Found your channel from the billy debate and Im so greatful for tye knowledge you share. Im not formally educated but Christ saved my miserable life and healed me, I love Him more than anything so Ive gotten such a drive for knowledge of everything that is the word of God. I have read much of the original 1611 translation of the KJV and found the Apocrypha interesting so this is just awsome. Thank you for standing up for Christ in this age of darkness.
I am a Catholic. I like Mr. Huff. I think he’s intellectually honest. I would love to see him debate @TrentHorn or other former Protestant Catholic apologists. It would be good debate I’m sure.
@ I get that. I just think he honestly believes that. Had a nice Protestant tell me she thought Catholics were band from reading the Bible. I thought she was honest too. You don’t know what you don’t know. A debate might help him see through the veil.
@@Jamesps34 that is true. I just think that he should try to do better research and seek more understanding while approaching topics that involve other faiths. It gives the impression that he only used sources that agreed with him 100%
Scottish Bible society wrote a letter to british bible society asking them to remove the appocrypa on the ground that protestants after reading this appocrypa of the Bible becoming catholics
@@austinmorris3422 The book of Revelations was moved to an undecided section of the Bible by Martin Luther. There’s two copies in museums. He alludes in his writings of this to the early church disputing this book. It’s in the Bible because of the Catholic Church. The book of Revelations says angels pass prayers from the people, to God. In the early church, a historian Eusebius writes of these disputed books. He also writes the first Christians made images of Jesus and the apostles. And the woman from the gospel who was healed with blood problems by Jesus, made a statue of Jesus, that had miraculous healings for hundreds of years. Similar to the handkerchief in the book of acts. So no, the angel telling John to get up from bowing doesn’t make sense to prove a point you are attempting to. The iconography council in the seventh century clarified this topic.
3:16 This is something that Gary Michuta often mentions. Which Jews? If you are talking about Rabbinic Jews then ya, but what about the Essenes and the Hellenistic Jews? They had these books along with the 24(39) books.
These are interesting but old and not too good arguments if you all are interested read Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem -Devin Rose • 3/1/2014
@mariorosas7779 I'll check out the article. But I wouldn't call it a not good argument since it's more of a historical observation. My fellow Protestants often generalize later Rabbinic Judaism and their canon as if they were all Jews at the time of Messiah. But that is not what we can see. Everyone had a different canon, but a general core of the same books. The Pharisees had the 24 which were all authoritative for teaching. The Sadducees had the 24, but only took doctrine from the Torah. The Essenes had the 24 and others and we can see some of the other texts being used for their doctrine and calendar, so we can assume they were authoritative. The Hellenists had the 24 and others, which were included in the Septuagint, and we can see that the early Christians used the other books as authoritative as well which might suggest that the Hellenists also took them as authoritative.
@@stupidw33b52 Yeah, and Jews kiss the Torah. Do they worship the Torah? Obviously not. Its so funny to me just how insanely far removed from the context of the Near East Protestants are that they see something as basic as an act of showing affection and automatically call it idolatry.
Those who kiss pictures of their family members are surely guilty of worshipping them. Those who salute flags /honor flags, in honor of their countries, surely worship flags. Those who ask their pastors to pray for them (just like Catholics ask saints to pray for them) surely worship their pastors and replace Jesus, as the mediator, with their pastors. Those who honor portraits of great men and women and heroes of the past surely worship those images...
So I guess the fact that Jesus quoted the Septuagint means nothing? Right. Clearly, God himself favored the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books, and many of his teachings parallel those taught in these books. Moreover, the Septuagint was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews of that time. If it was good enough for Jesus, the Son of God, then I side with Jesus on this one.
@SnappyMcDragon If there is a logical fallacy, please identify its type. Simply disagreeing with someone does not constitute a logical fallacy. Furthermore, your disagreement may indicate that I could have provided more thorough explanations. I will concede and elaborate on my position. The significance of Jesus’ quotations from the Septuagint, the Greek-speaking Jewish version of Scripture, cannot be overlooked. This translation not only encompassed the Deuterocanonical books but also served as the primary scripture for the nascent Church and the Jewish diaspora. Numerous teachings and allusions attributed to Jesus draw inspiration from these texts, further emphasizing their profound influence on His ministry. It is crucial to recognize that the Septuagint held widespread acceptance within the Jewish community of Jesus’ era, particularly outside Palestine. It became the foundational text for the Old Testament in early Christianity. The Apostles and early Christians relied extensively on the Septuagint during their missionary endeavors, as evidenced by its frequent utilization in the New Testament. While certain Jewish sects later disavowed the Deuterocanonical books, this decision transpired after the time of Christ, influenced by factors such as opposition to Christianity. If the Septuagint was sufficient for Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church, it is reasonable to assert that these books possess spiritual and theological value. I choose to align myself with this historical and scriptural tradition.
@@honestabe4161 That’s a compositional fallacy: the attributes of an individual being misrepresented as the attributes of the overarching group. Just because certain sections of the Septuagint were quoted by Christ, doesn’t mean every book that is within is classified by Him to be authentic. A perhaps not apt but similar comparison would be the book of Jude: the author quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, both of which weren’t even Septuagint in origin and yet nevertheless made it into the canon. The Holy Spirit clearly thought it was fit to include references to texts that He didn’t inspire the Jews to include into the Old Testament, doesn’t mean that those texts were then divinely inspired, this only goes to show that these specific verses from the apocryphal texts were authenticated by the Holy Spirit, but not the entirety of the books.
@@samhwwg Your argument misinterprets the role of the Septuagint. It wasn’t just a text Jesus occasionally quoted-it was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews and the early Church. Comparing it to Jude referencing apocryphal works is misleading, as those were isolated quotes, while the Septuagint shaped early Christian theology. Furthermore, the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as scripture by the Jewish diaspora and early Christians before later Jewish councils rejected them, partly in response to Christianity. If the Septuagint was authoritative for Jesus and the Apostles, dismissing it today demands stronger justification. So, summary, the argument for the Septuagint is not simply about quoting parts of it but about its centrality to the faith practices of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. If the Septuagint was authoritative enough for the early Church, then dismissing large portions of it today requires more justification than your post provides.
@ The Catholic Church’s rejection of some books in the Septuagint (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees) does not undermine the argument for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books, as these were accepted through a rigorous canonization process. Conflating the entire Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books misrepresents the issue, and pointing to non-canonical books is a red herring that distracts from the central argument: Jesus and the early Church relied on the Septuagint, affirming its foundational role in Christian scripture.
@SnappyMcDragon Your critique misrepresents the argument by assuming it claims Jesus’ quotation equals endorsement of every Septuagint book-a strawman fallacy. The argument emphasizes the Septuagint’s centrality in Jesus’ time and its widespread acceptance in the early Church. The post’s false equivalence between the Catholic Church’s discernment process and Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanon, along with cherry-picking and overgeneralization, weakens its critique. The Septuagint’s authority is grounded in its historical and theological use, not in an all-or-nothing approach.
“The ancient Jews did not consider them God’s word,”. Well The ancient Jews did not consider Jesus as God. That’s not necessarily a good argument. I don’t believe the books are canon, but be aware of the weakness of this argument.
That's the worst argument for removing those 7 OT books. For one at the time of Christ there was no established Canon, and yes you're right why would I care what some Jews 100 years after Christ who denied His Divinity thought?
@@jd3jefferson556 Christianity started with Jews. That is why you should care. Christ was a Jew. The main reason why you should care. It is not understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity why so many Christians do not even understand concepts and lesson in the Bible in the first place. Christians don't even understand or see prophecy right in the Bible. Wes is a very knowledgeable man.
@@jd3jefferson556they weren't removed.l - according to this biblical historian, they were never originally considered part of scripture in the 1st place. Are you saying hes wrong? And on what basis? And saying "why would I care what some Jews who denied Christ's divinity thought" is the worst argument, given that the entire OT is essentially "what some Jews thought" as it is literally the Jewish scripture originally written down in Hebrew. 😅
@hansdykstra3869 there was no established scripture at the time of Christ. The "Jewish Scripture" was established over 100 years after Christ at a Jewish council in response to Christianity. The Apostles were using the Septuigent a Greek Translation of the Old Testament, which included the Deuterocanon. Also, we should be using the Scriptures given to us by the Church Christ established, we all agree on the New Testament (except Martin Luther) which is 27 nooks narrowed from 200 documents in the 4th century. All Apostolic Churches use the detericanon, but because of a tradition of man, Protestants use a 66 book Bible. The 66 number alone should be a red flag
As an Orthodox Christian, our canon was established by the Church through Councils being finalized at the Council of Trullo in 691 A.D. The Old Testament was the Septuagint and the New Testament the 27 books. However, you are mistaken and correct about the Jews holding to the Protestant Old Testament depending. You are correct if you are talking about the 2nd Century Jews post temple destruction who formed a Old Testament canon in response to Christians. But prior, the Jews were not a monolithic group, but each group of Jews held to different Scriptures, therefore there was no one canon of the Jews. This is where you are mistaken. But it all depends of what Jews and at what time in history you are talking about if you are right or wrong. Luther looked to 2nd century Jews. While the early one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the Orthodox Church today) was the one Church which held to the Septuagint and NT. In the end, the Protestants did remove books. But accused the Catholics of adding books. The Protestants looked to unbelieving Christ rejecting Jews from the 2nd Century to form their Old Testament and rejected the Church that formed the canon, which Rome was once part of, but whom was excommunicated is 1054 A.D. for heresy. The Lutherans shortly after Luther’s death were in contact with the Orthodox Church and Eastern patriarch acknowledging that they were the true one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not Rome. Interesting history to consider. For further info see ruclips.net/user/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace. To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.
We know what the Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus -- who both list the exact same number of books (along with quotations stating the non-inspired nature of books like Maccabees (etc.). I'd also recommend watching my video (and looking further into the subject within Septuagintal scholarship) on what the Septuagint is and isn't. With all due respect, the fact that you're referencing it as a single thing indicates that you're unaware of what the LXX is exactly. The LXX is not a single thing as much as it is an umbrella category for a body of Jewish translational literature. We might refer to the "New Testament's use of the Septuagint", but even that is somewhat of a misnomer. The LXX is only one stream of a series of streams of Jewish literature that ended up being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Many deuterocanonical books found themselves into this body of literature in the post-Christian period, but many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and *not* in Hebrew (these books having no Hebrew original is another reason cited by early Jewish writers as to why they did not carry authoritative status as scripture).
@@WesHuff You said: “We know what *THE* Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus” Q(1): Did all Jews in the first century unanimously agree on which books were canonical? Q(2): If not then which Jews were correct on which books were canonical? You said: “many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and not in Hebrew” Q(3): Which of the Deuterocanonical writings are originally Greek compositions? Q(4): Why were the New Testament writings recognized as canonical even though they are originally Greek compositions?
@@WesHuffJosephus’ canon does not inform us at all what books were accepted., Your conflating one individual (a Pharisee) as if they spoke for all of Judaism (Which includes Essenes and Sadducees). Josephus does not provide a “canon list”, he provides an enumeration on the books. He lists twenty two books, but does not describe what those books are. Did he include Jeremiah? Does he merge Baruch with Jeremiah? Did he remove Esther? Did he include Wisdom? Your reading into the text, not lifting out of it.
@@WesHuffHebrew and Aramaic fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Qumran from before the 1st century AD would also debunk the idea that they all did not have Hebrew originals.
@@rudycataldo3653wrong. Even Luther in his translation had a note after the “apocrypha” that said “thus concludes the Old Testament,” clearly indicating that they were apart of the OT. Protestant bibles included the deuterocanon up until the 19th century.
@@rudycataldo3653 how entitled are you protestant? the canon of the bible was closed on 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Information from a theologian who also studied in the Museum of the Bible (We studied the Bible history with different religions including Catholics, Jews, Protestants. The professors had no preference of religion): The Septuagint is in Greek because some people of the early church translated the Torah into Greek. So, Jewish do not use the Septuagint because it was after Christ. Besides, the Catholic Bible said those texts are in Greek and not in Hebrew. Catholics doubted about those books because they were in Greek and they seem not inspired by God. That’s why they decided to add them but put them in a category named: Deuterocanonical. Thank you for your video Wesley! I added this in case someone wants to listen from other resources too.
To think that one man, Martin Luther, decided unilaterally to exclude those seven books is one thing but for all those who used this as an excuse to believe that he alone made the right decision and accept the Bible with those omissions is amazing. Luther never intended to create the facture within the Church that occurred he merely wanted the Church to acknowledge the issues and at least address them.
You know that Luther had 75 books in his translation, right? It is only after the 19th century that Protestant Bibles (thanks to BFBS and others) started to exclude the Apocrypha. It is just that we do not consider these books canonical as the rest of Scripture as the Ancient Jews have done so as well. Useful, but not scriptural.
For those people who believe that the seven books are not canon then this is a Passage from the Book of Baruch(present only in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible)which provides a MESSIANIC prophecy which was Fulfilled in John1:14 Baruch 3:35-37:"This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the ways of Knowledge , and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel His Beloved. Afterwards HE was SEEN upon Earth and Conversed with MEN" 🙃🙃🫠😂
the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
So one of the key issues historically is that all we have from what was supposedly reported at the Council of Rome, particularly the statement form Damasus listing the canonical books, most likely didn't come from Damasus. The most up-to-date scholarship on the subject can only narrow Damasus's statements to a compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. Historically we have no true record that isn't under heavy debate as to its authenticy from the Council of Rome. However, giving all of what you've said the benefit of the doubt, the Council of Rome was not a dogmatically binding ecumenical council, but rather, a local council. Even official Catholic president today recognizes that only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense. The Council of Rome does not fall under the criteria as a binding council for all. Therefore, even if Damasus's statements have authentic provenance (which I do not believe they do) the modern Roman Catholic cannot base these statements as magisterium ordinarium due to the Council of Rome being a local gathering.
@@WesHuff All recognized Orthodox Local councils are BINDING according to First Canon of the 7th Ecumenical council.... 7th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , CANON 1 "we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled REGIONALLY for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. " -----(CANON 1 , 7TH Ecumenical Council) So, by this rule, we can now say that the Canon of Scripture with Deuterocanonical books promulgated in the Local Councils are Binding to the Whole Church.... Council of Rome(382A.D.) councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
@@pinoysarisari7374 Not if the records of the CoR are inauthentic to the council but contrived much later - which much like other documents such as the Donation of Constantine - are used by the church to validate dogma but are in fact spurious. Which is almost certainly the case in this instance. Likewise, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”
@@WesHuff the Pope never attacked the 7th ecumenical council...It is part of Catholic Dogma.... It is a recognized council of the Catholic church.... Second...the burden of proof is on you to prove that CANON 1 of the 7th Ecumenical council is Fake....
