar of Christ was in 492 B.C. Jesus Christ NEVER gave a man such a title. 3. Peter was married, because the Bible records Jesus healed his mother-in-law. Look up Matthew 8:14 4. Jesus with his disciples had drank wine and had eaten bread stating it was His body. Now how would a disciple say he was eating His flesh and drinking His blood while Jesus is sitting there with the disciples, alive. Look up Matthew 25:26-29. 5. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The Bible records in the Gospels that Jesus had brothers and sisters and there is NO record that Joseph had a wife before or after Mary. Look up Mark 6:3-4. 6. Jesus had even told His disciples and the crowds that were listening to Him that those who do the will of His Father (God) were His mother and brothers and sisters. The Bible is instructing you that Mary had not special place in the plan of salvation except that she had given birth to Jesus. Look up Matthew 12:46-50 7. Mary prayed to God and stated she rejoiced in God my Savior (Luke 1:46-47). So this means she acknowledge she NEEDED a savior and that she is not what the Roman church says she is -- a mediatrix Look up Acts 4:12 which says there is NO ONE who can appeal to God for us EXCEPT Jesus Christ. 8. The Bible states there is NO ONE who is a mediator between man and God is ONLY Jesus Christ. Look up 1 Timothy 2:5 9. The Bible states that anyone that forbids marriage is a hypocrite, liar and does not obey the truth. Look up 1 Timothy 4:1-4 10. Unlike what the Catholic Church teaches, it is by faith in Jesus Christ that saves you, not your works. Look up Romans 3:28; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5 11. Here are some things about the history of the Roman Church, and not a single one of these things are in the Bible and hence not started by Jesus, Peter, James, John or Paul who are authors of the New Testament. Dates and anti-biblical teachings of the Roman Church introduced: -- A.D. 300 Prayers for the dead -- A.D. 300 Making the sign of the cross -- A.D. 375 Worship of saints and angels -- A.D. 394 Mass first instituted -- A.D. 431 Worship of Mary begun -- A.D. 500 Priests began dressing differently than laymen -- A.D. 526 Extreme unction -- A.D. 593 Doctrine of purgatory introduced -- A.D. 600 Worship services conducted in Latin -- A.D. 600 Prayers directed to Mary 12. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states and I quote: "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." CCC par. 85. This IS NOT what the Bible teaches, for it tells every believer to study so they can handle the word of truth accurately. Look up 2 Timothy 2:15. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Now let's look at some of the debauched lives of some of the men whom you call the vicars of Christ. This will make you sick. 1. Pope John XXII (1316-34) denies papal infallibility, and by your own catholic historians stated he was "full of avarice more worldly than a pimp." 2. Pope Vivilius (A.D. 537-55) kept changing his mind on doctrine each time the emperor demanded it. He was declared a heretic and excommunicated by the Fifth General Council in A.D. 553 3. Pope Honorius (625-38) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (678-87). For centuries each new pope taking office was required to swear by an oath that Honorius had been a heretic -- yet he re renames on the official list of Peter's successors! 3. At the Council of Constance (1414-18) three popes who claimed to be the true vicar of Christ had each been excommunicated. 4. Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII in 1814. 5. Pope Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arc (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV in 1920. 6. These popes denied both apostolic succession and papal infallibility: Vigilius (537-55), Clement IV (1265-8), Gregory XI (1370-8), Adrian VI (1522-3), Paul IV (1555-9) and Innocent III (1198-1216). 7. Papal infallibility was established by Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council in December 8, 1869. Almost 2000 years after the teachings of Jesus, John Peter, and Paul who NEVER taught such a vile thing! 8. For many centuries the priesthood was largely hereditary: most priests were the sons of other priests and bishops: Pope Sylverius (536-7) was fathered by Pope Hormisdas (414-23) and John XI (931-5) was fathered by Sergius III (904-11) of his favorite mistress Marozia. Boniface 1(418-22), Gelasius (492-6), Agapitus (535-6), Theodore (642-9), Adrian IV (1154-9) were all fathered by priests, bishops and popes. 9. Look up the history of the Borgias -- debauchery at its height 10. Look up the history of the sexual lives of the popes and priest and bishops -- it is too sick to write about. And, it continues today, unchecked by your current Pope! 11. You are well-aware of all the sexual misconduct of your leaders and the cover-up. 12. William Hogan an ex-priest stated after leaving the priesthood in the early 19th century stated: "I am sorry to say, from my knowledge of them (priests) since my infancy to the present moment, that there is not a more corrupt, licentious body of men in the world." This was written in 1854!!! 