@@pinoysarisari7374 Im not sure we’re talking about the same thing. The statement of Demasus that supposedly came from the council of Rome can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Any connection to its provenance being earlier than that is speculation. As Bruce states in his commentary on the document: “What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century” [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).
Holy moly Wes, I came across you because of the Billy scandal, but I stayed because you’re like a revelation to me. I learn so much! Thanks for sharing all this content.
1. The Jews did not agree on the canon. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Essenes all had different canons. 2. Jews after the time of Christ, that reject Christ, don’t have the authority to recognise the canon. Instead, that is left to the bishops who are in succession to the Apostles. Augustine makes this point. 3. Pope Damasus I makes the first official decree of what the canon is in the regional Council of Rome in 382AD. It includes the Deuterocanonical Books. 4. This same canon is reaffirmed at Hippo, Carthage, then later at the ecumenical Council of Florence. 5. It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture. Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand. So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture. Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament. Joe Heschmeyer has a great video on this topic: ruclips.net/video/9udZKziHemo/видео.htmlfeature=shared
"It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture." Well at least you can admit that the canonization of the deuterocanon was reactionary to the reformation, most catholics think it's a coincidence that the only books from the septuagint that were canonized were the ones that conveniently had arguments against the reformation. Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand." Belief =/= doctrine Many people believed Limbo was real, doesn't mean it's official doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell. "So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture." Why is 3rd and 4th Maccabees not in the catholic bible? You do not need the protestants help to remove books from scripture, catholics seem just fine messing with the canon all on their own ;) "Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament." I don't understand, according to you Luther had the power to and did declare the deuterocanon uncanon and remove them from scripture (as far as his followers were concerned at least), but you're also saying he tried and failed to remove NT books as well? Well which one is it?
@@InitialPC I’m not sure what your point is. Of course the Council of Trent was reactionary. All councils are. The Church calls a council to squash a heresy. In Acts 15, the Church calls the first council to combat the Judaiser heresy. Council of Trent condemned the heresy of Protestantism as well as cleaning up abuses. The Catholic Church didn’t remove 3 and 4 Maccabees. She has never recognised them as Scripture. I said Luther had authority to declare the canon? Not sure what you’re talking about. Luther took it upon himself to decide what books make up Scripture. I obviously don’t think he had authority to do so.
I totally agree. Our friend in the vídeo does not refer to the Councils of the 4th century, in which the Church defined the cânon. He diminishes the authority of the Council of Florence(1442) which confirmed the cânon. And he gives weak reasons to dismiss this important Council, saying that important Catholic figures did not accept the canon. He misses the point. Once an article of faith is defined by a Council, it muar be accepted by all Catholics. Whether they like it or not. The Council of Florenc is abother element 8:35 that demolishes the affirmation that the Catholic was defined in Trent. By the way, the first book printed, Gutenberg’s Bible (around 1450) conta-nos the deuterocanonical. With the Church’s express approval.
@@LuizFelipeMendoncaFilho you have not read the list of books given in each of those councils, otherwise you would have known they all have different books, one excludes baruch, each include and exclude different psalms, most of them affirm the septuagint esdras as canon, etc actually read them, and then get back to me about "oh they knew from the beginning what was canon and it was the same the entire time" no it wasnt
I say they’re important in the video. However, they’re not inspired Scripture. Don’t forget that Paul quotes the Stoic Mernander and Euripides in 1. Cor. 15:33, Epimenides in Titus 1:12, as well as Seneca in Acts 17. I don’t think anyone thinks that his usefulness of relevant literature means that those pagan philosophers should be included in the canon.
@@WesHuff excellent brief summary & defense of the Hebrew Bible/Protestant OT canon! I just had a brief discussion on the Gospel Simplicity channel defending the historicity of the Protestant OT canon if you want to check it out. I also wrote a book on it: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," as well as debated Roman Catholics, such as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, Gary Michuta, Dr. Robert Sungenis, & Tim Gordon. Blessings! Steve Christie.
Thanks Wes, Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.
No he can’t. The Catholics codified the canon several times going back to 382 if I got the year right. Every Bible ever printed had 73 books from the Catholic Church. There were competing canons at the time of Christs life you have the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon. The books weren’t in dispute and he’s misleading you on this History of Catholic Bible. 597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! Facts: 1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21. 2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God. 3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world. As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah. Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, myself, I greatly appreciate your take Wes. While I disagree on some points, I felt that the approach to the discussion was very respectful and Christ-like. Thank you for striving to share truth in a way that honors our Lord.
Correct me if I’m wrong but up until the reformation, those books was included in the Bible that was used universally? If so, doesn’t that just basically mean that they move them?
Yes. Before the reformation, the bible today and the apocrypha were used as one collective book. Throughout those times, the bible is believed and is announced as collections of books that contain words of God. The fact that they removed some books totally confused millions if the bible really is the word of God. Although the guy in the video admits that they don't really believe so.
The Protestants used the 73 book Bible until 1825. Get a pre-1825 copy of the KJV. It has 73 books. So if you are a hard-core "it's 66 books!" kinda guy, you are adhering to a tradition set by the English Bible Society in the 19th century. For many Protestants that whole "following traditions" thing is going to be hard to rectify.
I know I’m in over my head, you are way more educated than me, but I don’t understand why you say Catholics worship saints. I’m assuming you believe the same about the Eastern Orthodox. Additionally you only looked at the Roman Catholic and Protestant dispute over the canon, ignoring the Eastern Orthodox canon.
Catholics pray to and venerate the Saints. Considering Wes’s level of expertise, one can fairly safely assume that his use of the term ‘worship’ is just an accidental misnomer.
He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism. ❤
Can you provide evidence for your claim, because the Apocrypha was never included in any Hebrew Old Testament and no New Testament writer ever referred to or quoted from the Apocrypha.
The Protestant Bible does contain the Apocryphal books, but they are under reference material. Martin Luther never 'removed' books from the traditional Bible...that is a old wives tale perpetuated by Catholic and Orthodox alike.
@@redit5332 No, he decided to remove it from it's context, with zero authority to do so. The British bible society removed it to save money in the mid 1800's. Also, with zero authority to do so. Heretics helping heretics.
@@redit5332 And who gave luther the authority to re-categorize SCRIPTURE as "reference material"? Luther was of the devil, and he did the devils bidding. He wrought chaos and division.
The speaker left out key facts of the early church. For example he left out the fact that there were three Councils in the early church that dealt with which books made up the bible. The three councils were Rome (382), Hippo (393) and finally Carthage (397). At the Council of Carthage the Bible was finally approved with 73 books not 66! There were several attempts to change the number of books in the Bible once it was as approved including the attempt by Martin Luther. All attempts failed including Luther’s. The Catholic Bible of today contains the same 73 books as the Council of Carthage did. Luther’s version of the bible contained 62 books. His personal interpretation of the bible necessitated the removal of the following books in the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In Revelation 22:18-22 deals with adding or deleting books from the bible. I guess Luther thought that if he deleted Revelation then he could add or delete as he saw fit. The last important area is that was left out dealt with the Geneva and King James bibles. The Geneva Bible was first published the in 1565 with 80 books. The King James Bible was published in 1611 with the same 80 books. In 1881, theGeneva Bible deleted 14 books and the King James deleted the same14 books (Apocraphya) in 1885.i refer you again to Revelation, chapter 22. I hope that if the speaker updates his presentation, he includes the full story of why the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
Thanks I also recommend 'The Jewish Catholic '- RUclips channel by Daniel The parallelism between Catholic beliefs (Papacy, Marian dogmas, etc) and Jewish traditions are so mind-blowing ❤
This appears to be very biased and deceptive. No mention of the Septuagint. No mention that Luther also considered removing Revelations, James, Jude and Hebrews. And what about the Orthodox Canon.
Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?
The official canonization of the Bible occurred at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Those that took part of the council were 400+ bishops (all Catholics) from all over the then-known Christian world. Council of Rome was planned, executed, supervised & overseen by the then Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I. The books used by the Orientals & Coptics are not inspired, because they were not approved by the council. In other words, because they had no authority to add those books, just as Luther had no authority to remove the 7+ books (his Apocrapha), that had always been part of the Biblical Canon. Luther removed them because he did not believe in Purgatory. In all of church history, no church member, nor clergy ever denied the Deuterocanonical, before the Reformation. Shouldn't that be a "red flag?" *2 Maccabees 12: 38-46* 38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place. 39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. 41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 This is demonstrably false history revisionism. Go read Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" written in AD 391. He clearly defines the OT canon, and explicitly excludes the Apocrypha (his word). The word Deuterocanon didn't even exist until 1566. Literally everyone in history referred to those books as "Apocrypha" prior to that. The word means "hidden", but it wasn't used in the same sense that we think of it as "secret". It was moreso used in the sense of books that were "separate" from Scripture. As far as the NT goes, none of those books are in dispute. So it's not relevant when or how they were formally canonized. We all agree on all of them, so they're not part of the debate on the canon.
@@KFish-bw1om I'll start with your last paragraph, then correct the rest. The founder of your faith, Martin Luther removed, not only the Dueterocanonicals, but he also tried to remove James, Hebrew, Job & even Revelation. Each had stiff disagreements with his own faith ideology. Maccabees - Purgatory. James - Faith W/out works. Revelation - spoke of visions which he thought were opposite of the teachings of the apostles. Jude - He believed was a copy of 2 Peter and appears to have been written long after the time of the disciples. NTM, in his 1st translation he literally added the word "alone" after the word faith, because Y personally think he felt he was wrong about "Sola Fide." It's a Holiday, so I'll finish up when I get home this Eve. Enjoy the day, God Bless your family.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now. For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?- - Psalm 18:31 Here, I'll do it with one question: Was the Council of Constance infallible? If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Islam and Mormonism are defeated. By it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false. Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now. For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?- - Psalm 18:31 Here, I'll do it with one question: Was the Council of Constance infallible? If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Is Salami and Joe Smith (words modded for the Tube) are defeated, by it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false. Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
We're all sinners and all need grace. Every Saint is a sinner saved by grace and therefore God and God alone gets all glory. The Bible literally says we have one intercessor and that is the God Man Christ Jesus. No human anywhere ever deserves veneration, to be prayed to, or anything. God says you will bow only to Him.
@@ramzilla873 Although my comment was directed to Wes, I will reply to your comment, though not to every point as my time doesn't permit. On this we agree: "We are all sinners and need grace and God alone gets all the glory". The Saints that Catholics venerate were exactly such people. By God's grace, they were able to rise above the sin in their lives and practice virtue to a heroic degree. When Catholics venerate (honor) these Saints they recognize how the grace of God worked in their lives, and thus God is glorified through His creature. When any part of the Body of Christ, you and I, cooperate with God's grace, God Himself is glorified. Veneration simply means honor, and Christians should honor those who gave example of holy lives and strive to imitate their example.
@SeanBeatsMapson Haha. You really don't knw Basic Acient Church History. Thank the Catholic church for your Bible and for them defending Christianity against Muslims. They fought for Christ and the Church. Remember Protestants didn't exist until the late 15th 16 century. If you go to any old countries in the world there Catholic along with a couple other APOSTOLIC churches. But no baby PROTESTANTS. God bless. Oh yeah and the Jews don't even believe in Jesus. So why trust their Canon of the Jews. They alone where divided and couldn't agree in it. God bless. And God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🕊
Protestants get this wrong so much it is sad. The Apocrypha was removed in 1825 to save on printing costs, before that it was reclassified (without authority to do so) by Martin Luther so he could win theological debates and remove what he had difficulty reconciling with personally. The deuterocanonical books were part of scripture (Jewish and christian) long before the masoretic canon was written in the 3rd century. The Apostles, early Church fathers, and Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which was the Jewish text since around 200 B.C. protestants have a false Bible that removed scripture and thus lost connection to the Apostles and the Church of Christ
"Martin Luther so he could win theological debates" He definetely tried to do that with James. But he really believed the masoretic text was the 'original' one
@@saultarango-rosales4230Do you not understand that everything this guy said is said by other scholars? So what do we do now? My scholar is better than yours? This is common history, fact check yourself everything
Saying Catholics worship saints is so wild. Huge credibility hit for anything you say regarding the Catholic vs Protestant debate, at least outside of the realm of your historical textual knowledge
Sorry but I've heard some discussions with Catholic apologists and they use the word worship, they just say the worship given to God is different from the worship given to saints. I'm not sure if it was Trent Horn who made these statements, but I know it was a leading Catholic apologist.
@ckjaytheactual I've seen much of trents work and never heard him do that. Either way, there's a distinction being made right there between the different meanings behind the use of the word, effectively separating them. No Catholic, especially an apologist, would say we "worship" saints, let alone without then making very clear of the intended definition of the word
Please reference the last paragraph of a "hail Mary". Do you call her a holy queen? Yes? Then how are you not worshiping her? There are far deeper heresies that we can pull from that paragraph too.
@@Ray12121 That isnt worship lol. Are you worshipping the queen of England when you recognize her status? My goodness. Read the old testament describing the davidic kingdoms. The queen was the queen mother. Let alone the description in revelation of the mother of Jesus being crowned. You guys need to humble yourselves and recognize that you don't understand the Bible the way you think you do.
All accepted canones in all Apostolic Churches had and still have the Deuterocanon. It's only the protestants following some Jews (Hellenic Jews used the Septuagint after all) that indeed removed books from the Old Testament.
Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.
@WesHuff great work that your doing, is it possible for you to 1 day dialog with @Gary Michuta about the Canon/Septuagint..please would be great to learn from you both. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Just ran across this video - really appreciate the information and moreso because of the manner in which you relay the information. Very helpful! Thanks!
History of Catholic Bible. 597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! Facts: 1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21. 2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God. 3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world. As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah. Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Wrong the first septuagint is only the five books of moses, and during the 1st century AD, the Jews in their synagogues used Hebrew scriptures not septuagint, and Jesus specifically mentioned the writings of moses and the prophets and the writings as scriptures(btw the current masoretic texts is categorised as such) Jesus did not say that the septuagint Greek scrolls as scriptures and Jesus didn't live in diaspora as did the Jews he preached to.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
The early Jews didn’t hold to these books? You know there were different sects of Jews right? Lol You know in maccabees is the only place where it discusses Hanukkah, and Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. Sooo….and you keep saying the Christian’s at that time relating it to “ Protestants” because prots don’t call themselves prots they just say “ we’ll I’m Christian, not Catholic” when Catholics are the first Christian’s. So it’s just weird how prots turn a blind eye to the obvious.
Audchaldean catholics are not Christians nor were they the first Christians either the spread of the gospel through the apostles was how Christians came to be followers of Jesus also known as followers of the way the catholic false church was invented by constantine in early 300's A.D there was no apostolic succession like the catholic religion claims constantine took biblical truth and added in paganism with it and formed the apostate church the roman catholic church and ever since it's formation the catholic herest has increased and twisted many more satanic dogma's and all kinds of unbiblical nonsense you guys believe more and more heretical things were added by catholic popes etc the true church the one that God intended has been thriving never apart of the catholic apostacy before the reformation there were many bible believing Christians the catholic apostacy set on genocide of millions of believers over the centuries because they stood on the word of God and would not come under the control of paganistic catholicism
At minute 6:15 you state, “Nonetheless traditions that the рарасy held to as doctrine like that of purgatory uh worship of the saints and prayer for the dead could be proof texted out of many of the deuterocanonical books and this was defended as scripture” Catholics do not teach teach worship of saints. Worship belongs only to God alone. Show me where the Catechism ever teaches anyone to worship anything other than God?
Βίβλος is not plural , it's singular feminine in Greek. (the plural is Βίβλοι) Meant originally papyrus because of the city of Byblos where they got it. It ended up meaning a book ( ie compilation of texts)
lost all credibility when he lied and said that protestants didn't remove books from the Bible. All Bibles from the Vulgate to luther had the entire Bible.
I’m seeing a lot of comments from Catholics protesting the use of the phrase “worship of the saints”. Can you do a video examining why the book you cited uses the phrase and whether that’s a fair use?
@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic Sematics. Did you know Mary had children after Jesus was born? Mary was a sinner, though saved by God's grace through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, God the Son. She died a sinner saved by Grace. Also, dead people can't hear you. So, invoking Mary's name...or any other Saint...are just vain whisperings. That's why we pray and speak to a living God. Every statement I've made has Biblical support. So, try again. 😊
@Nadiahope7 Definitely. They might try to deny it, but the worship of Mary is in their doctrine...written down ..and in the prayers they say. Mary usurps Jesus in many ways.
Very interesting video. I’ve heard from some Catholic apologists that the modern Jewish old testament canon wasn’t finalised until centuries after the birth of christianity. What are your thoughts on that? Thank you.
@4:38 I understand this video is old, forgive me if there is any learshoulI should do on my part; however, St. Jerome, Against Rufinus 2:33, defends the longer ending of Daniel by "Deferring to the Church", he did the same also with Judith by deferring to the Council of Nicea (325).
As a protestant, I think all Christians should read the apocrypha. Regardless of whether it is authoritative, It has great and informative writings. I believe having this mindset about these books is the best way to be consistent with the early church.
Do you have a video or collection of videos that goes deeper into this subject? I just watched you video, "The books that didnt make Bible" but it is more geared towards New Testament
5:00 is the whole ball game. An ecumenical council authoritatively declared those books canon which makes it binding on the faithful. Nothing remotely close exists for Protestants.
how can he fail to remove four if you claim he already removed seven makes no sense, you can't have it go both ways also, really convenient how the only books from the septuagint that the catholics canonized at trent were the only ones that could be used against protestants remind me again, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC "The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century."
The Deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired, based on their inclusion in the Septuagint, and being widely used by the early Church and frequently quoted in the New Testament. Prominent Church Fathers also cited these books as Scripture, and the earliest Church councils explicitly included them in the biblical canon. Therefore, we can safely affirm the deuterocanonical books are recognized as divinely inspired Scripture. Here's a list of which Church Fathers cited these books and which Church councils considered them part of the canon of divinely inspired Scripture: *Early Church Fathers:* Didache (c. A.D. 50): _Sirach_ Pope St. Clement I (A.D. 70), Letter of Barnabas (c. A.D. 75): _Wisdom_ St. Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A.D. 135): _Tobit_ St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 189): _Baruch_ (as part of Jeremiah), _Daniel 13_ St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. A.D. 204): _Daniel 13_ St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 248-253): _1 Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel 14_ St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 397-421): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom_ Apostolic Constitutions (c. A.D. 400): _Judith_ St. Jerome (A.D. 401): _Daniel 3:29-68, 13, 14_ Pope St. Innocent I (A.D. 405): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees,, Tobit_ *Councils:* Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397, 419): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom_
The way he was speaking makes me think he does know that the deuterocanonical books were in practically every bible until the 16th century(where Martin Luther did not remove them but he did move them to a different section which was then removed for the first printing presses in order for faster printing), but his argument that they weren’t considered cannon was sloppy. The Bible is literally a collection of canon books, that’s the whole point of the Bible. He also tries to say some people in the church disagreed with them but doesn’t quote them and says some popes IF pressed would deny them without giving evidence. Then he argues because the Jews don’t have it he doesn’t follow them, failing to see that the Jews don’t believe in the New Testament. The craziest thing is that he seems to agree that they would completely prove certain doctrines which seems like the real reason why he rejects them. It’s like if a Christian were to reject 25 books because they proved too much of the churches views and even their followers thought he was too extreme so only 7 were eventually removed later. The reasoning being they were “Judiasing nonsense” and the epistle of James (which was not removed thankfully) he called “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.”
@@信者の男 I do understand worshiping saints is not Catholic doctrine, but consider what is acceptable in Catholic practice. a catholic is encouraged to offer prayer, money, light candles, kiss/touch and bow before icons/statues of saints. at what point does this cross the line from honor and into worship?
Brilliant. This is actually some thing that has been hitting at my heart lately. I’m very happy that there is somebody who has actually done the research bringing it all together. I think if you keep it up you could be very big. God definitely walks with me and I can tell you that what you’re showing me shows that God walks with you as well.
Let's simplify the point of contention: if you subscribe to the 39 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Pharisees who crucified Christ. If you subscribe to the 46 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Early Church which comes from the authority of the Apostles, the new Jewish authority in the New Testament, because the Apostles themselves are Jews. Question: to whom do you want to subscribe to?
@@sharkinator7819 , oh, yeah, you’re talking about the martyrs of the early catholic church, who were instrumental for her in determining the bases for compiling the inspired sacred books that have made it to the final list of the books of the Bible, that was determined by the catholic church at the end of the 4th century.
@@voxangeli9205 yes, those people. In all reality, the things we do as Catholics is based on what the early Christians did in worship when they were underground and what they were taught by the men and women who walked with Jesus during his time on Earth
The groups of Jews in the time of Jesus did not have an agreed upon canon of 66 books. If this is wrong, please correct me and let me know where you are finding this information. When would the individual opinions of people in the Church have more authority over an ecumenical council?
Jerome explicitly affirms his stance against the Deuterocanonical books around 390 AD, but his later works from 399 to 415 AD introduce some ambiguity by showing an increasing reliance on these books in theological arguments without reiterating his earlier critical stance. Preface to the Books of Solomon in the Vulgate 391 AD "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes [Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus] for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." Letter to Oceanus (Epistle 77 399 AD) Jerome cites Baruch 5:5 alongside Psalms and Ezekiel, calling Baruch a prophet and placing the text on par with canonical Scripture in this context. Letter to Eustochium (Epistle 108 404 AD) Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2, saying, "Does not the Scripture say, 'Burden not thyself above thy power'?" without distinguishing it as non-canonical. Against the Pelagians (415 AD) Jerome uses Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon extensively to refute Pelagian arguments, treating them as authoritative sources without disclaiming their status.
I think your claim about the timeline of the Jewish canon is inaccurate. There was no agreed-upon canon during the time of Christ, and it’s my understanding is that it was the Masoretes that first defined the modern Hebrew canon and started rejecting books not written in Hebrew. This would have been centuries after the time of Christ’s incarnation, and would thus be non-authoritative. It would also mean that the Catholic canon is actually older, as it’s source is the Septuagint.
I’m afraid we have Jewish canon lists as early as Josephus’ numbers in the late 1st / early 2nd century (which match both modern and Protestant books and do not include the Deuterocanonical texts). I’d also recommend my video on the Septuagint as, with all due respect, the mistake you’re making is a common one. The Septuagint is a modern category of translational texts and neither functioned as a canonical list nor was one single thing - but rather is the over arching term to refer to a single stream (there are multiple) of Greek translational documents of Hebrew documents. In the formal sense none of the Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint because they have no Hebrew originals but were penned in Greek to begin with.
Jesus would have been well aware of these extra books and sometimes referred to them in his teachings. Doesn't matter whether or not the Jewish leaders canonized the Old Testament or not. Protestants follow the teachings of an 'insane' Catholic Monk named Martin Luther.
"its source is the septuagint" where did the septuagint come from if there was no jewish canon and also, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC Because that is what was recognized as 'inspired' when the Bible was canonized in 382 AD. Personal opinions, such as yours, or how Jewish canon changed after that date doesn't matter.
@@WesHuffYour response is incorrect. Josephus does not include or exclude any book. He just says their books are 22 in number. That does not support the 39 book Protestant canon. Did he exclude Esther? Did he include Baruch with Jeremiah? What did he think about Wisdom? You are reading into a number the Protestant list. Josephus’ list cannot by itself substantiate a Protestant canon. Must also acknowledge the bias of the author (Josephus) being a Pharisee. Did his canon list match up with the Essenes (who had a larger corpus)? What about the Sadducees?
I once read that the original Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus admitted to the writing not being inspired, stating that the canon had already been closed for the Jews (till Malachi). Not inspired or holy but still useful nonetheless. We know about the Hasmoneans because of Maccabees for example.
They can anachronistically and eisagetically be proof texted. There's a difference. There's a reason neither of those concepts are believed in either ancient or modern Judaism, despite the inaccurate use of said texts in the developments of extra-biblical teachings within the church.
@@WesHuff Oh? Jewish people, then as now, STILL pray for the dead. Modern Jewish people do not recognize the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but they do believe in a purification process after death. This process is often referred to as Gehenom, which is sometimes thought of as a place that is part purgatory, part hell, and part passageway.
Purgatory was only introduced by pope Gregory the great in the 6th century but it was later before it became effective to accumulating money for the dead. It was used by pope sixtus in acquiring money in indulgences while he was building the Sistine church He sent his people around Europe to collect money.
This video never mentioned the Council of Rome or Counsel of Hippo (late 300s early 400s). Nor is Jerome statement that “if the Church accepts these books, so do I”. Augustine says the same thing. The Jews never completely disavowed the 7 books until the Rabbinical traditions in the 2nd century. Read Wisdom and you will realize why the Jews hated that book. It led many Jews to Christianity. Here is the elephant in the room. All Christians Bibles from the 4 century on had the 8:15 books. Also, almost all references to the Old Testament scriptures in the the New Testament come from the Septuagint Greek OT which included the 7 extra books. If it was good enough for Mathew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, etc. it should be good enough for all Christians. I will give those videos credit for mentioning that the dueterocanocals were used to explain Catholic doctrine. The video should have included the debate between Luther and Johan Juss. When Juss cornered Luther on the “Bible Alone” he did 16th century version of a “Mic drop” and slapped down a Bible and had Luther turn to Mac 12:46. Luther decided this was a good time to claim the Duetrocanicol scriptures were not scripture. First time that happened since the confusion before Pope Damusus in the 4th century.
All the Deuterocanon books were already included when the Bible was canonized. Succeeding ecumenical councils have also affirmed them. So, for about 1000 years, Christians have been reading these books. So, it is hard to believe that God would allow his people to be misled into thinking that these books are not the word of God for 1000 years. Besides, do those people who decided to remove those books from the Bible have a far superior understanding of the Christian faith compared to those in the ecumenical councils?
I like jimmy and trent horn, but jay dyer will eat their lunch. Trent denied the trinity in the old Testament. Protestants have no normative authority and catholics have an apostate pope and believe that muslims worship the same God as per Nostra Aetate
in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
the apostles cited the Septuagint (the ones with deteurocanon) much more than the Masoretic texts, and with the apostles acknowledging that "all scripture is God inspired" I'm sticking with the books of the apostles.
Your usage of "the Septuagint" indicates you're not actually aware of what that is. See my explanation of what the Septuagint is and isn't here: ruclips.net/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/видео.htmlsi=5ZbTsUBgpzxgdWzk
@@JJ-cw3nfhello, there is no LXX translation which u think of ... Septuagint scholars only Translates The Torah into Greek....rest we see are done by some others late after Christ..... People will laugh on u😂
@@WesHuffah, we need to pay 100 bucks to be gaslit? No thanks. We all know that it's likely Jesus refer3d to the Septuigent as HIS bible. Why throw out certain books because of Luthor? Haha
The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.
You're wrong on both instances. If it was a settled issue in the 4th century than why did Pope Gregory the Great argue that Maccabees wasn't scripture in his commentary on Job? Why did the Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan agree with Luther on the non-inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books? Why did Erasmus write extensively about them not being scripture and argue for a smaller OT canon? For the record, while Luther did have strong words regarding the text of James, the idea he wanted it removed is nonsense. All you have to do is read his sermons on James and his translation notes in his German Bible to know he thought it was fully scripturally inspired and never anywhere advocates for its removal.
@@WesHuff Neither are false. Your comment is deceptive. That was something he said well before he was Pope as a monk. It wasn’t said as Pope invoking Papal Infallibility. I would also note there are many other works of his that agree with all the books. I want us to go back to the Latin again because I have to drive an hour to get it. There are cardinals that also think we should go back but to Latin, but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they spoke retroactively using Papal infallibility or that it was up for debate because currently it’s not. I would also note that the Protestants had no right to add or remove anything. They didn’t have the authority.
I think a lot of research is missing here. Did you know that in the first century AD some of the Jews removed certain books and called them the books "left outside"? They even said that anyone who read those books would not have a share in the life to come. Which books am I referring to? 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (i.e. 12 Tribes, sons of Jacob). These books speak a lot about the true biblical solar calendar, angel priests, earthly priesthoods, keeping the commandments of God, and reveal the Messiah as Yeshua (Jesus). They didn't want people to understand these topics (especially the calendar, because they were using a lunar Babylonian based calendar), so they were "left outside." Many Christians later used that Jewish "canon" to develop their own.
Considering that Jesus was a Jew, and all of the books in question predated His earthly life, it actually is a good argument. It's actually the only argument that matters in fact. All of the revelation delivered prior to Jesus, was delivered exclusively to and for the Jews. If the Jews of His time didn't consider them scripture, then neither did He, and neither should we.