13. St. Boniface when Germany wrote to Pope Zachary (741-53) that none of the clergy honored their vows of celibacy and stated the "young men who spent their youth in rape and adultery were rising in the ranks of the clergy. They war spending their nights in bed with four or five women, then getting up in the morning…to celebrate mass." 14. Read the book: "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael Rose who describes in detail the gross sexual conduct in the Catholic Seminaries Your current Pope states that "atheists will go to heaven." What does the Bible say about this? -- Jesus says: "Unless you believe that I am He, you will dies in your sins." Look up John 8:24 -- Jesus says: you must believe on Him AS THE SCRIPTURE SAYS. Look up John 7:37 -- The Bible states that you must confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and this is the only way to be saved. Look up Romans 10:9 -- Salvation is obtained through the Lord Jesus Christ only. Look up 1 Thessalonians 5:9 -- Salvation is obtained in Christ Jesus life and with it eternal glory Look up 2 Timothy 2:10 -- Jesus became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation. Look up Hebrew 5:9 I implore you to read the Bible for yourself and you determine if what you currently belief in the Roman institution of religion was established by Jesus and the apostles. You are going to discover if you have the courage to buy a Bible and actually read it, that what you hold to be true is false when compared to Scripture. Encourage your viewers to study their Bibles. Take the example of scriptures when a group of people with whom Paul had spoken: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11) Do you have the moral courage to tell your people to study? Your are not higher than Paul. Jesus did not appear to your personally (Acts 9). And you are not an author of Scripture. TELL YOUR PEOPLE TO READ TO KNOW FOR THEMSELVES!!!
🤣🤣🤣 Oh man that's so cliche and not true. Every older Catholic I know reads the Bible. Two of my grandparents converted to Catholicism because they read the Bible (each of my parents has one convert parent). Considering that the first grandparent who converted was born in 1906, and the second was born in 1920, you have to acknowledge that they are, indeed, "older." One of my "cradle Catholic" grandparents read the Bible faithfully, even outside of the evening time when the family read Scripture together. The other "cradle Catholic" grandparent wasn't able to read well, but knew the Bible inside and out because of memorizing the Readings at Mass and hearing it during evening Bible reading time with the family. I grew up with evening Bible reading time, and I'm "older," which makes my parents even "older," and they're the ones who made sure we had evening Bible reading time! So right off the bat you're wrong, which makes reading the rest of your rant unnecessary, because it's built on a false premise.
Well I can quote “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” from memory. Hope I have that right. Everybody should read the New Testament at least. Available from any Catholic bookshop.
They were already taken out initially, then the Catholic church placed them back to justify the concept of Porgatory. Luther said it does not make sense Christ crucifixion already have saved us, His blood is enough so why do we have to work or earn earn salvation? So that everyone thinks we do not have to look inside ourselves and acquire wisdom within our divinity as sparks of God. The gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas both teach to search inside and you will found in the light inside us through meditation not the laws and practices and rituals and doctrines of any organized religion. But that is history. When we allow our faith to dictate history, we betray both.- Esoterice.
Would you please cite chapter and versus where the New Testament references any of the deuterocanonical books? From Mathew to John, from Acts to Revelation for my own understanding. I'm not arguing for or against. I've read some versus here and there. I tried to sit down and read them but lost interest, honestly did not have the feel of inspired scripture like the rest of the bible. Is there anything to learn from them? I read Maccabees 12 and don't see anything in there that teaches me what I should believe about Jesus. Judas believed in the resurrection, so he prayed FOR the dead, not to the dead. Judas made sacrifices for the dead..I don't think that's right. Though he believed in the resurrection he probably didn't understand the atonement through the cleansing blood of Christ. Just my thoughts. I'm here to argue with anyone. Though I have opinions, I'm still just trying to learn.
I believe St. Athanasius and Melito of Sardis rejected the deuterocanonical books. It seems the fathers who had knowledge of Hebrew seemed to reject them. Maybe a contemporary Jewish influence?
@YAJUN YUAN The OT canon -- which included the deuterocanonical books -- was affirmed by Pope Damasus I in 382, then again at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at once again at the Council of Carthage in 397. Do you consider the participants of these councils to be Church Fathers?