So here's my issue: I accept the canonicity of the NEW testament books because of the early church bishops, synods and councils. They sortedthis out for all of us. (And I guess most Christians trust them on this, if they even give it a thought.) How can I then reject the same people/institutions on the old testament canon when I trust them on the new testament?
the “cannon” was pretty much settled in the 2nd century long before the counsel of Nicea - the only controversial addition that was made then was to add an epistle attributed to James and the Revelation- Other than that it was pretty settled and completely independent of that the Ethiopian church had their own cannon that included Enoch. With rare exception (Moses knew Joshua / the apostles knew each other)the biblical writers never met and were separated by centuries and how no concept of a “BIBLE” or having their work made into chapters and verses
When you mention in 6:21 that we Catholics worship saints , you lost your credibility 😂 This reminds me of a quote (sort of a joke): "When you realise that Protestants believe that 'Catholics worship saints ' because their MEANING of Worship is so LOW that they think it's just Prayers and Songs"😂😂 Seriously, are you truly calling yourself the Servant of Christ who is Truth itself either by intentionally or unknowingly trying to accuse us of 'Worshipping Saints' ? Remember that this kind of deception will lead to eventual downfall I'll pray for you since it will not be a laughing matter during the Judgement day 🙏🙏
@@edward1412Did God change the meaning of the word "worship" when He used that word to describe the actions of Israel towards Himself AND the king? (1 Chron 29:20). Tell us you don't know the Bible without telling us you don't know the Bible...
Firstly, orthodox Christian who outnumber Protestants use up to 81 books in their canon. Secondly, the King James Bible had 72 Books until the 1830’s when the Authorities of the English Bible Society had them removed. Authorities of Minor Christian denominations, which are too numerous to name (50,000 + apparently) but collectively known as the ‘Protestants’ , decided to copy the dominant Rabbis canon (not all Jews) from the 4th century when they removed 7 books, the 7 books at the time were very popular and were used in Christian apologetics. Protestants nearly to a man follow that human Authority and Tradition. Jewish groups differ on their canon but the vast majority believed the books were divinely inspired until the 4th century. The Jewish differed in their canons. Luther also wanted the books of Hebrews, Revelation and James removed because they didn’t support his “Faith alone” ideology. Anyone who reads say - Tobit and thinks it’s not divinely inspired is not someone I’d never use as a spiritual director. I had a profound spiritual experience reading it that cemented me as a Christian. It’s an ‘eyes to see thing’. No good trying to convince those who won’t look. In the end, minor churches , the oldest of which have a Tradition of around 500 years will do what their Authorities tell them to do but mainstream Christianity with 2000 years of Tradition will use at least 72 books.
The Apostles preached the gospel using the Septuagint OT bible with the 7 disputed books by Luther included therein. Were the Apostles wrong to do so? Was Luther right to remove the 7 books and think that the apostles made a mistake?
I’d reccomend reading actual Septuagintal scholarship on that. “The Septuagint” is a modern category that includes a range of Greek translational Jewish literature. The apostles were not walking over to their bookshelf and pulling “the Septuagint” off the shelf (see here for more ruclips.net/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/видео.htmlsi=3xplerAJdzyXG8oF). We have records of the books the Jews considered Scripture in Jesus’ day from people like Josephus and Philo. The “Protestant canon” for the New Testament is the ancient Jewish canon - full stop. No ancient Jew who discusses scriptural canon includes the Deuterocanonical books. Luther didn’t take them out because sure they were never scripture to begin with.
Wes, I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate all of your work, it has been extremely helpful to understand with more depth the faith and history of Christianity as a whole. I am Catholic, and I saw you saying you did not wanted to use any straw man, so .... I think you made an honest mistake when you said that Catholics worship the saints. If not, please present you prove and where does the Catholic Church teaches this. Thanks again for all of your work. God bless you.
Why should we have those books that weren’t originally in the Jewish Old Testament? The Jewish OT is clearly stated in the Bible that the Jews have the authority to make it.
Some notable mistakes mainly by way of either mistaken or purposeful "omissions" including one blatantly false statement. Catholics do not "worship" saints. These errors lead me to believe that the sources used by Protestants, are written by Protestants. Why wouldn't a committed Christian learn about the Catholic faith, by using Catholic sources. If you trust the popes & other bishops with your Bible (from which you base your entire salvation) ... why not the rest of their historical accounts & writings? Can someone/anyone make sense of this?
Imagine someone says, "I'm feeling blue." Another person replies, "That is blatantly false. Blue is a color, not a feeling." The problem here is that the conversationalists are using the same word in different ways. This is what I see happening between Catholics and Protestants with the word "worship." A Protestant may accuse Catholics of idolatry (worshipping statues, saints, Mary, etc.) because the Catholic's behavior falls under a Protestant framework of worship. However, since the Catholic's behavior does not fall under a Catholic framework of worship, a Catholic will deny the accusation of idolatry. The two are using the same word in different ways.
@@anne.ominous In part, I agree with you. Ex: Catholics do not "worship" Mary, we "honor" her. In Canada & I think Britain, their justice of the peace is called "Your Worship" and in America ... "Your Honor." However, the above is no longer realized. Protestants, believe worship, is worship, therefore raising Catholic saints to God's level. I'm not certain they truly believe this, or if it is only used to create more space between us.
The modern Coptic Canon is almost identical to the Catholic Canon - the Coptic Canon also have Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Mannesseh. However, the Coptic interpretation of these books appears to be somewhat different from the Catholic interpretation, ie no purgatory, and the interceding for the dead, asking for the remission of unconfessed sins and for them to be accepted into heaven.
@WesHuff can you put a video about New Testament Papyrus scrolls there were totally 141 papyrus new testament. Every Papyrus scrolls were cited in Novum greace testamentum bible (NA28)
This is EXTREMELY disingenuous under a very thin guise of so called "fairness." First off you flat out accuse Catholics of "worshipping" the saints, which is strictly forbidden in the Catechism and has been for 2000 years. Secondly there were different factions of Judaism in Jesus' time with different cannons of Scripture. The only faction that didn't see the Duetrocannonical books as scripture were the Pharisees because they ONLY saw the Torah as scripture. You also forgot to mention how every single one of the Church Fathers (canonized Catholic Saints) that you mentioned, conceded to the counsels and accepted the Duetrocannon! Including Saint Jerome who devoted his entire life to compiling and translating the Latin Vulgate, which is still to this day the official Bible and the text that most Bibles, both Catholic and protestant, including KJV are based on. You also neglected to mention that those weren't the only books that Martin Luther attempted to remove from the Bible. He also attempted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelation, and all the epistles of John! He even said that he wished he could throw "Jimmy" (Apostle Saint James) into the fire! He did these things for the exact same reason that he took it upon himself to remove the Duetrocannon and parts of Esther and Daniel from the original Bible. Because the beliefs of the ancient Jews and original Christians weren't what he wanted to believe, and he saw himself as a higher authority than God himself! Just read the multitude of books he published. You can start with "The Jews and Their Lies!" That'll let you know what he thought of Jewish teaching!
@@samichjpg the only thing about Luther that's a joke is Luther himself! He was an antisemitic pervert with a weird poop obsession, who kidnapped a nun from a convent in a fish barrel and married her secretly breaking both their original vows to God, and started bloody wars just to have a religion devoted to his own personal philosophies via desecration of the Bible and the people who gave their lives for it!
@@samichjpgNot sure he was joking when he called Esther worse than the Deuterocanonicals in Table Talks. Or when he said he wouldn’t have Jude in his Bible.
@@edward1412 I don't think you understand what Solomon's temple was like. The Jews had statues and Holy relics. It's all in the Old Testament. God gave us 5 senses to use them in prayer.
The KJV and Geneva bible when originally written had 73 books. The 66 book version of the Bible was established in 1825 by the English Bible Society (who don't have Apostolic succession and were just some dudes) So for 300 years, Protestants used the 73 book Bible. It wasn't even subject to debate for 300 years of Protestantism. I don't know how it's defensible to adhere to 199-year-old, wholly man-made tradition, coming from a faith tree that typically rejects any sort of man-made tradition.
With all due respect, your comment is overly simplistic to the point of being dishonest. The KJV translators wrote copious notes about the usefulness but non-inspiration and non-canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books. There is a reason why it was always labelled "The Apocrypha" -- using the Greek word for "strange" and following the early church tradition with the official designation of non-canonical books in the Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops, and 1611 KJV. No English Bible that includes those books has them within the Old Testament, but instead, in a separated section labelled on its own and always after Malachi -- the last canonically inspired book of the Old Testament -- and before Matthew -- the first canonically inspired book of the New Testament. If you were familiar with the history of English Bibles you'd know the long discussions translators and scribes had concerning both the reasons why they include the books and why they always section them outside of the inspired books of holy scripture with proper and needed qualification.
1455 Gutenberg Bible. You can search the Morgan Museum online in manhattan, for the photo copies and contents. It had the dueterocannon books in the Old Testament
You literally said Catholics worship saints. Unless you misspoke, your credibility is severely damaged. Why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the New Testament canon, but not the Old Testament? Please find a list identical to the Protestant canon in the early church. You won't. On the other hand, you will find the Catholic canon in the early church.
Quoting you " I as a protestant side with the reformers" ... you have that right and at least you are clear on it. So in other words at one point the old church was right , then it was wrong, Thank you. Despite my differences in believe you do have a good channel. In case you are wondering what I am , I am a Gnostic Christian who follows teachings over 1800 yrs old whom the old church deemed heretical just as they deemed Protestantism Heretical until so much blood was shed between Catholics and Protestants they made so-called peace.
The Deuterocanonical are in the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the old Testament, this version is older and is often the version which Jesus quotes from.
You had me until you said “worship of the saints” which is not what we do. It’s more like “I know grandma is watching over me” en masse rather than “these men are holy, worship them.”
Found your channel from the billy debate and Im so greatful for tye knowledge you share. Im not formally educated but Christ saved my miserable life and healed me, I love Him more than anything so Ive gotten such a drive for knowledge of everything that is the word of God. I have read much of the original 1611 translation of the KJV and found the Apocrypha interesting so this is just awsome. Thank you for standing up for Christ in this age of darkness.
I am a Catholic. I like Mr. Huff. I think he’s intellectually honest. I would love to see him debate @TrentHorn or other former Protestant Catholic apologists. It would be good debate I’m sure.
100% agree a debate with Trent Horn would be excellent
read Devin Rose's Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem - • 3/1/2014
@Jamesps34 Intellectually honest is a stretch considering he said Catholics worship saints at 6:22
@ I get that. I just think he honestly believes that. Had a nice Protestant tell me she thought Catholics were band from reading the Bible. I thought she was honest too. You don’t know what you don’t know. A debate might help him see through the veil.
@@Jamesps34 that is true. I just think that he should try to do better research and seek more understanding while approaching topics that involve other faiths. It gives the impression that he only used sources that agreed with him 100%
If Catholics added books. Then when did the Orthodox add the books?
At the same time. There was a split between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, known as the Great Schism in 1054 AD.
@@christhezane Eastern Orthodox added the books when? And the Oriental Orthodox when?
@@CPATuttleexactly
this question is a great way of exposing the massive holes in the protestant narrative. I love this
Scottish Bible society wrote a letter to british bible society asking them to remove the appocrypa on the ground that protestants after reading this appocrypa of the Bible becoming catholics
You misspoke when you stated Catholics worships saints, 6:21. Catholics venerate (honor) saints but worship is for God and God alone.
What is worship from a catholic perspective?
@@austinmorris3422worship is making a sacrifice to someone. That belongs to the Trinity only
@@CPATuttle what sacrifice was John making to the angel in Revelation 19:10, 22:9?
@@austinmorris3422 The book of Revelations was moved to an undecided section of the Bible by Martin Luther. There’s two copies in museums. He alludes in his writings of this to the early church disputing this book. It’s in the Bible because of the Catholic Church. The book of Revelations says angels pass prayers from the people, to God. In the early church, a historian Eusebius writes of these disputed books. He also writes the first Christians made images of Jesus and the apostles. And the woman from the gospel who was healed with blood problems by Jesus, made a statue of Jesus, that had miraculous healings for hundreds of years. Similar to the handkerchief in the book of acts. So no, the angel telling John to get up from bowing doesn’t make sense to prove a point you are attempting to. The iconography council in the seventh century clarified this topic.
@@CPATuttle Ok, what are you talking about? Nothing you said has anything to do with my question. What sacrifice did John make to the angel?
3:16 This is something that Gary Michuta often mentions. Which Jews? If you are talking about Rabbinic Jews then ya, but what about the Essenes and the Hellenistic Jews? They had these books along with the 24(39) books.
These are interesting but old and not too good arguments if you all are interested read Catholic answers article :Protestantism’s Old Testament Problem -Devin Rose • 3/1/2014
@mariorosas7779 I'll check out the article. But I wouldn't call it a not good argument since it's more of a historical observation. My fellow Protestants often generalize later Rabbinic Judaism and their canon as if they were all Jews at the time of Messiah. But that is not what we can see. Everyone had a different canon, but a general core of the same books. The Pharisees had the 24 which were all authoritative for teaching. The Sadducees had the 24, but only took doctrine from the Torah. The Essenes had the 24 and others and we can see some of the other texts being used for their doctrine and calendar, so we can assume they were authoritative. The Hellenists had the 24 and others, which were included in the Septuagint, and we can see that the early Christians used the other books as authoritative as well which might suggest that the Hellenists also took them as authoritative.
6:22 Catholics don’t worship saints. Worship is reserved for God only.
they do in Europe. they even kiss statues of saints
@@stupidw33b52You might be mistaking reverence for worship.
@@stupidw33b52 i sometimes kiss images of my love ones, am I worshipping them? uh oh
@@stupidw33b52 Yeah, and Jews kiss the Torah. Do they worship the Torah? Obviously not.
Its so funny to me just how insanely far removed from the context of the Near East Protestants are that they see something as basic as an act of showing affection and automatically call it idolatry.
Those who kiss pictures of their family members are surely guilty of worshipping them. Those who salute flags /honor flags, in honor of their countries, surely worship flags. Those who ask their pastors to pray for them (just like Catholics ask saints to pray for them) surely worship their pastors and replace Jesus, as the mediator, with their pastors. Those who honor portraits of great men and women and heroes of the past surely worship those images...
So I guess the fact that Jesus quoted the Septuagint means nothing? Right. Clearly, God himself favored the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books, and many of his teachings parallel those taught in these books.
Moreover, the Septuagint was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews of that time.
If it was good enough for Jesus, the Son of God, then I side with Jesus on this one.
@SnappyMcDragon If there is a logical fallacy, please identify its type. Simply disagreeing with someone does not constitute a logical fallacy. Furthermore, your disagreement may indicate that I could have provided more thorough explanations. I will concede and elaborate on my position.
The significance of Jesus’ quotations from the Septuagint, the Greek-speaking Jewish version of Scripture, cannot be overlooked. This translation not only encompassed the Deuterocanonical books but also served as the primary scripture for the nascent Church and the Jewish diaspora. Numerous teachings and allusions attributed to Jesus draw inspiration from these texts, further emphasizing their profound influence on His ministry.
It is crucial to recognize that the Septuagint held widespread acceptance within the Jewish community of Jesus’ era, particularly outside Palestine. It became the foundational text for the Old Testament in early Christianity. The Apostles and early Christians relied extensively on the Septuagint during their missionary endeavors, as evidenced by its frequent utilization in the New Testament.
While certain Jewish sects later disavowed the Deuterocanonical books, this decision transpired after the time of Christ, influenced by factors such as opposition to Christianity. If the Septuagint was sufficient for Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church, it is reasonable to assert that these books possess spiritual and theological value. I choose to align myself with this historical and scriptural tradition.
@@honestabe4161 That’s a compositional fallacy: the attributes of an individual being misrepresented as the attributes of the overarching group. Just because certain sections of the Septuagint were quoted by Christ, doesn’t mean every book that is within is classified by Him to be authentic. A perhaps not apt but similar comparison would be the book of Jude: the author quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, both of which weren’t even Septuagint in origin and yet nevertheless made it into the canon. The Holy Spirit clearly thought it was fit to include references to texts that He didn’t inspire the Jews to include into the Old Testament, doesn’t mean that those texts were then divinely inspired, this only goes to show that these specific verses from the apocryphal texts were authenticated by the Holy Spirit, but not the entirety of the books.
@@samhwwg Your argument misinterprets the role of the Septuagint. It wasn’t just a text Jesus occasionally quoted-it was the primary scripture for Greek-speaking Jews and the early Church. Comparing it to Jude referencing apocryphal works is misleading, as those were isolated quotes, while the Septuagint shaped early Christian theology. Furthermore, the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as scripture by the Jewish diaspora and early Christians before later Jewish councils rejected them, partly in response to Christianity. If the Septuagint was authoritative for Jesus and the Apostles, dismissing it today demands stronger justification.
So, summary, the argument for the Septuagint is not simply about quoting parts of it but about its centrality to the faith practices of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. If the Septuagint was authoritative enough for the early Church, then dismissing large portions of it today requires more justification than your post provides.
@ The Catholic Church’s rejection of some books in the Septuagint (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees) does not undermine the argument for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books, as these were accepted through a rigorous canonization process. Conflating the entire Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books misrepresents the issue, and pointing to non-canonical books is a red herring that distracts from the central argument: Jesus and the early Church relied on the Septuagint, affirming its foundational role in Christian scripture.
@SnappyMcDragon
Your critique misrepresents the argument by assuming it claims Jesus’ quotation equals endorsement of every Septuagint book-a strawman fallacy. The argument emphasizes the Septuagint’s centrality in Jesus’ time and its widespread acceptance in the early Church. The post’s false equivalence between the Catholic Church’s discernment process and Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanon, along with cherry-picking and overgeneralization, weakens its critique. The Septuagint’s authority is grounded in its historical and theological use, not in an all-or-nothing approach.
“The ancient Jews did not consider them God’s word,”. Well The ancient Jews did not consider Jesus as God. That’s not necessarily a good argument. I don’t believe the books are canon, but be aware of the weakness of this argument.
That's the worst argument for removing those 7 OT books. For one at the time of Christ there was no established Canon, and yes you're right why would I care what some Jews 100 years after Christ who denied His Divinity thought?
@@jd3jefferson556 Christianity started with Jews. That is why you should care. Christ was a Jew. The main reason why you should care. It is not understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity why so many Christians do not even understand concepts and lesson in the Bible in the first place. Christians don't even understand or see prophecy right in the Bible.
Wes is a very knowledgeable man.
@@jd3jefferson556they weren't removed.l - according to this biblical historian, they were never originally considered part of scripture in the 1st place. Are you saying hes wrong? And on what basis?
And saying "why would I care what some Jews who denied Christ's divinity thought" is the worst argument, given that the entire OT is essentially "what some Jews thought" as it is literally the Jewish scripture originally written down in Hebrew. 😅
The Old Testament is supposed to be the Jewish scripture so we should use the scripture the Jews believed to be scripture
@hansdykstra3869 there was no established scripture at the time of Christ. The "Jewish Scripture" was established over 100 years after Christ at a Jewish council in response to Christianity.
The Apostles were using the Septuigent a Greek Translation of the Old Testament, which included the Deuterocanon. Also, we should be using the Scriptures given to us by the Church Christ established, we all agree on the New Testament (except Martin Luther) which is 27 nooks narrowed from 200 documents in the 4th century. All Apostolic Churches use the detericanon, but because of a tradition of man, Protestants use a 66 book Bible. The 66 number alone should be a red flag
As an Orthodox Christian, our canon was established by the Church through Councils being finalized at the Council of Trullo in 691 A.D. The Old Testament was the Septuagint and the New Testament the 27 books.
However, you are mistaken and correct about the Jews holding to the Protestant Old Testament depending. You are correct if you are talking about the 2nd Century Jews post temple destruction who formed a Old Testament canon in response to Christians. But prior, the Jews were not a monolithic group, but each group of Jews held to different Scriptures, therefore there was no one canon of the Jews. This is where you are mistaken. But it all depends of what Jews and at what time in history you are talking about if you are right or wrong. Luther looked to 2nd century Jews. While the early one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the Orthodox Church today) was the one Church which held to the Septuagint and NT.
In the end, the Protestants did remove books. But accused the Catholics of adding books. The Protestants looked to unbelieving Christ rejecting Jews from the 2nd Century to form their Old Testament and rejected the Church that formed the canon, which Rome was once part of, but whom was excommunicated is 1054 A.D. for heresy. The Lutherans shortly after Luther’s death were in contact with the Orthodox Church and Eastern patriarch acknowledging that they were the true one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not Rome. Interesting history to consider.
For further info see ruclips.net/user/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
Hey any videos u recomend to look into this
@@efilms5123 ruclips.net/user/liveK_l3okzRsTw?si=wIOGXgf5O25TTHCI
@@efilms5123revisit my first post for link
@@efilms5123revisit my post
@@efilms5123yes. Revisit my original post
It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace.
To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.
We know what the Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus -- who both list the exact same number of books (along with quotations stating the non-inspired nature of books like Maccabees (etc.).
I'd also recommend watching my video (and looking further into the subject within Septuagintal scholarship) on what the Septuagint is and isn't. With all due respect, the fact that you're referencing it as a single thing indicates that you're unaware of what the LXX is exactly. The LXX is not a single thing as much as it is an umbrella category for a body of Jewish translational literature. We might refer to the "New Testament's use of the Septuagint", but even that is somewhat of a misnomer. The LXX is only one stream of a series of streams of Jewish literature that ended up being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Many deuterocanonical books found themselves into this body of literature in the post-Christian period, but many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and *not* in Hebrew (these books having no Hebrew original is another reason cited by early Jewish writers as to why they did not carry authoritative status as scripture).
@@WesHuff You said: “We know what *THE* Jewish canon looked like in Jesus' day thanks to Philo and Josephus”
Q(1): Did all Jews in the first century unanimously agree on which books were canonical?
Q(2): If not then which Jews were correct on which books were canonical?
You said: “many of them are not actually formally "LXX" in the traditional sense due to their composition being in Greek and not in Hebrew”
Q(3): Which of the Deuterocanonical writings are originally Greek compositions?
Q(4): Why were the New Testament writings recognized as canonical even though they are originally Greek compositions?
Jews were not in 100% agreement.
@@WesHuffJosephus’ canon does not inform us at all what books were accepted., Your conflating one individual (a Pharisee) as if they spoke for all of Judaism (Which includes Essenes and Sadducees).
Josephus does not provide a “canon list”, he provides an enumeration on the books. He lists twenty two books, but does not describe what those books are. Did he include Jeremiah? Does he merge Baruch with Jeremiah? Did he remove Esther? Did he include Wisdom?
Your reading into the text, not lifting out of it.
@@WesHuffHebrew and Aramaic fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Qumran from before the 1st century AD would also debunk the idea that they all did not have Hebrew originals.
1611 KJV included the apocrypha
It included them between the two testaments with a note saying that they weren't scripture.
@@rudycataldo3653wrong. Even Luther in his translation had a note after the “apocrypha” that said “thus concludes the Old Testament,” clearly indicating that they were apart of the OT. Protestant bibles included the deuterocanon up until the 19th century.
@@JH_Phillipsexactly
@@rudycataldo3653 how entitled are you protestant? the canon of the bible was closed on 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
@@rudycataldo3653Wrong
Information from a theologian who also studied in the Museum of the Bible (We studied the Bible history with different religions including Catholics, Jews, Protestants. The professors had no preference of religion):
The Septuagint is in Greek because some people of the early church translated the Torah into Greek.
So, Jewish do not use the Septuagint because it was after Christ. Besides, the Catholic Bible said those texts are in Greek and not in Hebrew.
Catholics doubted about those books because they were in Greek and they seem not inspired by God. That’s why they decided to add them but put them in a category named: Deuterocanonical. Thank you for your video Wesley! I added this in case someone wants to listen from other resources too.
To think that one man, Martin Luther, decided unilaterally to exclude those seven books is one thing but for all those who used this as an excuse to believe that he alone made the right decision and accept the Bible with those omissions is amazing.
Luther never intended to create the facture within the Church that occurred he merely wanted the Church to acknowledge the issues and at least address them.
Very true
I thought Wesley wouldn't be like this but it seems he depends more on his PhD instead of being Humble enough to consider the Big picture 🤦🤦
Go to Google type in "Prologus Galeatus", find it in the search results and read it.
You know that Luther had 75 books in his translation, right? It is only after the 19th century that Protestant Bibles (thanks to BFBS and others) started to exclude the Apocrypha. It is just that we do not consider these books canonical as the rest of Scripture as the Ancient Jews have done so as well. Useful, but not scriptural.
For those people who believe that the seven books are not canon then this is a Passage from the Book of Baruch(present only in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible)which provides a MESSIANIC prophecy which was Fulfilled in John1:14
Baruch 3:35-37:"This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the ways of Knowledge , and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel His Beloved. Afterwards HE was SEEN upon Earth and Conversed with MEN"
🙃🙃🫠😂
This seems like a reference to Exodus 24:10, the giving of the law and all the subsequent theophanies.
also Wisdom chapter 2 has messianic prophecy
then why roman catholic treat Mary like a god
@@tombadua5474 they dont
the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
So one of the key issues historically is that all we have from what was supposedly reported at the Council of Rome, particularly the statement form Damasus listing the canonical books, most likely didn't come from Damasus. The most up-to-date scholarship on the subject can only narrow Damasus's statements to a compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. Historically we have no true record that isn't under heavy debate as to its authenticy from the Council of Rome.
However, giving all of what you've said the benefit of the doubt, the Council of Rome was not a dogmatically binding ecumenical council, but rather, a local council. Even official Catholic president today recognizes that only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense. The Council of Rome does not fall under the criteria as a binding council for all. Therefore, even if Damasus's statements have authentic provenance (which I do not believe they do) the modern Roman Catholic cannot base these statements as magisterium ordinarium due to the Council of Rome being a local gathering.
@@WesHuff All recognized Orthodox Local councils are BINDING according to First Canon of the 7th Ecumenical council....
7th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL , CANON 1
"we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled REGIONALLY for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. "
-----(CANON 1 , 7TH Ecumenical Council)
So, by this rule, we can now say that the Canon of Scripture with Deuterocanonical books promulgated in the Local Councils are Binding to the Whole Church....
Council of Rome(382A.D.)
councils of Hippo (393 A.D.)
Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
@@pinoysarisari7374 Not if the records of the CoR are inauthentic to the council but contrived much later - which much like other documents such as the Donation of Constantine - are used by the church to validate dogma but are in fact spurious. Which is almost certainly the case in this instance.
Likewise, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”
@@WesHuff the Pope never attacked the 7th ecumenical council...It is part of Catholic Dogma.... It is a recognized council of the Catholic church....
Second...the burden of proof is on you to prove that CANON 1 of the 7th Ecumenical council is Fake....
@@pinoysarisari7374 Im not sure we’re talking about the same thing. The statement of Demasus that supposedly came from the council of Rome can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Any connection to its provenance being earlier than that is speculation. As Bruce states in his commentary on the document:
“What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century” [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).
Holy moly Wes, I came across you because of the Billy scandal, but I stayed because you’re like a revelation to me. I learn so much! Thanks for sharing all this content.
1. The Jews did not agree on the canon. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Essenes all had different canons.
2. Jews after the time of Christ, that reject Christ, don’t have the authority to recognise the canon. Instead, that is left to the bishops who are in succession to the Apostles. Augustine makes this point.
3. Pope Damasus I makes the first official decree of what the canon is in the regional Council of Rome in 382AD. It includes the Deuterocanonical Books.
4. This same canon is reaffirmed at Hippo, Carthage, then later at the ecumenical Council of Florence.
5. It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand.
So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture. Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament.
Joe Heschmeyer has a great video on this topic:
ruclips.net/video/9udZKziHemo/видео.htmlfeature=shared
"It is true that the Council of Trent makes the first dogmatic statement. However, this doesn’t mean it’s first known at Trent. This was done to refute the Protestants and to reaffirm the Tradition of the Church to accept the Deuterocanonical Books as Inspired Scripture."
Well at least you can admit that the canonization of the deuterocanon was reactionary to the reformation, most catholics think it's a coincidence that the only books from the septuagint that were canonized were the ones that conveniently had arguments against the reformation.
Just like the Trinity being defined at Nicea in the 4th century, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed beforehand."
Belief =/= doctrine
Many people believed Limbo was real, doesn't mean it's official doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell.
"So yes, Protestants removed seven Books of Scripture."
Why is 3rd and 4th Maccabees not in the catholic bible? You do not need the protestants help to remove books from scripture, catholics seem just fine messing with the canon all on their own ;)
"Not to mention Luther wanted to remove four Books from the New Testament."
I don't understand, according to you Luther had the power to and did declare the deuterocanon uncanon and remove them from scripture (as far as his followers were concerned at least), but you're also saying he tried and failed to remove NT books as well?
Well which one is it?
@@InitialPC I’m not sure what your point is. Of course the Council of Trent was reactionary. All councils are. The Church calls a council to squash a heresy. In Acts 15, the Church calls the first council to combat the Judaiser heresy. Council of Trent condemned the heresy of Protestantism as well as cleaning up abuses.
The Catholic Church didn’t remove 3 and 4 Maccabees. She has never recognised them as Scripture.
I said Luther had authority to declare the canon? Not sure what you’re talking about.
Luther took it upon himself to decide what books make up Scripture. I obviously don’t think he had authority to do so.