Dr Taylor Marshal is obviously a Protestant . The Catholics and the Protestants all need a savior. Only believers inherit the kingdom of heaven. He needs to call on Jesus and decide to follow Jesus and be baptized into Christ Jesus and filled with the Holy Spirit. Renewing our minds by god’s word helps us to become disciples of Jesus Christ while making other disciples at the same time. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be snatched from the kingdom of darkness to Jesus kingdom of love Colossians 1:13
I dreamed last night.. early this morning about a priest somewhere..it was a priest of distinction like a pope.. but anyway he was teaching from a book that sounded true if you didn't know the actual Word (logos) or the Spirit. It was even written in a kind of archaic language like the early KJ texts.. and I knew it was wrong. But I was the only one who appeared in the setting to know it was wrong. It didn't add up (let the reader understand). And I got up and left...(it's not me because I am very careful who I let sow into my spirit.. there's always a harvest of reaping what's sown whether Truth leading to abundant life or secular wisdom leading to chains.) I'm trying to remember what bugged me most in the dream. I'm not sure..I haven't had enough coffee yet..it takes a lot to make me sleep and then it is quite a job waking me up fully. I think it was about how the churches often misrepresent what is it 2 Cor 9 (even though in the dream it was another text) about God's giving and our giving. I think the reason it was a "Catholic" dream is because catholic literally means whole. And we have these baptist and presbyterians and pentecostals and so on who basically are doing some of the same things the Catholic church is known for..that is misrepresenting scripture to get what they want at the time. I mean do you ever sit back and wonder when they're going to apply the message they give to you? It's like they want you to be accountable to them but there's no way they're going to be accountable to you. You're supposed to live transparent lives but they're not going to tell you how they spend their time. I know some are doing a very good job with what they have and believe me I'm not referring to them all. But there's some out there that..they lie and steal every week and you know if they let themselves off the hook for that there's all kinds of hidden sins.. so I don't think this was about a Catholic church. I think the gist is it's about priests who misuse the Word for their own use. They make it sound right even though it's not. 2 Cor 9 isn't about money. It's about love. God loves us so much He allowed Himself to be mauled and crucified. Don't sow love sparingly. If you have something... what did David have? Goliath was going on rebuking Israel and their faith and David had faith and a few stones and God used it. If you have a word for someone or know someone who needs a lift or whatever it's up to you to give it. And don't sow sparingly if you can give more. Sometimes just someone there commiserating or there building them up is all it takes to make a difference in someone's life. God is going to sow back to you. That's a guarantee. I think there was more to that dream but like I said I need to get up and get some strong European coffee.
@richlopez5896 keeps sharing false quotes from the councils listed trying to imply the deterucannon was not included. He is sharing false quotes and isnt even citing the canons. The following is a direct quote taken from the canon 24 of the council of Carthage: "Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of Divine Scripture But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books. The New Testament The Gospels, iv. books. The Acts of the Apostles, j. book. The Epistles of Paul, xiv. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij. The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij. The Epistles of James the Apostle, j. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j. The Revelation of John, j. book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
It's the birthday of the Bible as we know it today. The individual selections (Genesis, Exodus, Ect.) existed but were not compiled together until the Council of Rome. Basically there were a bunch of heretical texts and forgeries floating around in the Church causing theological disagreement so the Council of Rome got together basically to decide which books should be considered "Canon" and authoritative in matters regarding the faith and the morals. Not to say that the books not added can't have anything good but they shouldn't be used to determine theology and are not morally "authoritative"
That's not correct.. Many many fathers of the church including Saint Gerolamo, pope Gregorio Magnus, Origenes, etc refused the inspiration of God of the deuterocanonics, but they said that aniway this books can be readed in private. Also in Trento council in 16th century against Luther there were a lot of doubts about to include this 7 books or not. Many cardinals were against, or alternativelly, to include this books in the Bible but to separate this 7 fro the others, and specify that they were not inspired by God. At the end they included it just to go against the protestants and to remark the difference between the catholic Bible and the others but this 7 books ARE NOT inspired by god
Its heretical. Puts Angel's in the position of Christ among other issues. That doesnt mean there are not points in the book that cannot be true. But it is a false book.
@ TruthWithLove. If it isn't Canon (approved), we (Catholics) know to stay away from it. Be very cautious about thinking that you know the soul of any man. Learn.
Jude makes allusion to 1 Enoch, but it was part of popular literature back then, so it wasn't referenced because it was canonical but because it was known. Don't you have a Bible with references at the bottom? You can't find any pointing back to the Apocrypha in there?
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) and the Nevi'im - (Prophets) If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
Dont understand why people think they had the right to remove books from the Bible also saying 'fatih alone" is not biblical jesus didnt teach this but they think they have a right to tell god jesus how Salvation works.