I totally agree. Our friend in the vídeo does not refer to the Councils of the 4th century, in which the Church defined the cânon. He diminishes the authority of the Council of Florence(1442) which confirmed the cânon.
And he gives weak reasons to dismiss this important Council, saying that important Catholic figures did not accept the canon.
He misses the point. Once an article of faith is defined by a Council, it muar be accepted by all Catholics. Whether they like it or not. The Council of Florenc is abother element 8:35 that demolishes the affirmation that the Catholic was defined in Trent.
By the way, the first book printed, Gutenberg’s Bible (around 1450) conta-nos the deuterocanonical. With the Church’s express approval.
@@LuizFelipeMendoncaFilho you have not read the list of books given in each of those councils, otherwise you would have known they all have different books, one excludes baruch, each include and exclude different psalms, most of them affirm the septuagint esdras as canon, etc
actually read them, and then get back to me about "oh they knew from the beginning what was canon and it was the same the entire time"
no it wasnt
@@InitialPC the Pope decide the canon of the bible in 382 what authority did luther have to question that again?
I think Taylor Marshall has a video on this. If the seven books are not important, the apostles would not have used it in their preaching.
I say they’re important in the video. However, they’re not inspired Scripture. Don’t forget that Paul quotes the Stoic Mernander and Euripides in 1. Cor. 15:33, Epimenides in Titus 1:12, as well as Seneca in Acts 17. I don’t think anyone thinks that his usefulness of relevant literature means that those pagan philosophers should be included in the canon.
It's either they're scripture or not. This compromise of "not as authoritative" is patronising and lame.
whatever happened with "all scripture is God-breathed" (inspired)?
@@WesHuff excellent brief summary & defense of the Hebrew Bible/Protestant OT canon! I just had a brief discussion on the Gospel Simplicity channel defending the historicity of the Protestant OT canon if you want to check it out. I also wrote a book on it: "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller," as well as debated Roman Catholics, such as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, Gary Michuta, Dr. Robert Sungenis, & Tim Gordon. Blessings! Steve Christie.
@georgelee3267 I addressed Dr. Marshall's arguments in the comments section below his video. He had no answer.
Thanks Wes,
Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.
No he can’t. The Catholics codified the canon several times going back to 382 if I got the year right. Every Bible ever printed had 73 books from the Catholic Church. There were competing canons at the time of Christs life you have the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon. The books weren’t in dispute and he’s misleading you on this
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Nowhere , you can read @mikecrawford8394 comment
Because Wesley removed an important historical information
lol…. 2 yrs later…. *crickets*
This fascinating!
Do you have a video explaining/comparing the history of the Ethiopian Bible's 88 books?
81, actually. It's great that you know that, though.
Now we're getting somewhere! [Jack Nicolson head nod.gif ]
Wes I have a question. 🙋🏽♂️ if many people viewed Paul’s statement as a means to only accept the Jewish writings why was Luke accepted?
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, myself, I greatly appreciate your take Wes. While I disagree on some points, I felt that the approach to the discussion was very respectful and Christ-like. Thank you for striving to share truth in a way that honors our Lord.
Correct me if I’m wrong but up until the reformation, those books was included in the Bible that was used universally? If so, doesn’t that just basically mean that they move them?
Yes. Before the reformation, the bible today and the apocrypha were used as one collective book. Throughout those times, the bible is believed and is announced as collections of books that contain words of God. The fact that they removed some books totally confused millions if the bible really is the word of God. Although the guy in the video admits that they don't really believe so.
The Protestants used the 73 book Bible until 1825. Get a pre-1825 copy of the KJV. It has 73 books.
So if you are a hard-core "it's 66 books!" kinda guy, you are adhering to a tradition set by the English Bible Society in the 19th century.
For many Protestants that whole "following traditions" thing is going to be hard to rectify.
If you have common sense. Yes
@@manny75586 I have a Lutheran bible in German that belonged to my grandmother printed in 1895 that has all 73 books.
I know I’m in over my head, you are way more educated than me, but I don’t understand why you say Catholics worship saints. I’m assuming you believe the same about the Eastern Orthodox. Additionally you only looked at the Roman Catholic and Protestant dispute over the canon, ignoring the Eastern Orthodox canon.
Catholics pray to and venerate the Saints. Considering Wes’s level of expertise, one can fairly safely assume that his use of the term ‘worship’ is just an accidental misnomer.
He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism.
❤
Can you provide evidence for your claim, because the Apocrypha was never included in any Hebrew Old Testament and no New Testament writer ever referred to or quoted from the Apocrypha.
The deuterocanon are actually in the dead sea scrolls. Heretics altered the bible.
The Protestant Bible does contain the Apocryphal books, but they are under reference material. Martin Luther never 'removed' books from the traditional Bible...that is a old wives tale perpetuated by Catholic and Orthodox alike.
@@redit5332 No, he decided to remove it from it's context, with zero authority to do so. The British bible society removed it to save money in the mid 1800's. Also, with zero authority to do so. Heretics helping heretics.
@@redit5332 And who gave luther the authority to re-categorize SCRIPTURE as "reference material"? Luther was of the devil, and he did the devils bidding. He wrought chaos and division.
The speaker left out key facts of the early church. For example he left out the fact that there were three Councils in the early church that dealt with which books made up the bible. The three councils were Rome (382), Hippo (393) and finally Carthage (397). At the Council of Carthage the Bible was finally approved with 73 books not 66! There were several attempts to change the number of books in the Bible once it was as approved including the attempt by Martin Luther. All attempts failed including Luther’s. The Catholic Bible of today contains the same 73 books as the Council of Carthage did.
Luther’s version of the bible contained 62 books. His personal interpretation of the bible necessitated the removal of the following books in the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.
In Revelation 22:18-22 deals with adding or deleting books from the bible. I guess Luther thought that if he deleted Revelation then he could add or delete as he saw fit.
The last important area is that was left out dealt with the Geneva and King James bibles. The Geneva Bible was first published the in 1565 with 80 books. The King James Bible was published in 1611 with the same 80 books. In 1881, theGeneva Bible deleted 14 books and the King James deleted the same14 books (Apocraphya) in 1885.i refer you again to Revelation, chapter 22.
I hope that if the speaker updates his presentation, he includes the full story of why the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
Thanks
I also recommend 'The Jewish Catholic '- RUclips channel by Daniel
The parallelism between Catholic beliefs (Papacy, Marian dogmas, etc) and Jewish traditions are so mind-blowing ❤
This appears to be very biased and deceptive. No mention of the Septuagint. No mention that Luther also considered removing Revelations, James, Jude and Hebrews. And what about the Orthodox Canon.
Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?
The official canonization of the Bible occurred at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Those that took part of the council were 400+ bishops (all Catholics) from all over the then-known Christian world.
Council of Rome was planned, executed, supervised & overseen by the then Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus I.
The books used by the Orientals & Coptics are not inspired, because they were not approved by the council. In other words, because they had no authority to add those books, just as Luther had no authority to remove the 7+ books (his Apocrapha), that had always been part of the Biblical Canon. Luther removed them because he did not believe in Purgatory. In all of church history, no church member, nor clergy ever denied the Deuterocanonical, before the Reformation.
Shouldn't that be a "red flag?"
*2 Maccabees 12: 38-46*
38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 This is demonstrably false history revisionism.
Go read Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" written in AD 391. He clearly defines the OT canon, and explicitly excludes the Apocrypha (his word). The word Deuterocanon didn't even exist until 1566. Literally everyone in history referred to those books as "Apocrypha" prior to that. The word means "hidden", but it wasn't used in the same sense that we think of it as "secret". It was moreso used in the sense of books that were "separate" from Scripture.
As far as the NT goes, none of those books are in dispute. So it's not relevant when or how they were formally canonized. We all agree on all of them, so they're not part of the debate on the canon.
@@KFish-bw1om I'll start with your last paragraph, then correct the rest.
The founder of your faith, Martin Luther removed, not only the Dueterocanonicals, but he also tried to remove James, Hebrew, Job & even Revelation. Each had stiff disagreements with his own faith ideology. Maccabees - Purgatory. James - Faith W/out works. Revelation - spoke of visions which he thought were opposite of the teachings of the apostles. Jude - He believed was a copy of 2 Peter and appears to have been written long after the time of the disciples. NTM, in his 1st translation he literally added the word "alone" after the word faith, because Y personally think he felt he was wrong about "Sola Fide."
It's a Holiday, so I'll finish up when I get home this Eve. Enjoy the day, God Bless your family.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now.
For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?-
- Psalm 18:31
Here, I'll do it with one question:
Was the Council of Constance infallible?
If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Islam and Mormonism are defeated. By it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false.
Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
@@gabepettinicchio7454 The founder of my faith is Jesus Christ not Martin Luther. We do not worship earthly men, nor claim that any are infallible. Martin Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. It has no effect on my faith or its foundations, because I've built my house on the Rock. You on the other hand have to be able to uphold everything that every Pope and council has ever officially said or did, as being infallible. Do you think you can do that? Because I can dismantle that house of cards built on the sand in about 100 different ways right now.
For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?-
- Psalm 18:31
Here, I'll do it with one question:
Was the Council of Constance infallible?
If the answer is "yes", then Roman Catholicism is false. If the answer is "no", then Roman Catholicism is false. You see, Roman Catholicism is defeated in much the same way that Is Salami and Joe Smith (words modded for the Tube) are defeated, by it's own declarations. That's how you know for sure that Roman Catholicism is false.
Oh and, James teaches that works are the fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to read your Bible and claim to have understood it yourself, otherwise you would know that. See, you have to read whole chapters and books, and understand the context. The Bible is not just a bunch of isolated verses that you can take without context to mean whatever you want them to mean. By the way, how many verses has Rome "infallibly" interpreted for you? It's not very many, but whatever that number is, that's your whole Bible. So, I don't know why you're talking about the books of a Bible that's dogmatically been placed beyond your reach.
Wes, Catholics do not “worship” Saints. Catholics venerate Saints. Worship is due to God alone, veneration is honor given to God’s creatures.
Sounds like when Muslims say they don’t worship the black stone.
@@SeanBeatsMapsonRight. Word gymnastics.
We're all sinners and all need grace. Every Saint is a sinner saved by grace and therefore God and God alone gets all glory. The Bible literally says we have one intercessor and that is the God Man Christ Jesus. No human anywhere ever deserves veneration, to be prayed to, or anything. God says you will bow only to Him.
@@ramzilla873
Although my comment was directed to Wes, I will reply to your comment, though not to every point as my time doesn't permit. On this we agree: "We are all sinners and need grace and God alone gets all the glory". The Saints that Catholics venerate were exactly such people. By God's grace, they were able to rise above the sin in their lives and practice virtue to a heroic degree. When Catholics venerate (honor) these Saints they recognize how the grace of God worked in their lives, and thus God is glorified through His creature. When any part of the Body of Christ, you and I, cooperate with God's grace, God Himself is glorified. Veneration simply means honor, and Christians should honor those who gave example of holy lives and strive to imitate their example.
@SeanBeatsMapson Haha. You really don't knw Basic Acient Church History. Thank the Catholic church for your Bible and for them defending Christianity against Muslims. They fought for Christ and the Church. Remember Protestants didn't exist until the late 15th 16 century. If you go to any old countries in the world there Catholic along with a couple other APOSTOLIC churches. But no baby PROTESTANTS. God bless. Oh yeah and the Jews don't even believe in Jesus. So why trust their Canon of the Jews. They alone where divided and couldn't agree in it. God bless. And God bless the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🕊
Protestants get this wrong so much it is sad. The Apocrypha was removed in 1825 to save on printing costs, before that it was reclassified (without authority to do so) by Martin Luther so he could win theological debates and remove what he had difficulty reconciling with personally. The deuterocanonical books were part of scripture (Jewish and christian) long before the masoretic canon was written in the 3rd century. The Apostles, early Church fathers, and Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which was the Jewish text since around 200 B.C. protestants have a false Bible that removed scripture and thus lost connection to the Apostles and the Church of Christ
This guy knows his facts!!! 😃🙏🏼✝️📖🕊️⛪️
"Martin Luther so he could win theological debates" He definetely tried to do that with James. But he really believed the masoretic text was the 'original' one
I mean Wes huff is a scholar and probably knows a lot more than you
@@saultarango-rosales4230Do you not understand that everything this guy said is said by other scholars? So what do we do now? My scholar is better than yours? This is common history, fact check yourself everything
This 🙏🏽
I learn a lot anytime I listen to you. Thank you and God bless you.
Saying Catholics worship saints is so wild. Huge credibility hit for anything you say regarding the Catholic vs Protestant debate, at least outside of the realm of your historical textual knowledge
Sorry but I've heard some discussions with Catholic apologists and they use the word worship, they just say the worship given to God is different from the worship given to saints. I'm not sure if it was Trent Horn who made these statements, but I know it was a leading Catholic apologist.
@ckjaytheactual I've seen much of trents work and never heard him do that. Either way, there's a distinction being made right there between the different meanings behind the use of the word, effectively separating them. No Catholic, especially an apologist, would say we "worship" saints, let alone without then making very clear of the intended definition of the word
Please reference the last paragraph of a "hail Mary". Do you call her a holy queen? Yes? Then how are you not worshiping her? There are far deeper heresies that we can pull from that paragraph too.
@@Ray12121 That isnt worship lol. Are you worshipping the queen of England when you recognize her status? My goodness. Read the old testament describing the davidic kingdoms. The queen was the queen mother. Let alone the description in revelation of the mother of Jesus being crowned. You guys need to humble yourselves and recognize that you don't understand the Bible the way you think you do.
@@ricardoamaya2500 what is she queen of? Please finish the thought.
All accepted canones in all Apostolic Churches had and still have the Deuterocanon. It's only the protestants following some Jews (Hellenic Jews used the Septuagint after all) that indeed removed books from the Old Testament.
Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.
Jews no longer had any authority after christ. So the protestants that used the masoretic were every wrong for doing so
@WesHuff great work that your doing, is it possible for you to 1 day dialog with @Gary Michuta about the Canon/Septuagint..please would be great to learn from you both. Thanks Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Just ran across this video - really appreciate the information and moreso because of the manner in which you relay the information. Very helpful! Thanks!
@WesHuff If you only follow the Jewish canon, you should also remove the New Testament books from your list of inspired books.
History of Catholic Bible.
597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” - the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.
Well said.
Wrong the first septuagint is only the five books of moses, and during the 1st century AD, the Jews in their synagogues used Hebrew scriptures not septuagint, and Jesus specifically mentioned the writings of moses and the prophets and the writings as scriptures(btw the current masoretic texts is categorised as such) Jesus did not say that the septuagint Greek scrolls as scriptures and Jesus didn't live in diaspora as did the Jews he preached to.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
The early Jews didn’t hold to these books? You know there were different sects of Jews right? Lol You know in maccabees is the only place where it discusses Hanukkah, and Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. Sooo….and you keep saying the Christian’s at that time relating it to “ Protestants” because prots don’t call themselves prots they just say “ we’ll I’m Christian, not Catholic” when Catholics are the first Christian’s. So it’s just weird how prots turn a blind eye to the obvious.
Audchaldean catholics are not Christians nor were they the first Christians either the spread of the gospel through the apostles was how Christians came to be followers of Jesus also known as followers of the way the catholic false church was invented by constantine in early 300's A.D there was no apostolic succession like the catholic religion claims constantine took biblical truth and added in paganism with it and formed the apostate church the roman catholic church and ever since it's formation the catholic herest has increased and twisted many more satanic dogma's and all kinds of unbiblical nonsense you guys believe more and more heretical things were added by catholic popes etc the true church the one that God intended has been thriving never apart of the catholic apostacy before the reformation there were many bible believing Christians the catholic apostacy set on genocide of millions of believers over the centuries because they stood on the word of God and would not come under the control of paganistic catholicism
At minute 6:15 you state,
“Nonetheless traditions that the рарасy held to as doctrine like that of
purgatory uh worship of the saints and prayer for the dead could be proof texted out of many of the
deuterocanonical books and this was defended as scripture”
Catholics do not teach teach worship of saints. Worship belongs only to God alone. Show me where the Catechism ever teaches anyone to worship anything other than God?
@WesHuff intellectually disingenuous
Βίβλος is not plural , it's singular feminine in Greek. (the plural is Βίβλοι) Meant originally papyrus because of the city of Byblos where they got it. It ended up meaning a book ( ie compilation of texts)
lost all credibility when he lied and said that protestants didn't remove books from the Bible. All Bibles from the Vulgate to luther had the entire Bible.
@@timcooper1321 translation: I didn’t watch the video nor am I interested in the actual facts of the matter.
@@WesHuff you are a blatant liar 6:21
Just because you want to support your modern prot views. God is watching you
I’m seeing a lot of comments from Catholics protesting the use of the phrase “worship of the saints”. Can you do a video examining why the book you cited uses the phrase and whether that’s a fair use?
The Catholic Church doesn’t worship the Saints…🤦♂️
Yeah we don’t worship Mary and the Saints we venerate them and have great respect for them ,but our worship is reserved for God alone
@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic Sematics.
Did you know Mary had children after Jesus was born? Mary was a sinner, though saved by God's grace through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, God the Son. She died a sinner saved by Grace. Also, dead people can't hear you. So, invoking Mary's name...or any other Saint...are just vain whisperings. That's why we pray and speak to a living God.
Every statement I've made has Biblical support. So, try again. 😊
@@DisneyandCowboysfanCatholic is bowing down a form of worship?
Isn't Mary worshipped?
@Nadiahope7 Definitely. They might try to deny it, but the worship of Mary is in their doctrine...written down
..and in the prayers they say.
Mary usurps Jesus in many ways.
Very interesting video. I’ve heard from some Catholic apologists that the modern Jewish old testament canon wasn’t finalised until centuries after the birth of christianity. What are your thoughts on that? Thank you.
It's true ! In 200 something, Jews made theire Canon.
I love the confused look you give in the thumbnail. Way to show off your skillful eyebrows
@4:38 I understand this video is old, forgive me if there is any learshoulI should do on my part; however, St. Jerome, Against Rufinus 2:33, defends the longer ending of Daniel by "Deferring to the Church", he did the same also with Judith by deferring to the Council of Nicea (325).
As a protestant, I think all Christians should read the apocrypha. Regardless of whether it is authoritative, It has great and informative writings. I believe having this mindset about these books is the best way to be consistent with the early church.
Yeah, just as long as you don't hold it to a higher standard than the Bible! We need to test everything with the inspired scripture ^•^
@@G.H._bunny😂😂😂inspired my ass
Do you have a video or collection of videos that goes deeper into this subject? I just watched you video, "The books that didnt make Bible" but it is more geared towards New Testament
5:00 is the whole ball game. An ecumenical council authoritatively declared those books canon which makes it binding on the faithful. Nothing remotely close exists for Protestants.
If these books were so disputed, why were they included in the Septuagint?
Luther removed seven book and tried to remove another four books, because they disagreed with his new theology.
how can he fail to remove four if you claim he already removed seven
makes no sense, you can't have it go both ways
also, really convenient how the only books from the septuagint that the catholics canonized at trent were the only ones that could be used against protestants
remind me again, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC other Protestants would not let him remove those four New Testament books
The 16th century canon of Trent was same as the original 4th century canon of Rome.
@@fantasia55 no it wasn't, previous councils included other books, trent narrowed it down to the convenient ones
@@InitialPC "The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century."
The Deuterocanonical books are divinely inspired, based on their inclusion in the Septuagint, and being widely used by the early Church and frequently quoted in the New Testament. Prominent Church Fathers also cited these books as Scripture, and the earliest Church councils explicitly included them in the biblical canon. Therefore, we can safely affirm the deuterocanonical books are recognized as divinely inspired Scripture.
Here's a list of which Church Fathers cited these books and which Church councils considered them part of the canon of divinely inspired Scripture:
*Early Church Fathers:*
Didache (c. A.D. 50): _Sirach_
Pope St. Clement I (A.D. 70), Letter of Barnabas (c. A.D. 75): _Wisdom_
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A.D. 135): _Tobit_
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 189): _Baruch_ (as part of Jeremiah), _Daniel 13_
St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. A.D. 204): _Daniel 13_
St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 248-253): _1 Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel 14_
St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 397-421): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom_
Apostolic Constitutions (c. A.D. 400): _Judith_
St. Jerome (A.D. 401): _Daniel 3:29-68, 13, 14_
Pope St. Innocent I (A.D. 405): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees,, Tobit_
*Councils:*
Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397, 419): _Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom_
Came from the Billy debate and expected this guy to be more knowledgeable. Such basic stuff he’s getting wrong about Catholicism. Kinda shocking.
could you provide an example of what he got wrong?
@@benjaminwatt2436 the worship of saints and that catholics added doctrine.
The way he was speaking makes me think he does know that the deuterocanonical books were in practically every bible until the 16th century(where Martin Luther did not remove them but he did move them to a different section which was then removed for the first printing presses in order for faster printing), but his argument that they weren’t considered cannon was sloppy. The Bible is literally a collection of canon books, that’s the whole point of the Bible. He also tries to say some people in the church disagreed with them but doesn’t quote them and says some popes IF pressed would deny them without giving evidence. Then he argues because the Jews don’t have it he doesn’t follow them, failing to see that the Jews don’t believe in the New Testament. The craziest thing is that he seems to agree that they would completely prove certain doctrines which seems like the real reason why he rejects them. It’s like if a Christian were to reject 25 books because they proved too much of the churches views and even their followers thought he was too extreme so only 7 were eventually removed later. The reasoning being they were “Judiasing nonsense” and the epistle of James (which was not removed thankfully) he called “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.”
@@信者の男 I do understand worshiping saints is not Catholic doctrine, but consider what is acceptable in Catholic practice. a catholic is encouraged to offer prayer, money, light candles, kiss/touch and bow before icons/statues of saints. at what point does this cross the line from honor and into worship?
According to the Pope, Bill Carson is going to find God through the New Age religion.
A diligent scholar and full of grace toward us plebian underlings.
Brilliant. This is actually some thing that has been hitting at my heart lately. I’m very happy that there is somebody who has actually done the research bringing it all together. I think if you keep it up you could be very big. God definitely walks with me and I can tell you that what you’re showing me shows that God walks with you as well.
Wes, Can you make a video on Eastern Orthodox and its relationship with Protestants?
Let's simplify the point of contention: if you subscribe to the 39 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Pharisees who crucified Christ.
If you subscribe to the 46 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Early Church which comes from the authority of the Apostles, the new Jewish authority in the New Testament, because the Apostles themselves are Jews.
Question: to whom do you want to subscribe to?
Rather simple to me. I’d rather listen to the men and women who gave it all for Jesus rather than the people that were out for their blood
@@sharkinator7819 , oh, yeah, you’re talking about the martyrs of the early catholic church, who were instrumental for her in determining the bases for compiling the inspired sacred books that have made it to the final list of the books of the Bible, that was determined by the catholic church at the end of the 4th century.
@@voxangeli9205 yes, those people. In all reality, the things we do as Catholics is based on what the early Christians did in worship when they were underground and what they were taught by the men and women who walked with Jesus during his time on Earth
@@sharkinator7819 , you bet, I couldn’t agree more, brother.
May God continue blessing your discernment.
Peace, brother!
@@voxangeli9205 and with your spirit
The groups of Jews in the time of Jesus did not have an agreed upon canon of 66 books. If this is wrong, please correct me and let me know where you are finding this information.
When would the individual opinions of people in the Church have more authority over an ecumenical council?
Was there an agreed cannon of the Old Testament at the time of Jesus? ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Jerome explicitly affirms his stance against the Deuterocanonical books around 390 AD, but his later works from 399 to 415 AD introduce some ambiguity by showing an increasing reliance on these books in theological arguments without reiterating his earlier critical stance.
Preface to the Books of Solomon in the Vulgate 391 AD
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes [Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus] for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."
Letter to Oceanus (Epistle 77 399 AD)
Jerome cites Baruch 5:5 alongside Psalms and Ezekiel, calling Baruch a prophet and placing the text on par with canonical Scripture in this context.
Letter to Eustochium (Epistle 108 404 AD)
Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2, saying, "Does not the Scripture say, 'Burden not thyself above thy power'?" without distinguishing it as non-canonical.
Against the Pelagians (415 AD)
Jerome uses Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon extensively to refute Pelagian arguments, treating them as authoritative sources without disclaiming their status.
I think your claim about the timeline of the Jewish canon is inaccurate. There was no agreed-upon canon during the time of Christ, and it’s my understanding is that it was the Masoretes that first defined the modern Hebrew canon and started rejecting books not written in Hebrew. This would have been centuries after the time of Christ’s incarnation, and would thus be non-authoritative. It would also mean that the Catholic canon is actually older, as it’s source is the Septuagint.
I’m afraid we have Jewish canon lists as early as Josephus’ numbers in the late 1st / early 2nd century (which match both modern and Protestant books and do not include the Deuterocanonical texts). I’d also recommend my video on the Septuagint as, with all due respect, the mistake you’re making is a common one. The Septuagint is a modern category of translational texts and neither functioned as a canonical list nor was one single thing - but rather is the over arching term to refer to a single stream (there are multiple) of Greek translational documents of Hebrew documents. In the formal sense none of the Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint because they have no Hebrew originals but were penned in Greek to begin with.
Jesus would have been well aware of these extra books and sometimes referred to them in his teachings. Doesn't matter whether or not the Jewish leaders canonized the Old Testament or not. Protestants follow the teachings of an 'insane' Catholic Monk named Martin Luther.
"its source is the septuagint"
where did the septuagint come from if there was no jewish canon
and also, why is 3rd and 4th maccabees not in the catholic bible?
@@InitialPC Because that is what was recognized as 'inspired' when the Bible was canonized in 382 AD. Personal opinions, such as yours, or how Jewish canon changed after that date doesn't matter.
@@WesHuffYour response is incorrect. Josephus does not include or exclude any book. He just says their books are 22 in number. That does not support the 39 book Protestant canon. Did he exclude Esther? Did he include Baruch with Jeremiah? What did he think about Wisdom?
You are reading into a number the Protestant list. Josephus’ list cannot by itself substantiate a Protestant canon. Must also acknowledge the bias of the author (Josephus) being a Pharisee. Did his canon list match up with the Essenes (who had a larger corpus)? What about the Sadducees?
I once read that the original Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus admitted to the writing not being inspired, stating that the canon had already been closed for the Jews (till Malachi).
Not inspired or holy but still useful nonetheless. We know about the Hasmoneans because of Maccabees for example.
We don’t worship saints.
But very good presentation
I feel this video is very important! Revelation 22:18&19 makes me feel we need to get it right.
I’m glad this video admits that early Jewish writings before Jesus can be used as proof texts for purgatory and intercessory prayers
They can anachronistically and eisagetically be proof texted. There's a difference. There's a reason neither of those concepts are believed in either ancient or modern Judaism, despite the inaccurate use of said texts in the developments of extra-biblical teachings within the church.
@@WesHuff
Oh? Jewish people, then as now, STILL pray for the dead.
Modern Jewish people do not recognize the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but they do believe in a purification process after death. This process is often referred to as Gehenom, which is sometimes thought of as a place that is part purgatory, part hell, and part passageway.
What’s going on? The entire comments section is owning the author. Silence is deafening
Purgatory was only introduced by pope Gregory the great in the 6th century but it was later before it became effective to accumulating money for the dead. It was used by pope sixtus in acquiring money in indulgences while he was building the Sistine church He sent his people around Europe to collect money.
Purgatory is for profit and funds and is based on pagan beliefs
This video never mentioned the Council of Rome or Counsel of Hippo (late 300s early 400s). Nor is Jerome statement that “if the Church accepts these books, so do I”. Augustine says the same thing. The Jews never completely disavowed the 7 books until the Rabbinical traditions in the 2nd century. Read Wisdom and you will realize why the Jews hated that book. It led many Jews to Christianity. Here is the elephant in the room. All Christians Bibles from the 4 century on had the 8:15 books. Also, almost all references to the Old Testament scriptures in the the New Testament come from the Septuagint Greek OT which included the 7 extra books. If it was good enough for Mathew, Luke, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, etc. it should be good enough for all Christians. I will give those videos credit for mentioning that the dueterocanocals were used to explain Catholic doctrine. The video should have included the debate between Luther and Johan Juss. When Juss cornered Luther on the “Bible Alone” he did 16th century version of a “Mic drop” and slapped down a Bible and had Luther turn to Mac 12:46. Luther decided this was a good time to claim the Duetrocanicol scriptures were not scripture. First time that happened since the confusion before Pope Damusus in the 4th century.
All the Deuterocanon books were already included when the Bible was canonized. Succeeding ecumenical councils have also affirmed them. So, for about 1000 years, Christians have been reading these books. So, it is hard to believe that God would allow his people to be misled into thinking that these books are not the word of God for 1000 years. Besides, do those people who decided to remove those books from the Bible have a far superior understanding of the Christian faith compared to those in the ecumenical councils?
You didn't watch the video... did you.
@@WesHuffyou should debate Jimmy Aiken.
Looking forward to it.
I like jimmy and trent horn, but jay dyer will eat their lunch. Trent denied the trinity in the old Testament. Protestants have no normative authority and catholics have an apostate pope and believe that muslims worship the same God as per Nostra Aetate
Uh, no books were added during or after the protestant Reformation.
Maccabees was added in the 7th century, Tobit in the 4th, Sirach in the 5th, etc.
in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
the apostles cited the Septuagint (the ones with deteurocanon) much more than the Masoretic texts, and with the apostles acknowledging that "all scripture is God inspired" I'm sticking with the books of the apostles.
Your usage of "the Septuagint" indicates you're not actually aware of what that is. See my explanation of what the Septuagint is and isn't here: ruclips.net/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/видео.htmlsi=5ZbTsUBgpzxgdWzk
Saint Irenaeus wrote that the Apostles used the Septuagint. And he himself. 180 AD
@@JJ-cw3nfhello, there is no LXX translation which u think of
...
Septuagint scholars only Translates The Torah into Greek....rest we see are done by some others late after Christ.....
People will laugh on u😂
@@WesHuffah, we need to pay 100 bucks to be gaslit? No thanks. We all know that it's likely Jesus refer3d to the Septuigent as HIS bible. Why throw out certain books because of Luthor? Haha
@@nosuchthing8 Let me know what passage Jesus referred to in your additional books? Thanks for your help 🙂
As far as I understand it, many protestants bibles still included the Apocrypha up until the colonization of America.
The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.
You're wrong on both instances.
If it was a settled issue in the 4th century than why did Pope Gregory the Great argue that Maccabees wasn't scripture in his commentary on Job? Why did the Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan agree with Luther on the non-inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books? Why did Erasmus write extensively about them not being scripture and argue for a smaller OT canon?
For the record, while Luther did have strong words regarding the text of James, the idea he wanted it removed is nonsense. All you have to do is read his sermons on James and his translation notes in his German Bible to know he thought it was fully scripturally inspired and never anywhere advocates for its removal.
@@WesHuff Neither are false. Your comment is deceptive. That was something he said well before he was Pope as a monk. It wasn’t said as Pope invoking Papal Infallibility. I would also note there are many other works of his that agree with all the books.
I want us to go back to the Latin again because I have to drive an hour to get it. There are cardinals that also think we should go back but to Latin, but that doesn’t mean if they become Pope one day they spoke retroactively using Papal infallibility or that it was up for debate because currently it’s not.
I would also note that the Protestants had no right to add or remove anything. They didn’t have the authority.
@@sptomase😂
@@sciencescholar3440 what are you giggling about giggles?
I think a lot of research is missing here. Did you know that in the first century AD some of the Jews removed certain books and called them the books "left outside"? They even said that anyone who read those books would not have a share in the life to come. Which books am I referring to?
1 Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (i.e. 12 Tribes, sons of Jacob). These books speak a lot about the true biblical solar calendar, angel priests, earthly priesthoods, keeping the commandments of God, and reveal the Messiah as Yeshua (Jesus). They didn't want people to understand these topics (especially the calendar, because they were using a lunar Babylonian based calendar), so they were "left outside." Many Christians later used that Jewish "canon" to develop their own.
"the ancient jews didn't consider it Gods word.." they also had Jesus crucified so thats not a good argument imo.
Considering that Jesus was a Jew, and all of the books in question predated His earthly life, it actually is a good argument. It's actually the only argument that matters in fact. All of the revelation delivered prior to Jesus, was delivered exclusively to and for the Jews. If the Jews of His time didn't consider them scripture, then neither did He, and neither should we.
So here's my issue: I accept the canonicity of the NEW testament books because of the early church bishops, synods and councils. They sortedthis out for all of us. (And I guess most Christians trust them on this, if they even give it a thought.) How can I then reject the same people/institutions on the old testament canon when I trust them on the new testament?
You lost me with “worship of the saints.” It was good up to that point.
He lost me there too. That’s not even close to what we do with saints
You can disagree with the Catholic Church, that's fine, don't lie about it though. Catholics don't worship saints.
the “cannon” was pretty much settled in the 2nd century long before the counsel of Nicea - the only controversial addition that was made then was to add an epistle attributed to James and the Revelation-
Other than that it was pretty settled and completely independent of that the Ethiopian church had their own cannon that included Enoch.
With rare exception (Moses knew Joshua / the apostles knew each other)the biblical writers never met and were separated by centuries and how no concept of a “BIBLE” or having their work made into chapters and verses
When you mention in 6:21 that we Catholics worship saints , you lost your credibility 😂
This reminds me of a quote (sort of a joke): "When you realise that Protestants believe that 'Catholics worship saints ' because their MEANING of Worship is so LOW that they think it's just Prayers and Songs"😂😂
Seriously, are you truly calling yourself the Servant of Christ who is Truth itself either by intentionally or unknowingly trying to accuse us of 'Worshipping Saints' ?
Remember that this kind of deception will lead to eventual downfall
I'll pray for you since it will not be a laughing matter during the Judgement day 🙏🙏
You guys want to continue worshipping Mary and the saints so you have changed the meaning of the word, “worship.”
Lol
@@edward1412Did God change the meaning of the word "worship" when He used that word to describe the actions of Israel towards Himself AND the king? (1 Chron 29:20).
Tell us you don't know the Bible without telling us you don't know the Bible...
Firstly, orthodox Christian who outnumber Protestants use up to 81 books in their canon.
Secondly, the King James Bible had 72 Books until the 1830’s when the Authorities of the English Bible Society had them removed.
Authorities of Minor Christian denominations, which are too numerous to name (50,000 + apparently) but collectively known as the ‘Protestants’ , decided to copy the dominant Rabbis canon (not all Jews) from the 4th century when they removed 7 books, the 7 books at the time were very popular and were used in Christian apologetics.
Protestants nearly to a man follow that human Authority and Tradition.
Jewish groups differ on their canon but the vast majority believed the books were divinely inspired until the 4th century. The Jewish differed in their canons.
Luther also wanted the books of Hebrews, Revelation and James removed because they didn’t support his “Faith alone”
ideology.
Anyone who reads say - Tobit and thinks it’s not divinely inspired is not someone I’d never use as a spiritual director. I had a profound spiritual experience reading it that cemented me as a Christian. It’s an ‘eyes to see thing’. No good trying to convince those who won’t look.
In the end, minor churches , the oldest of which have a Tradition of around 500 years will do what their Authorities tell them to do but mainstream Christianity with 2000 years of Tradition will use at least 72 books.
The Apostles preached the gospel using the Septuagint OT bible with the 7 disputed books by Luther included therein.
Were the Apostles wrong to do so?
Was Luther right to remove the 7 books and think that the apostles made a mistake?
I’d reccomend reading actual Septuagintal scholarship on that. “The Septuagint” is a modern category that includes a range of Greek translational Jewish literature. The apostles were not walking over to their bookshelf and pulling “the Septuagint” off the shelf (see here for more ruclips.net/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/видео.htmlsi=3xplerAJdzyXG8oF).
We have records of the books the Jews considered Scripture in Jesus’ day from people like Josephus and Philo. The “Protestant canon” for the New Testament is the ancient Jewish canon - full stop. No ancient Jew who discusses scriptural canon includes the Deuterocanonical books. Luther didn’t take them out because sure they were never scripture to begin with.
Wes, I have learned a lot from you and I appreciate all of your work, it has been extremely helpful to understand with more depth the faith and history of Christianity as a whole. I am Catholic, and I saw you saying you did not wanted to use any straw man, so .... I think you made an honest mistake when you said that Catholics worship the saints. If not, please present you prove and where does the Catholic Church teaches this. Thanks again for all of your work. God bless you.
Yes the Protestants removed books!
Why should we have those books that weren’t originally in the Jewish Old Testament? The Jewish OT is clearly stated in the Bible that the Jews have the authority to make it.
@palmerpiper1797 then all we need is the tora! Correct?
@@dodgeramsport01 No, but we don’t have the authority to add more books to the OT. The NT was made so we can hear about the new covenant.
@palmerpiper1797 ok then we aggree that it was the Protestants that added to and took away! Correct?
@@dodgeramsport01 The only thing the Protestants took away was the added books to the OT. Also what are you saying the Protestants added?
A discussion between Gary Michuda and Wes Huff would be awesome.
Some notable mistakes mainly by way of either mistaken or purposeful "omissions" including one blatantly false statement. Catholics do not "worship" saints.
These errors lead me to believe that the sources used by Protestants, are written by Protestants. Why wouldn't a committed Christian learn about the Catholic faith, by using Catholic sources. If you trust the popes & other bishops with your Bible (from which you base your entire salvation) ... why not the rest of their historical accounts & writings? Can someone/anyone make sense of this?
Imagine someone says, "I'm feeling blue." Another person replies, "That is blatantly false. Blue is a color, not a feeling." The problem here is that the conversationalists are using the same word in different ways. This is what I see happening between Catholics and Protestants with the word "worship."
A Protestant may accuse Catholics of idolatry (worshipping statues, saints, Mary, etc.) because the Catholic's behavior falls under a Protestant framework of worship. However, since the Catholic's behavior does not fall under a Catholic framework of worship, a Catholic will deny the accusation of idolatry. The two are using the same word in different ways.
@@anne.ominous In part, I agree with you. Ex: Catholics do not "worship" Mary, we "honor" her. In Canada & I think Britain, their justice of the peace is called "Your Worship" and in America ... "Your Honor."
However, the above is no longer realized. Protestants, believe worship, is worship, therefore raising Catholic saints to God's level. I'm not certain they truly believe this, or if it is only used to create more space between us.
Is bow down is some type of worship? To an object or person? Does the Bible present any scenario of people doing it?
The modern Coptic Canon is almost identical to the Catholic Canon - the Coptic Canon also have Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Mannesseh. However, the Coptic interpretation of these books appears to be somewhat different from the Catholic interpretation, ie no purgatory, and the interceding for the dead, asking for the remission of unconfessed sins and for them to be accepted into heaven.
@WesHuff can you put a video about New Testament Papyrus scrolls there were totally 141 papyrus new testament.
Every Papyrus scrolls were cited in Novum greace testamentum bible (NA28)
This is EXTREMELY disingenuous under a very thin guise of so called "fairness." First off you flat out accuse Catholics of "worshipping" the saints, which is strictly forbidden in the Catechism and has been for 2000 years. Secondly there were different factions of Judaism in Jesus' time with different cannons of Scripture. The only faction that didn't see the Duetrocannonical books as scripture were the Pharisees because they ONLY saw the Torah as scripture. You also forgot to mention how every single one of the Church Fathers (canonized Catholic Saints) that you mentioned, conceded to the counsels and accepted the Duetrocannon! Including Saint Jerome who devoted his entire life to compiling and translating the Latin Vulgate, which is still to this day the official Bible and the text that most Bibles, both Catholic and protestant, including KJV are based on. You also neglected to mention that those weren't the only books that Martin Luther attempted to remove from the Bible. He also attempted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelation, and all the epistles of John! He even said that he wished he could throw "Jimmy" (Apostle Saint James) into the fire! He did these things for the exact same reason that he took it upon himself to remove the Duetrocannon and parts of Esther and Daniel from the original Bible. Because the beliefs of the ancient Jews and original Christians weren't what he wanted to believe, and he saw himself as a higher authority than God himself! Just read the multitude of books he published. You can start with "The Jews and Their Lies!" That'll let you know what he thought of Jewish teaching!
you read into Luther's jokes too much for your own good
@@samichjpg the only thing about Luther that's a joke is Luther himself! He was an antisemitic pervert with a weird poop obsession, who kidnapped a nun from a convent in a fish barrel and married her secretly breaking both their original vows to God, and started bloody wars just to have a religion devoted to his own personal philosophies via desecration of the Bible and the people who gave their lives for it!
@@samichjpgNot sure he was joking when he called Esther worse than the Deuterocanonicals in Table Talks. Or when he said he wouldn’t have Jude in his Bible.
You people would create statues of Mary and would be bowing to them and praying before them, yet when we say you worship Mary, you want to deny it.
@@edward1412 I don't think you understand what Solomon's temple was like. The Jews had statues and Holy relics. It's all in the Old Testament. God gave us 5 senses to use them in prayer.
The KJV and Geneva bible when originally written had 73 books.
The 66 book version of the Bible was established in 1825 by the English Bible Society (who don't have Apostolic succession and were just some dudes)
So for 300 years, Protestants used the 73 book Bible. It wasn't even subject to debate for 300 years of Protestantism.
I don't know how it's defensible to adhere to 199-year-old, wholly man-made tradition, coming from a faith tree that typically rejects any sort of man-made tradition.
With all due respect, your comment is overly simplistic to the point of being dishonest. The KJV translators wrote copious notes about the usefulness but non-inspiration and non-canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books.
There is a reason why it was always labelled "The Apocrypha" -- using the Greek word for "strange" and following the early church tradition with the official designation of non-canonical books in the Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops, and 1611 KJV. No English Bible that includes those books has them within the Old Testament, but instead, in a separated section labelled on its own and always after Malachi -- the last canonically inspired book of the Old Testament -- and before Matthew -- the first canonically inspired book of the New Testament.
If you were familiar with the history of English Bibles you'd know the long discussions translators and scribes had concerning both the reasons why they include the books and why they always section them outside of the inspired books of holy scripture with proper and needed qualification.
1455 Gutenberg Bible. You can search the Morgan Museum online in manhattan, for the photo copies and contents. It had the dueterocannon books in the Old Testament
Worship of the saints? How ridiculous, it's called venerating👎
True,He lost his Credibility from there
You do great work sir. Thank you.
You literally said Catholics worship saints. Unless you misspoke, your credibility is severely damaged. Why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the New Testament canon, but not the Old Testament? Please find a list identical to the Protestant canon in the early church. You won't. On the other hand, you will find the Catholic canon in the early church.
True
He seems to be confident in his phD rather than diligently and humbly research about the facts
Quoting you " I as a protestant side with the reformers" ... you have that right and at least you are clear on it. So in other words at one point the old church was right , then it was wrong, Thank you. Despite my differences in believe you do have a good channel. In case you are wondering what I am , I am a Gnostic Christian who follows teachings over 1800 yrs old whom the old church deemed heretical just as they deemed Protestantism Heretical until so much blood was shed between Catholics and Protestants they made so-called peace.
This was great! Thank you.
The Deuterocanonical are in the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the old Testament, this version is older and is often the version which Jesus quotes from.
The Bible doesn’t say which books go into it, Protestants just let Martin Luther become their pope for a little bit
Thank you for a very helpful and instructive explanation of this issue 🙂👍
You had me until you said “worship of the saints” which is not what we do. It’s more like “I know grandma is watching over me” en masse rather than “these men are holy, worship them.”
Council of Hippo in 393 and Council of Carthage in 397 affirmed the same books in the Catholic bible.